Obama shows takes a stand, showing some serious spine

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course it's all directed at Democrats. He's mad at them for wanting to compromise. They weren't invited. Obama only compromises with the Republicans. He has the audacity to represent the entire Democratic party by himself. No one else gets a say.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/12/david-axelrod-no-big-changes-to-tax-cut-deal-in-congress-framework-is-in-place.html

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He represents the Democrats because he was "the future" of the party and thus everybody had to be on board who wanted to "turn the page" and "write a new chapter in American history", that while never clearly laid out forcefully, was guarrenteed to be full of "hope and change". Who are these old people from San Fran and Nevada to say that Obama shoudn't represent them. They obviously are part of the old order and not to be trusted.

lol.

Now you know how we felt when Bush pushed for Amnesty and other horrible measures.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Now you know how we felt when Bush pushed for Amnesty and other horrible measures.

I don't remember Bush shutting out congressional Republicans from negotiations.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is good for him... it show's he willing to compromise even if it makes his party a little pissed at him... he'll win reelection.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is good for him... it show's he willing to compromise even if it makes his party a little pissed at him... he'll win reelection.

They were a little pissed many capitulations ago. This is the final straw for many people.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is good for him... it show's he willing to compromise even if it makes his party a little pissed at him... he'll win reelection.

They were a little pissed many capitulations ago. This is the final straw for many people.

Many capitulations ago?  What else has he caved/compromised on?  Health care?  That's one thing.

Point is, they may be pissed now, but when it's Obama vs. Huckabee/Romney/Pawlenty/Barbour/whoever the heck it is come November 2012, they'll be voting for Obama.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is good for him... it show's he willing to compromise even if it makes his party a little pissed at him... he'll win reelection.

They were a little pissed many capitulations ago. This is the final straw for many people.

Many capitulations ago?  What else has he caved/compromised on?  Health care?  That's one thing.

Point is, they may be pissed now, but when it's Obama vs. Huckabee/Romney/Pawlenty/Barbour/whoever the heck it is come November 2012, they'll be voting for Obama.

This President has been crap on plenty of issues. These tax cuts and the mandate without a public option for Bob Dole's health insurance bill approved by big Pharma are the two biggest, but there are plenty of other sh**tty policies many of which also broke promises. For examplee appealing rulings against both DADT and DOMA, continuing torture, stopping Cheney from being prosecuted, keeping Gitmo open, surge in Afghanistan, watered down stimulus, and so on.

Really, if this was an isolated incident, liberals would be giving him the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt. This President is a closet Republican.

Some more things that I forgot about: offshore drilling, pay freezes, catfood commission, wasting months trying to get Snowe's vote, general failure of leadership, surrounding himself with too many out of touch Wall St. folk, repeatedly telling liberals to screw off, moving the court to the right when his party had 59 Senators (with Kagen replacing Stevens).

I'm sure that we could make a top 100 list on how sh**tty this President is.

Compare to Bush. The only thing I can think of that was at all similar to this incident was the Harriet Miers nomination, and Bush quickly caved and nominated a right-winger with a demonstrated record instead.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Point is, they may be pissed now, but when it's Obama vs. Huckabee/Romney/Pawlenty/Barbour/whoever the heck it is come November 2012, they'll be voting for Obama.

Obama is at risk of suffering a significant intraparty challenge as Carter did in 1980 from Ted Kennedy.  The question is who might be able to pull such a challenge off.  Hillary might have had she remained in the Senate, tho I don't think she would have tried.  Edwards could have had he not proven to be a sleazeball.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Point is, they may be pissed now, but when it's Obama vs. Huckabee/Romney/Pawlenty/Barbour/whoever the heck it is come November 2012, they'll be voting for Obama.

Obama is at risk of suffering a significant intraparty challenge as Carter did in 1980 from Ted Kennedy.  The question is who might be able to pull such a challenge off.  Hillary might have had she remained in the Senate, tho I don't think she would have tried.  Edwards could have had he not proven to be a sleazeball.

Comparing Carter to Obama is laughable... he won't face a SERIOUS challenge... maybe some nutter like with Bush, but nothing serious.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Comparing Carter to Obama is laughable...

Yes, Carter actually stood for something.

[Beet]

I think Obama's genuinely frustrated at his party's ideological base. He thinks he's doing the practical, pragmatic thing from a policy standpoint and that they should therefore all get behind it. What he doesn't seem to get is how the politics plays out and that he's putting himself at serious risk of a primary, which would be very bad news if he wants to run for re-election.

