Why are his economic advisors & policy makers somehow all coincidentally Friedmanites who staunchly believe in the Invisible Hand of the free market and it's ability to sculpt paradise?
Neither Larry Summers nor Ben Bernanke is a Friedmanite. You might peg Geitner like that but I think that is a stretch as well.
Obama's lack of support for single payer doesn't irk me that much (even though I recall when he was in the Senate he endorsed a single payer plan) so much as his lack of support for a public option.
It didn't matter in the end what the president supported.
They fought tooth-and-nail against a program that formally drives every single American into the hands of private insurance companies, and this was before last November. Do you think a bill containing a public option ever had a chance?
Considering the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the public support for a public option was extremely high? Yes, I'd say that if it was messaged properly and the White House put more pressure on making sure the HCR law included a public option that it would have had more of a chance than it did when both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress decided to give up on it in exchange for absolutely nothing.
Obama's lack of support for single payer doesn't irk me that much (even though I recall when he was in the Senate he endorsed a single payer plan) so much as his lack of support for a public option.
It didn't matter in the end what the president supported.
They fought tooth-and-nail against a program that formally drives every single American into the hands of private insurance companies, and this was before last November. Do you think a bill containing a public option ever had a chance?
Considering the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the public support for a public option was extremely high? Yes, I'd say that if it was messaged properly and the White House put more pressure on making sure the HCR law included a public option that it would have had more of a chance than it did when both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress decided to give up on it in exchange for absolutely nothing.
Again, the problem was Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, etc.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Obama's lack of support for single payer doesn't irk me that much (even though I recall when he was in the Senate he endorsed a single payer plan) so much as his lack of support for a public option.
It didn't matter in the end what the president supported.
They fought tooth-and-nail against a program that formally drives every single American into the hands of private insurance companies, and this was before last November. Do you think a bill containing a public option ever had a chance?
Considering the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the public support for a public option was extremely high? Yes, I'd say that if it was messaged properly and the White House put more pressure on making sure the HCR law included a public option that it would have had more of a chance than it did when both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress decided to give up on it in exchange for absolutely nothing.
The majorities that swept into Congress in 2008 were riding the coattails of public disgust with the last 8 years of the Bush Administration, personified by this new black dude who was everything George W. Bush was not. A lot of them were just DINOs or Blue Dogs or whatever you wanna call them. When we got to crunch time, and they had to actually come down somewhere on the issue, they either: A) went back to their centrist beliefs in small-but-compassionate government, or realized their brand of Lite beer conservatism wouldn't stand a chance against Actual Conservatism in 2010, and switched to Defensive Mode.
I have no problem with Obama's handling of HCR. I do wish he would have at least talked about the benefits of single-payer, but it's to his credit that we got anything at all, so good job there.
I have major problems with how he's handled the economy. The single most important issue right now, by far, is jobs. And so far all he's done is to spew right-wing talking points about how "the government needs to cut spending". It might be the case that we need to do some spending cuts to appease the republicans so they don't just default on the debt. But right now it seems like Obama really, honestly wants big spending cuts, and he's doing everything he can to get them.
I can only hope that this is actually some devious strategy to mess with republicans by getting them to vote against their own plan just because Obama endorses it.
I have no problem with Obama's handling of HCR. I do wish he would have at least talked about the benefits of single-payer, but it's to his credit that we got anything at all, so good job there.
I have major problems with how he's handled the economy. The single most important issue right now, by far, is jobs. And so far all he's done is to spew right-wing talking points about how "the government needs to cut spending". It might be the case that we need to do some spending cuts to appease the republicans so they don't just default on the debt. But right now it seems like Obama really, honestly wants big spending cuts, and he's doing everything he can to get them.
I can only hope that this is actually some devious strategy to mess with republicans by getting them to vote against their own plan just because Obama endorses it.
The big issue with economics and Obama is that along with compromising to get shit passed, and thus staking a position halfway between sanity and madness, he also implicitly accepts the Right Wing framing on these issues to do so, thus continuing the problem.
