It was one year ago Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States…or wasn’t according to teabaggers who protested the mucking up of the oath by Roberts. Remember? The de-legitimizing of Obama’s presidency literally began on the day he became president.

What also ended that day was the era of bipartisanship, which  is clearly over for at least a generation, possibly forever.

The end of bipartisanship was observed by the GOP at the beginning of the year during the Stimulus conferences, discussions and votes.

Unfortunately, President Obama, with the best of intentions, mistook the end of bipartisanship for an initial setback. He deserves to take the heat for this mistake in perception, this misplaced optimistic altruism.

But forgiveness should not come with much resistance, Presidents have been guilty of far worse deeds far more frequently in recent history.

Wrapping up the finger pointing, Rahm Emmanuel’s political malpractice, his total failure to guide Obama and his agenda successfully and intact through Congress should not be permitted to be swept under the rug. He should resign or be fired, he and his pro-corporate DLC ways have undermined and sabotaged this president.

One more note about this bipartisanship thing. As brilliant as Pres. Obama unquestionably is, the dynamics of productive bipartisanship is far different than de facto bipartisanship and it is the latter which he pursued.

Negotiating away things that would greatly benefit Americans just to coax one or more Republicans to sign on may technically be bipartisanship but goes against serving the American people. It is not what the American people meant by bipartisanship, what they wanted was for both parties to come together and work together to do what’s best for them.

Once the GOP made clear that they did not want what’s best for The People but for Obama (and the country) to fail, Obama’s continuing a pursuit of a technical bipartisanship was neither supported by the American people nor to their benefit to support. And that has been a huge factor for the political blowback from HCR, the economy (because of the compromises on the Stimulus), the MA election and Obama’s approval ratings at record lows.

We can’t and shouldn’t dwell on what can’t be changed. We have 3 more years in this term to change this nation for the better and regain positive momentum for Progressive issues. And those so-called Progressives who want only to condemn Obama can kiss Rush Limbaugh’s ass.

I think Pres. Obama has to turn his back on the 2009 Obama and truly “start” his presidency in 2010 as he should have in 2009. Fighting for the people, not accepting the concessions to corporate interests, not readily negotiating away valuable benefits for Americans to pursue  some disconnected concept of technical “bipartisanship”.

It is this kind of bold leadership that he represented he would bring to the country and which was expected. It is this kind of bold leadership he must embark on now as he begins again.

I suggest that Pres. Obama meet with Harry Reid and splash a bucket of reality in his face (though a real bucket of water would please me too). “Face facts, you’re going to lose your seat in the Senate, the Dems look incapable of leading and accomplishing things in Congress and will lose control. The only hope any of us have to turn this around is to get rid of that damn filibuster. If what gets accomplished after that doesn’t get you reelected, you can at least leave the Senate proudly as  having helped make the most fundamental and meaningful changes to this nation since FDR instead of as the ineffective leader that doomed Democratic control of Congress and the Obama Presidency.”

Short of nuking the filibuster, the Dems in the Senate need to use all the levers that Repubs used when they had 51 votes under Bush to get huge changes through. And yes, despite all the whining, that means using Reconciliation.

In either one of these scenarios, only 50 senators plus the VP are needed to pass legislation and no compromises with Blue Dogs or Repubs need to be made.

This is it for the Dems and the Progressive agenda. With the huge majorities they still have and a brilliant, fair minded president, if there is a possibility of the Democratic Party delivering for the American People in a big and sustained way, it will begin now. If not, the Dems will lose the enthusiasm and faith of their members for a long time to come. It will be hard to believe again in change being possible with the Dems if they can’t manage it now.

Word is that Obama’s SOTU Address will reflect more of a pivot towards being a bold leader. I’m pleased to hear that.

Hope and Change 2010. Be it and be it strongly, Mr. President and hold The Senate’s feet to the fire, I think the tables will quickly turn if you do.

231
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
25 Comment threads
206 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
26 Comment authors
MarionKhiradKevenSevenPatsyTjavaz Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
nellie
Member

From Cher — moved up so we can discuss this great comment.