[Lunar]

I think Obama's genuinely frustrated at his party's ideological base. He thinks he's doing the practical, pragmatic thing from a policy standpoint and that they should therefore all get behind it. What he doesn't seem to get is how the politics plays out and that he's putting himself at serious risk of a primary, which would be very bad news if he wants to run for re-election.

No one on the Dem side has the inter-party primary stature of a Kennedy or Reagan, I'm not sure how serious the danger is. 

[Sbane]

I think Obama's genuinely frustrated at his party's ideological base. He thinks he's doing the practical, pragmatic thing from a policy standpoint and that they should therefore all get behind it. What he doesn't seem to get is how the politics plays out and that he's putting himself at serious risk of a primary, which would be very bad news if he wants to run for re-election.

Who would challenge him? Hillary is the only viable candidate. And that wouldn't be a challenge from the left, would it?

[cinyc]

I think Obama's genuinely frustrated at his party's ideological base. He thinks he's doing the practical, pragmatic thing from a policy standpoint and that they should therefore all get behind it. What he doesn't seem to get is how the politics plays out and that he's putting himself at serious risk of a primary, which would be very bad news if he wants to run for re-election.

Actually, it's Obama who gets how the politics play out and not the Democratic base, personified by House Democrats.  The midterm election and Senate Republicans have forced the Democrats' hands.  Agree to tax cuts for all or everything else on the liberal wish list dies in the lame duck session with little chance of getting resurrected in the next two years.  Don't agree to tax cuts for all, and the new House and Senate will pass them in January anyway.   Democrats lost the midterms - and that makes the filibuster work well for Republicans.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Comparing Carter to Obama is laughable... he won't face a SERIOUS challenge... maybe some nutter like with Bush, but nothing serious.

Obama's problems have not been entirely of his own making, but then neither were Carter's.

Hard to say if there will be a push for a serious challenge.  A lot can happen in the next year.  But if things go as poorly for Obama in 2011 as they have the past two years, then the only reason he won't face a serious challenge is that there doesn't appear to be anyone on the Democratic side who could make a serious challenge to an incumbent, not because no one will want to.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Comparing Carter to Obama is laughable... he won't face a SERIOUS challenge... maybe some nutter like with Bush, but nothing serious.

Obama's problems have not been entirely of his own making, but then neither were Carter's.

Hard to say if there will be a push for a serious challenge.  A lot can happen in the next year.  But if things go as poorly for Obama in 2011 as they have the past two years, then the only reason he won't face a serious challenge is that there doesn't appear to be anyone on the Democratic side who could make a serious challenge to an incumbent, not because no one will want to.

He'd be pushed into not running before somebody challenges him.  A challenger would kill the Democratic party.

[Mr. Morden]

I think Obama's genuinely frustrated at his party's ideological base. He thinks he's doing the practical, pragmatic thing from a policy standpoint and that they should therefore all get behind it. What he doesn't seem to get is how the politics plays out and that he's putting himself at serious risk of a primary, which would be very bad news if he wants to run for re-election.

Who would challenge him?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129151.0

(Not that Obama would need to take that challenge much more seriously than an Alvin Greene campaign.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

He'd be pushed into not running before somebody challenges him.  A challenger would kill the Democratic party.

That's an 'excessive hyperbole' worthy statement right there.  A challenger might cost the Democrats any chance of regaining the House or keeping the Senate and the White House in 2012, but under the political climate that would induce a serious challenge, controlling either house of Congress in the 113th wouldn't be happening anyway.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He'd be pushed into not running before somebody challenges him.  A challenger would kill the Democratic party.

That's an 'excessive hyperbole' worthy statement right there.  A challenger might cost the Democrats any chance of regaining the House or keeping the Senate and the White House in 2012, but under the political climate that would induce a serious challenge, controlling either house of Congress in the 113th wouldn't be happening anyway.

It's not an excessive hyperbole worthy statement.  If you had a serious challenge against an African American President, and the challenger wasn't an African American, I think you'd see a large amount of alienation from the African American part of the party.  If there's a serious 2012 challenger, I don't think the Democrats would win the White House back before 2028.

EDIT: and if you truly thought what I said was excessive hyperbole, you would have reported it.  So let's not go around throwing baseless accusations at me just trying to score a quick point against me.

[DrScholl]

Bottom line, the middle class really cannot afford any tax increases at this point. While the upper income tax cuts are not ideal, if a deal had to be cut to protect middle income taxpayers, then I don't see what else could be done. I think some of the more liberal Democrats should understand that logic. It's not like there was much room to play hardball here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He'd be pushed into not running before somebody challenges him.  A challenger would kill the Democratic party.