He really needs to actually be the transformational president he wanted to be and to do that, he needs to beginning throwing out the rhetorical framing that has hampered the US and the world for decades now.
I think that Obama has done an excellent job in dire circumstances. Perhaps if we'd elected some no name republican centrist from wherever things would actually be better, because then he could ignore his own party with impunity and spend his time doing deals with the Democrats who aren't insane but in terms of a democrat Obama has done very well.
Every failing of Obama is a failing of the republicans and the tea party. Follow the influence back on any bad decision and there will be the republicans using some flaw in the structure of government to hold society hostage in defence of it.
It's not like it's laid down in the Constitution that 40 votes in the Senate maybe possibly fillibustering kills a bill. It's a procedural rule. One the Dems could have changed. And SHOULD have, since it used against them all the fucking time and they'll never have enough party discipline to utilize it themselves as a minority party.
In that sense yeah, Obama didn't provide the push to do that as a leader. Not exactly his fault, but it's not like Reid was defying him by refusing to nuke the bullshit fillibuster rules.
It's not like it's laid down in the Constitution that 40 votes in the Senate maybe possibly fillibustering kills a bill. It's a procedural rule. One the Dems could have changed. And SHOULD have, since it used against them all the fucking time and they'll never have enough party discipline to utilize it themselves as a minority party.
In that sense yeah, Obama didn't provide the push to do that as a leader. Not exactly his fault, but it's not like Reid was defying him by refusing to nuke the bullshit fillibuster rules.
Again, what part of "separation of powers" don't you get? It's not the President's place to tell Congress how to operate. Period.
It's not like it's laid down in the Constitution that 40 votes in the Senate maybe possibly fillibustering kills a bill. It's a procedural rule. One the Dems could have changed. And SHOULD have, since it used against them all the fucking time and they'll never have enough party discipline to utilize it themselves as a minority party.
In that sense yeah, Obama didn't provide the push to do that as a leader. Not exactly his fault, but it's not like Reid was defying him by refusing to nuke the bullshit fillibuster rules.
You want the President telling the Senate how to run? Yeah, that's gonna play well.
And the Democrats, in some respects, didn't expect the GOP to be this insane and rules like that have alot of momentum behind them and are alot harder to change then you think.
And the Democrats, in some respects, didn't expect the GOP to be this insane and rules like that have alot of momentum behind them and are alot harder to change then you think.
If they haven't expected that from their experience in the last 20 years, then we have an even bigger problem than expected.
Threat of a filibuster is just alike a filibuster because no one ever invokes cloture and force an actual, demonstrable, filibuster. \
You guys need to stop conflating "Obama needs to exercise control of his party" to "Obama needs to control the Senate". There's a pretty clear difference between the two.
And the Democrats, in some respects, didn't expect the GOP to be this insane and rules like that have alot of momentum behind them and are alot harder to change then you think.
If they haven't expected that from their experience in the last 20 years, then we have an even bigger problem than expected.
Threat of a filibuster is just alike a filibuster because no one ever invokes cloture and force an actual, demonstrable, filibuster.
The majority required to invoke cloture is three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen
and sworn, or 60 votes if there are no vacancies in the Senate’s membership.
However, invoking cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate’s rules
requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or 67 votes if
all 100 Senators vote.
And the Democrats, in some respects, didn't expect the GOP to be this insane and rules like that have alot of momentum behind them and are alot harder to change then you think.
If they haven't expected that from their experience in the last 20 years, then we have an even bigger problem than expected.
Threat of a filibuster is just alike a filibuster because no one ever invokes cloture and force an actual, demonstrable, filibuster. \
You guys need to stop conflating "Obama needs to exercise control of his party" to "Obama needs to control the Senate". There's a pretty clear difference between the two.
The rules do not require you to actually stand up there and filibuster. They haven't since the 70s. So there's no point in having a failed vote and having your legislation fail. Better to table it and see if you can rustle up more votes in some manner.