Nellie- I am sorry, but this is why the Dems are failing. This is why many on the Left are angry

nellie
Member

Honestly, I don’t know how he can tell the senate to proceed without Brown. The GOP could get away w it because the media is on their side. I don’t see how Dems could pull it off without a major backlash.

You know that I admire this president, but I concede one of the mistakes he has made is trying so hard to get legislation passed that he has abandoned his campaign persona. He’s buried under the amount of work to be done, and he’s letting himself lose his connection with the public. I think he has been “reporting” to us, but not connecting the way he did as a candidate. And he needs to be more honest and direct about these bills.

It may be wishful thinking, but I would be very surprised if health care is not passed before the elections. I don’t hear anyone in the House or the Senate saying health care is over. I don’t hear the president saying it. And with this upset, I’m expecting things to change in congress, too. If they don’t, the dems are going to lose again in November. And I think they know that.

KevenSeven
Member

Personally, I don’t see how they can, constitutionally, not wait for Brown.

The current senator was appointed to replace Kennedy. If it was a matter of a lame duck who had been elected and lost reelection, that would be different. But this is an elected senator (gag) replacing a seat warmer.

I think it would be an insult to all the ignorant fuckwits in Mass who voted for Brown to rush legislation thru. And I know the Rethugs would ram it right up our asses.

No. The only solution is to take our medicine and abolish the filibuster.

kesmarn
Admin

I think Barney Frank said pretty much the same thing. As much as it hurts, we have to play by the rules. Even though “they” don’t. If both sides resort to the law of the jungle, we end up with anarchy.

The infuriating thing is that the Repubs know this full well and leverage it to their advantage over and over. When you can batter people with the weapon of their own decency, you’ve sunk to a very low place indeed. But they are there.

Chernynkaya
Member

I don’t mind, Nellie dear. But now that you’ve done that, I have to leave for a while! Not because if the discussion, but because of an appointment. 🙁

nellie
Member

We can always pick up the discussion later!

Take care, Cher. 🙂

KQµårk 死神
Member

Cher this may make you feel better about what is going on in the white house.

In the end, the White House does seem likely to incorporate some of these suggestions into its approach going forward. There could well be some strategic changes — more arm-twisting on the Hill, higher-profile speeches and public events, threats to recalcitrant Democrats and obstructing Republicans — but some changes could come at the policy level, for instance by taking a tougher line against Wall Street. The results will be clear by, at the latest, Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address a week from today.

Chernynkaya
Member

Oh, thanks KQ! Who wrote that? Someone who knows, I hope.

KQµårk 死神
Member

Sorry I forgot to reference the Sam Stein article.

White House Recognizes ‘Wake Up Call,’ Tries To Project Calm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/white-house-recognizes-wa_n_429818.html

nellie
Member

I bet we’re going to hear a VERY different speech from the one Obama had in mind on Tuesday afternoon.

KQµårk 死神
Member

Yup.

Chernynkaya
Member

I am fighting every impulse I have to get back in bed, pull up the covers and never pay any attention to politics AT ALL.

I am disgusted by Americans and disgusted by the Democrats, who are blowing it big time. And it wouldn’t be so bad if they were blowing it against a plausible Party. But to blow it when the alternative is the Reptilian party, is pretty effing close to unforgivable.

PatsyT
Member

I have been feeling the same way Cher, I am going back to baking.
But that would let them win and make my family fat.
So I will give it a little breather and be back.
We have to give ourselves a bit of time to adjust
Thankfully, I have a little trip coming up to keep me busy.
Hope you can find a little distraction to refresh yourself.
You have worked very hard on all of this.

Chernynkaya
Member

Yes, Patsy, time for a time out. I am working on an article that has nothing to do with any of this, and I’ll put on blinders and keep my head down for a few days. Very wise advice!

KQµårk 死神
Member

Cher I would love to be able to say something to make you feel better.