That's an 'excessive hyperbole' worthy statement right there.  A challenger might cost the Democrats any chance of regaining the House or keeping the Senate and the White House in 2012, but under the political climate that would induce a serious challenge, controlling either house of Congress in the 113th wouldn't be happening anyway.

It's not an excessive hyperbole worthy statement.  If you had a serious challenge against an African American President, and the challenger wasn't an African American, I think you'd see a large amount of alienation from the African American part of the party.  If there's a serious 2012 challenger, I don't think the Democrats would win the White House back before 2028.

EDIT: and if you truly thought what I said was excessive hyperbole, you would have reported it.  So let's not go around throwing baseless accusations at me just trying to score a quick point against me.

That's OK, if Obama continues to represent the Democratic party, there won't be a Democratic party in 2028.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He'd be pushed into not running before somebody challenges him.  A challenger would kill the Democratic party.

That's an 'excessive hyperbole' worthy statement right there.  A challenger might cost the Democrats any chance of regaining the House or keeping the Senate and the White House in 2012, but under the political climate that would induce a serious challenge, controlling either house of Congress in the 113th wouldn't be happening anyway.

It's not an excessive hyperbole worthy statement.  If you had a serious challenge against an African American President, and the challenger wasn't an African American, I think you'd see a large amount of alienation from the African American part of the party.  If there's a serious 2012 challenger, I don't think the Democrats would win the White House back before 2028.

EDIT: and if you truly thought what I said was excessive hyperbole, you would have reported it.  So let's not go around throwing baseless accusations at me just trying to score a quick point against me.

That's OK, if Obama continues to represent the Democratic party, there won't be a Democratic party in 2028.

And what has he done that would kill the party until 2028?

[Torie]

Jfern, what should the Dems be doing now again?  No deal means taxes go up - on everyone, and extended unemployment benefits end. And then, assuming the Senate goes along, when the GOP takes over the House, a new deal can be cut, that you will like even less. Why?  Because Obama is just not going to sit there, and watch his future go down the tubes, in tandem with the economy remaining a very sick puppy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, what should the Dems be doing now again?  No deal means taxes go up - on everyone, and extended unemployment benefits end. And then, assuming the Senate goes along, when the GOP takes over the House, a new deal can be cut, that you will like even less. Why?  Because Obama is just not going to sit there, and watch his future go down the tubes, in tandem with the economy remaining a very sick puppy.

The Democrats in the House are doing fine, they told Obama to screw off. Obama's compromise didn't involve any actual Democrats, and it's obvious that he didn't actually try to get a deal that wasn't a total pile of crap passed. No deal is a lot better than this epic fail deal.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Jfern, what should the Dems be doing now again?  No deal means taxes go up - on everyone, and extended unemployment benefits end. And then, assuming the Senate goes along, when the GOP takes over the House, a new deal can be cut, that you will like even less. Why?  Because Obama is just not going to sit there, and watch his future go down the tubes, in tandem with the economy remaining a very sick puppy.

Way to sum up what everyone should be thinking with a short paragraph.

I'm sick of most liberals being hypocrites with regards to this deal. So counter-cyclical economic policy is only okay when it doesn't involve temporary tax cuts? If the left in this country is going to constantly complain about "austerity measures" regarding spending cuts, they should take the same stand on potential tax increases. Now, being a leftist myself, I totally understand that this is frustrating topic because it shows off the horrible two-faced nature of the Republican Party, which will hold America hostage when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy, who have a low marginal propensity to consume and have their tax rates at historical lows in the name of the economy but will attack any form of stimulus proposed by Obama.

In otherwords can you guys see why Obama's deal could be the best one for the economy? I'm sure that you could make some Game theory-esque argument that by saying that because Obama and the Democrats failed to increase the rates on the rich that any Republican drive to cut spending in the future will pack more of a punch and because of it, in the long run this deal will create a net economic loss because it gave these arguments much more merit. This isn't true though: a. only increasing rates on the rich wasn't really an option at this point and b. there is a good chance that if the Republicans try to hold the country hostage again they will overplay their hand causing their whole strategy to unravel. Remember: if a spending cut happens, the public's first instinct is to blame the GOP but if a tax increase happens the first instinct will be to blame the Democrats. It's something psychological that I think is embedded into every American's mind. This will really hurt their opportunities to push for damaging cuts in the name of a balanced budget.