But the idea that you can embarrass the other party by making them get up and read the phone book is wrong - they don't have to do that, they can just say "hey yeah filibuster" and go home.
And the Democrats, in some respects, didn't expect the GOP to be this insane and rules like that have alot of momentum behind them and are alot harder to change then you think.
If they haven't expected that from their experience in the last 20 years, then we have an even bigger problem than expected.
You mean the last 20 years where fillibustering hasn't been invoked at almost every opportunity? The last 2 Congresses have fillibustered more then any in history by a huge margin.
Threat of a filibuster is just alike a filibuster because no one ever invokes cloture and force an actual, demonstrable, filibuster.
There is no actual demonstratable fillibuster. The only difference between the threat of a fillibuster and a fillibuster is the person is question changing "I'm going to fillibuster that" to "I'm fillibustering that". That is it. No other actions required.
You guys need to stop conflating "Obama needs to exercise control of his party" to "Obama needs to control the Senate". There's a pretty clear difference between the two.
Not when your suggestion is "Obama needs to exercise control of his own party in order to control the Senate'.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I would suggest that Snowe, Collins, et al are more sensitive to public opinion than most senators and could have been pressured to flip by better message control from the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership.
That's because progressives (ie. the far left in this country, which is actually to the right of liberals in the global context) live in a partisan cocoon magical fairy-tale land where single-payer had a realistic chance of passing the U.S. Congress, where we'd have zero opposition to more stimulus spending, and where rainbows would reach down from the sky to rain down Equality Tokens redeemable at your nearest inner-city post-office for College Education Vouchers and Social Progressivism Seminars.
I should make clear that I don't disagree with any of the far left's policy stances (which makes sense, given that I'm a lib), but honestly... how much weight do those policy positions carry when they have a snowflake's chance in hell of becoming law?
That's absurd, and you're being more than a bit of a silly goose.
I'm more than aware none of those things have a chance in hell of becoming law without opposition. But that doesn't mean Obama had to per-compromise on them before ever even approaching the GOP in crafting legislation.
And when Progressives have the audacity to be irritated over this fact, Rahm was right there to tell us to shut the fuck up, and be happy with the center-right legislation we were getting.
My only real complaint about the man is that he believes in the magical unity pony, and every time you see him get pissed that it doesn't exist.. he suddenly starts believing again the next time an issue arises. He wants to be a uniting centrist figure in American politics. He's just in the absolute wrong decade for it.
Will that decade ever come? Someone needs to slap some sense into the political system at some point. It's not going to fix itself.
For that to happen, we need human beings in the offices that actually matter.(Including the ones that nobody knows the name of.)
We also need to stop acting like the President is anything more than a veto he refuses to use and whatever Executive orders that Congress allows him/he decides to use.
We also need to begin preach paleo-libertarianism as being the entirety of (actual)libertarianism and neo-libertarianism as prosperity theology that pretends to give a fuck about freedom.
I honestly don't get why Dems are so bad at negotiating. Why go to the table with your compromise position?
A: It supposedly gives them village cred, which as we all know is far more important than improving people's living conditions to getting reelected.
B: They don't give a shit about progressive policy.
C: They're spineless fuckwits.
D : Some combination of the above.
I would suggest that Snowe, Collins, et al are more sensitive to public opinion than most senators and could have been pressured to flip by better message control from the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership.
Snowe and Collins are far more concerned with losing primaries. Nelson probably can't be primaried with someone more progressive that could win his state. Specter was, and he moved way left, which is interesting.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I honestly don't get why Dems are so bad at negotiating. Why go to the table with your compromise position?
A: It supposedly gives them village cred, which as we all know is far more important than improving people's living conditions to getting reelected.
B: They don't give a shit about progressive policy.
C: They're spineless fuckwits.
D : Some combination of the above.