Chernynkaya
Member

Thanks KQ.I really appreciate that. But the only person who can make me feel better is the President. He can say something that makes me feel he gets it. I want him to say that this is his wake up call and that from now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy– from now on he will not listen to those who claim he must be bipartisan. Now it is time to show some fight. I agree with you that he is a long-term strategic thinker, but elections are not won in the long term. Politics sometimes matters more than policy, and by that I mean that you and I can bemoan the whiners and the unrealistic, but that’s politics and Obama better play to the one that brung him. He’s played to the Indies and the Right and it ain’t working in the world of voters.

choicelady
Member

I think bipartisanship has to be over. And the DINOs have to back off because the loss of support for health care was swift and immediate when the public option was LEFT OUT, not when it was in.

There are strategies that might work that I’ve mentioned below – pass the Senate bill and work out the budget issues including the public option as a cost saver, the reduction in the tax on Cadillac plans (who gets those – not labor!) and pegging even private payments to income percentages, not the market so that we can see the budget costs. All that can be done via reconcilliation.

We have to have real leadership from both the Congress and WH. Pandering to the center right is absurd – that is NOT where the loss is coming from.

Obama has done amazing things cited here – but he has not taken credit for them. They have passed unnoticed in the MSM and now even on the liberal side.

His political capital is high – 90% like him as a person. That is amazing. So he has room to BE Obama, not capitulate. When he has done that, he has lost support.

Molly Ivins – wish she were here – always said, “Dance with the ones that brung you.” He has to support his base – the people – not the naysayers and skeptics. And he cannot be too modest!

KQµårk 死神
Member

I’m sure he gets it but all he is getting is bad. He has a base that left him, a disgruntle country, obstructionists Republicans and Democrats that will not follow his agenda.

He said in another quote that he realizes that he’s been focusing too much on policy and needs to get back in more touch with the people.

If you want him to be angry and divisive like the anti-Bush he was never that man. Right now I’m glad he’s focusing on populist politics which will be the path to a major comeback.

Chernynkaya
Member

I don’t want him to be angry– I want him to fight. They are not the same. He can fight with populism –that’s one thing I want him to do. It’s a sad, bizarre world when Reps can claim the populist mantle!

nellie
Member

I think he is going to fight, Cher. I think this election may put the fight back into his style. Less wonk, more inspiration.

Kalima
Admin

I believe he will come out fighting too nellie. He stretched out his hand to the other side, they didn’t have the decency to even consider shaking it, instead they spit on it and in some cases even tried to cut it off.

Enough is now really enough!!

Chernynkaya
Member

Nellie– I literally pray you are right.

Tiger99
Guest

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” – Groucho Marx 😎

nellie
Member

Barack Obama:

“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.”

😯

Gretel1or2
Member
Gretel1or2

I think Obama meant that people’s reported perceptions of the government were similar (whether true or not). I don’t think Obama truly believes that he is the same as Bush.

It’s possible that Obama is courting Scott Brown to set him up for the health care vote. This will force Brown to show exactly where he stands on health care reform – it’s one thing to say you’ll do this or that, but when people see how you vote, that will make them see the consequences of their actions.

nellie
Member

I think it’s a very brave statement. The president is talking about discontent — not comparing himself to Bush. Discontent and the desire for change is what got him elected, and what got Brown elected.

He’s taking the lesson of this election to heart.

KQµårk 死神
Member

Yeah I don’t see it at all like he’s comparing himself to Bush either. He’s relaying two truths that he recognizes the political environment and Brown ran a great campaign.

The fact is if he was like Bush he would have been delusional and said this means nothing.

nellie
Member

Yep. Agreed.

I’m glad to hear him say this. It means he realizes that things have to change. That the public wants to see real progress.

Chernynkaya
Member

Hi Gretel. (First, if i sound angry, please know it’s not at you!)

If what you say is true–Obama courting Scott Brown– than I have had it with him. STILL COURTING REPUBLICANS!? Way to lose, O. and Brown has already signaled that he will filibuster any health bill. I certainly hope that’s not what he meant.

Gretel1or2
Member
Gretel1or2

I hear you Cher. I am just as pissed off at Obama to to hear him say that he will wait until Brown get’s seated. This is nonsense in my opinion. What can you possibly gain by waiting for someone who ran for senate just to upset your agenda???? Obama is nutz if he really believes he’s going to get something. In my wishful thinking, he’s doing this to set a trap for Brown. But we’ll see….it aint over ’til it’s over.

nellie
Member

He has to wait — because otherwise he’s just ignoring the people’s voices.