They stopped caring about B when it comes to economics once the litmus test for Democrats became gay marriage, more AA, and abortion. And a ton of very rich people who like those things took over the damn party. Being rich well... there went your labor and economic goals.
Affirmative action? The last time I've heard anything about that from a Democrat was when Jim Webb wrote one of his opeds about how it was a grave injustice or whatever.
DigitalD, your arguments might be convincing if they were based on facts. But plenty of Democrats are against abortion and gay marriage, so those cannot be litmus tests. Affirmative action tends to have broad support, but Blue Dogs still gleefully agree with Republicans there too.
And a ton of very rich people who like those things took over the damn party. Being rich well... there went your labor and economic goals.
Which, in a Funny Aneurysm Moment, caused the actual Liberals to go fuck off to start their own party with Aleister Fucking Croweley.
Then their sole economic goal of "Increase competition and labor participation rate by any means necessary" were shitcanned in favor of a variant of The Divine Right that liked to dress itself up in Art Deco. Because we don't need to expand our industrial base and keep the economy from stagnating if our leaders are all suave, patriotic ubermenschen!
How do words become their opposites? What fundamental principle allows such a base and vile transformation?
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I would suggest that Snowe, Collins, et al are more sensitive to public opinion than most senators and could have been pressured to flip by better message control from the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership.
Snowe and Collins are far more concerned with losing primaries. Nelson probably can't be primaried with someone more progressive that could win his state. Specter was, and he moved way left, which is interesting.
Snowe and Collins could conceivably change parties and survive a general election as Democrats, although I will concede that Specter's failure would make that an unattractive option for a pair of senators sitting in the kingmaker seat.
Posts
Neither Larry Summers nor Ben Bernanke is a Friedmanite. You might peg Geitner like that but I think that is a stretch as well.
Considering the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the public support for a public option was extremely high? Yes, I'd say that if it was messaged properly and the White House put more pressure on making sure the HCR law included a public option that it would have had more of a chance than it did when both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress decided to give up on it in exchange for absolutely nothing.
Again, the problem was Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, etc.
The majorities that swept into Congress in 2008 were riding the coattails of public disgust with the last 8 years of the Bush Administration, personified by this new black dude who was everything George W. Bush was not. A lot of them were just DINOs or Blue Dogs or whatever you wanna call them. When we got to crunch time, and they had to actually come down somewhere on the issue, they either: A) went back to their centrist beliefs in small-but-compassionate government, or
Maybe it was both, who knows.
Not much of a government when even the threat of a filibuster brings the process to a grinding halt.
Totes Obama's fault too
I have major problems with how he's handled the economy. The single most important issue right now, by far, is jobs. And so far all he's done is to spew right-wing talking points about how "the government needs to cut spending". It might be the case that we need to do some spending cuts to appease the republicans so they don't just default on the debt. But right now it seems like Obama really, honestly wants big spending cuts, and he's doing everything he can to get them.
I can only hope that this is actually some devious strategy to mess with republicans by getting them to vote against their own plan just because Obama endorses it.
Considering he leads the Democrat party, then yeah, at least partially.
It is Obama's fault that the Senate is structured in such a way that filibusters give disportionate power to the minority party.
Really.
It's Obama's, and Reid's, fault that the democratic party capitulates at the threat of a filibuster, yes.
There's no difference between the threat of a fillibuster and an actual fillibuster.
The big issue with economics and Obama is that along with compromising to get shit passed, and thus staking a position halfway between sanity and madness, he also implicitly accepts the Right Wing framing on these issues to do so, thus continuing the problem.
He really needs to actually be the transformational president he wanted to be and to do that, he needs to beginning throwing out the rhetorical framing that has hampered the US and the world for decades now.
Every failing of Obama is a failing of the republicans and the tea party. Follow the influence back on any bad decision and there will be the republicans using some flaw in the structure of government to hold society hostage in defence of it.
Other than perhaps the wiretapping.