The problem with this election is not so much what’s happening now, but what happened before the vote. Where was the DNC — why didn’t they do a better job of selecting candidates and crafting a message. Not to mention keeping their candidate from taking a vacation during such a pivotal election.

Chernynkaya
Member

How about the people’s voices in the other 49 states who want health care reform? Why is it about what Republican voters want?

nellie
Member

Cher, I hope you don’t mind, I’m going to quote your comment and move it up — it’s a great point to discuss.

Chernynkaya
Member

Nellie- I am sorry, but this is why the Dems are failing. This is why many on the Left are angry– including me.

There were other options discussed for the bill to move forward before Brown is seated. Whether they were feasible or not, the message O sent (that he would wait for Brown) is exactly the wrong one.

Health care is THE most important piece of legislation of his agenda. He seems not to be fighting to pass it. One of the criticisms I feel is valid is that Bush passed legislation with 51 votes, and we can’t with more than that.

nellie
Member

The senate has to take all states into account. And MA has said this is the person they want. The same would have happened if Coakley had won.

I don’t think health care is over.

KQµårk 死神
Member

The Senate has nothing to vote on anyway. It’s up to the House if they want to ram through healthcare because any major piece of legislation the Senate passes now needs 60. I’m mad at all the Dems for not getting the bill done by now.

Chernynkaya
Member

KQ, regardless of the facts about the senate, do you see how that statement by Obama (about waiting to seat Brown) is tone deaf? Or easily misinterpreted?

Chernynkaya
Member

I just don’t understand. And Robert Gibb just said that Obama agrees with Reid that health care should be postponed until Brown is sworn in. I am just shaking my head in wonder.

KQµårk 死神
Member

That does not preclude the House from acting. This could be a ploy to push the House to pass the Senate bill. There is nothing to vote on in the Senate right now anyway because the bills have not been reconciled.

They already have a paired down bill in the works for the Senate that should be an even more bitter pill for the House to swallow.

Three choices now.

The House passes the Senate version.

The Senate and House vote on a pared down new bill.

Healthcare reform dies.

The last one seems to be more and more likely. Isn’t the last one what Dean, Hamster and Huffy wanted anyway.

KQµårk 死神
Member

Anti-incumbency vibe, a bad opponent and a great campaign. It’s actually true to a large extent. I was thinking about that last night.

Chernynkaya
Member

So Obama thinks that the people of MA think he is as bad as Bush? That the Dems are worse than Reps? That’s anti-incumbancy, right? Yeah, Coakley was bad, but so was Brown. he didn’t run a great campaign either. So I still don’t get Obama’s comment.

nellie
Member

He’s responding to the fact that the MA vote is a protest vote. It’s a vote against the focus on wall street without a corresponding focus on jobs.

I really believe this is about jobs more than health care. I think November is going to be about jobs, too.

KQµårk 死神
Member

It’s anti-incumbency and has nothing to do with Bush because he’s not in office. Bush never had the expectations people, especially progressives had for Obama’s presidency. You said so yourself. What he’s saying is MA voters don’t think he’s done enough compared to expectations. I hear that all over the place from Dems.

I beg to differ about Brown’s campaign he worked real hard and Coakly did not until it was too late. Brown even adopted Obama’s net roots tactics.

Chernynkaya
Member

What I meant Q is that Obama made that comparison by referencing HIS campaign after Bush. He is saying that voters are as unhappy with him as they were with Bush. And if what you said above is true, then he should feel pretty terrible.

KQµårk 死神
Member

I’m sure he does feel more terrible than all of us about this. I’m sure he feels totally repudiated but Cher come on that’s all progressives have been doing is attacking him, not to mention the Repubs and even the middle. I wish I had a nickle for every progressive that says Obama is just like Bush.

choicelady
Member

My morning call with a Senate health staff person raised three possibilities. Yes – pass the Senate version, warts and all, in the House then send the financial pieces such as the tax on health benefits (“Cadillac” plans) and other finance issues through reconcilliation. In the meantime, rid the Senate of the 60-vote rule and restore democracy.

CA knows full well the tyranny of the weak that comes from supermajorities. We have them for passing both budget AND tax increases (not cuts, mind you – only the ability to rescind those cuts.) Federalist Paper No.58 and others warned about this, and we’ve seen that it gives the unimaginative total control to block the creative. The minority trumps the majority. So enough.

We need to find ways to do this, and the progressive forces must not block the framework. I’m heartened by the fact that the Senate as well as the House bill links what one pays to a percentage of income rather than – as the MA plan and proposed CA plan did – forcing people to pay market rates. YES – government would subsidize the purchaser thereby handing the insurance corporation the full rate, but preserving the national oversight to make insurance companies justify rate hikes is a start. And that is how Switzerland and Germany began, too.

We fool ourselves if we think at any point in US history we’ve made sweeping changes. We never have and likely never will. Even in the Great Depression, FDR did what he did fairly carefully, especially after the NRA was declared unconstitutional. (“Gone away, is the Blue Bird, here to stay, is the new bird”…)

I do want to see him ramp this up. I also understand why he insists that nothing gets rammed through before Brown is seated, but there are end runs that MUST be done to get a decent bill that will immediately cover the 18 million waiting, hoping, praying, and dying that it passes. They are not negligable.

So the evidence that 43% stayed home and did not vote because they wanted the House bill – which they would have likely gotten had they not slit their own throats and ours – is another piece of information about how arrogant our own side has become. They HAVE health care – and I bet none is in the Mass Connector program – so what’s it to them? Bet I have relatives who sat it out.

Damn.

nellie
Member

Research 2000 Poll Results, January 19, 2010

There’s a real populist anger out there. Voters worry that Democrats in power have not done enough to combat the policies of the Bush era. Both sets of voters wanted stronger, more progressive action on health care reform, as well. In summary, the poll shows that the party who fights corporate interests

Tiger99
Guest

Nellie remember what I mentioned yesterday about what people visualize?
You just can’t be seen sipping champagne in a Tux on Wall Street asking them to “play nice” and then insist on taxing Health Care benefits and expect the average working/middle class person to think you give a damn about them…

I am noticing that President Obama does seem to be becoming more public about defending the people against the “Big Bankers” and “Big Corps” on Wall Street instead of all the closed door type negotiations… Perhaps if this trend continues people will understand he is fighting for them…

nellie
Member

I think I’m changing my mind a little bit about the president’s governing style and thinking more like you on this. He has been very diligent and deliberate, but he needs to be more inspirational. That’s who the country elected. And he can’t wonk out on everyone and expect them to understand what he’s doing.

I think he might get the message, now. Or… let’s write him a letter and let him know!

Chernynkaya
Member

Nellie, apparantly he does not understand, if he can make a statement like he did about Brown– the one you cited. Or if he can agree with Reid to table health care until Brown is sworn in.

KQµårk 死神
Member

I don’t want to bash Research 2000 but they are a de facto partisan poll.

I think the president is already moving towards populist things like taxing bailouts. But with healthcare reform it’s easy to read it many ways.

I hope the scaled back idea scares the hell out of House Dems enough to vote on the Senate bill but I doubt it will happen. The reason is when things like this happens everyone rationalizes and that’s when people are most unreasonable.

nellie
Member

I agree with them. MA residents have health care. That wasn’t the issue for them. Jobs was the issue for them. Main street vs wall street.

This administration has got to do something about the job picture, or we’ll see more of this in November — as illogical as that would be.

Gretel1or2
Member
Gretel1or2

I’m still at a loss as to why they voted for Brown – he is certainly not a progressive candidate? What made them think that he would help to create a more progressive health care reform?

nellie
Member

He was a state senator, so he had name recognition. He’s attractive, he’s friendly. In our society, those two things count for a lot. And he called the open senate seat “the people’s seat” rather than “Kennedy’s” seat. I think that won him some points.

KQµårk 死神
Member

The perfect guy to have a beer with. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voters.