In that sense yeah, Obama didn't provide the push to do that as a leader. Not exactly his fault, but it's not like Reid was defying him by refusing to nuke the bullshit fillibuster rules.
Again, what part of "separation of powers" don't you get? It's not the President's place to tell Congress how to operate. Period.
You want the President telling the Senate how to run? Yeah, that's gonna play well.
And the Democrats, in some respects, didn't expect the GOP to be this insane and rules like that have alot of momentum behind them and are alot harder to change then you think.
If they haven't expected that from their experience in the last 20 years, then we have an even bigger problem than expected.
Threat of a filibuster is just alike a filibuster because no one ever invokes cloture and force an actual, demonstrable, filibuster. \
You guys need to stop conflating "Obama needs to exercise control of his party" to "Obama needs to control the Senate". There's a pretty clear difference between the two.
The rules do not require you to actually stand up there and filibuster. They haven't since the 70s. So there's no point in having a failed vote and having your legislation fail. Better to table it and see if you can rustle up more votes in some manner.
But the idea that you can embarrass the other party by making them get up and read the phone book is wrong - they don't have to do that, they can just say "hey yeah filibuster" and go home.
You mean the last 20 years where fillibustering hasn't been invoked at almost every opportunity? The last 2 Congresses have fillibustered more then any in history by a huge margin.
There is no actual demonstratable fillibuster. The only difference between the threat of a fillibuster and a fillibuster is the person is question changing "I'm going to fillibuster that" to "I'm fillibustering that". That is it. No other actions required.
Not when your suggestion is "Obama needs to exercise control of his own party in order to control the Senate'.
That's absurd, and you're being more than a bit of a silly goose.
I'm more than aware none of those things have a chance in hell of becoming law without opposition. But that doesn't mean Obama had to per-compromise on them before ever even approaching the GOP in crafting legislation.
And when Progressives have the audacity to be irritated over this fact, Rahm was right there to tell us to shut the fuck up, and be happy with the center-right legislation we were getting.
For that to happen, we need human beings in the offices that actually matter.(Including the ones that nobody knows the name of.)
We also need to stop acting like the President is anything more than a veto he refuses to use and whatever Executive orders that Congress allows him/he decides to use.
We also need to begin preach paleo-libertarianism as being the entirety of (actual)libertarianism and neo-libertarianism as prosperity theology that pretends to give a fuck about freedom.
Because The Fellowship owns quite a lot of prominent (D)'s and they're already wrapped up in a self-reinforcing narrative of defeat to begin with?
B: They don't give a shit about progressive policy.
C: They're spineless fuckwits.
D : Some combination of the above.
Snowe and Collins are far more concerned with losing primaries. Nelson probably can't be primaried with someone more progressive that could win his state. Specter was, and he moved way left, which is interesting.
They stopped caring about B when it comes to economics once the litmus test for Democrats became gay marriage, more AA, and abortion. And a ton of very rich people who like those things took over the damn party. Being rich well... there went your labor and economic goals.
But fuck they make it hard sometimes.
What does AA stand for?
Affirmative Action, I think.
Which, in a Funny Aneurysm Moment, caused the actual Liberals to go fuck off to start their own party with Aleister Fucking Croweley.
Then their sole economic goal of "Increase competition and labor participation rate by any means necessary" were shitcanned in favor of a variant of The Divine Right that liked to dress itself up in Art Deco. Because we don't need to expand our industrial base and keep the economy from stagnating if our leaders are all suave, patriotic ubermenschen!
How do words become their opposites? What fundamental principle allows such a base and vile transformation?
Snowe and Collins could conceivably change parties and survive a general election as Democrats, although I will concede that Specter's failure would make that an unattractive option for a pair of senators sitting in the kingmaker seat.
I don't get the part where it's a thing that only exists when (D)'s are in power.
Just because the GOP ignores the separation of powers doesn't mean we should.
I'm not sure how abandoning one of the core tenants of our governmental system is going to help us.
The separation of powers is a really big fucking deal.