Tiger99
Guest

Don’t forget he drives an old pick up… 😀

KQµårk 死神
Member

Or populist for that matter. He already said he would vote no to tax Wall Street bailouts, vote no on new regulations and received most of his big cash from Wall Street. I will always believe “populist Republican” is an oxymoron.

SanityNow
Member

hope Rahm read this…

KQµårk 死神
Member

The scale back is in full swing.

A simpler, less ambitious bill emerged as an alternative only hours after the loss of the party’s crucial 60th Senate seat forced the Democrats to slow their all-out drive to pass Obama’s signature legislation and reconsider all options.

No decisions have been made, lawmakers said, but they laid out a new approach that could still include these provisions: limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to people with medical problems, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ policies, helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums and changing Medicare to encourage payment for quality care instead of sheer volume of services.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

nellie
Member

Randi Rhodes has your back this afternoon, AdLib.

She reports that 43% of registered Dems stayed home in MA.

Of those who voted, 53% said they don’t like the Senate health care bill, they like the house bill, the policy isn’t liberal enough.

Thought you’d like to know.

Tiger99
Guest

Howard Dean is on MSNBC saying that 80% of the Dems who stayed home did so because there was no public option… One-Third of the people who voted for Obama and then voted for Brown did so because there is no public option…

nellie
Member

This is definitely shaping up as a protest vote — a shot across the Obama Administration’s bow.

If they’re smart (big IF there), the dems in congress will get a clue that their own elections could go topsy turvy, just like Coakley’s did. And they’ll start making some bold changes. And they’ll find a way to get the legislation passed.

javaz
Member

From reading some of the comments on the site below, some people are saying they voted for Brown because he ran as an Independent Republican.
People are already saying that if he votes along party lines, something he promised not to do, that they’ll vote him out next time.

People are angry and the anger, frustration and fear crosses party lines.
People don’t like seeing people losing their homes, while the bankers get bailed out and then turn around and handout huge bonuses.

Higher taxes in states, including higher taxes at local levels, property taxes, and then the health care bill, which would have brought even higher taxes without regulations in price controls, and people are already paying for skyrocketing insurance with no end in site.

Sicking the IRS on people for mandated insurance didn’t sit too well with the general public.

Plus, with states raising taxes at nearly every level, and cutting services – cutting funds for education, closing state parks, closing rest areas, eliminating funding to help poor families with health care, and the rising prices for food and utilities isn’t helping people struggling to make ends meet.

And then there’s the jobs, and the broken promise of going after corporations that outsource.

People aren’t stupid and they see the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer and the middle class getting screwed, while those responsible go free and are making profits hand over fist from our tax dollars bailing them out.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93327#comments

nellie
Member

Well said, javaz.

KQµårk 死神
Member

We pay some of the lowest taxes in the industrialized world now including local taxes. If taxes are always the issue Dems always lose because you can’t do more without increasing taxes on someone.

Tiger99
Guest

javaz I watched in disbelief today as SEIU President Andy Stern defended his behind the scenes deal with President Obama on Taxing Health Care Benefits… He said that they would be phased in based on “Race” and “Gender”, let alone the fact the President supports Taxing my better halfs benefits at about 40% rate while taking steps to see that his benefits remain untaxed…
You wanna see anger let them pass the Bill that Taxes the working/middle class white guy while others with same excact benefits enjoy their’s Tax Free…

javaz
Member

I wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes so that every American can be insured, but when there are no controls on the cost of what we are already paying for our health insurance, and then to tax us at higher rates turned me off the HCR bills.
And personally, I really despised giving even more power to the IRS in going after people who did not purchase insurance.
The IRS already abuses their power and this would have been a nightmare for so many people.

Tiger99
Guest

The issue for me isn’t paying Taxes to help others it is the 40% rate and that it doesn’t seem to be a universal “Fair Tax” on all…

KQµårk 死神
Member

That’s not quite the final deal struck from what I understand it collective bargaining agreements would be exempt.

KQµårk 死神
Member

Therein lies the logical disconnect amongst liberals.

I would like to hear their logic on how enabling a teabagger make the bill more liberal?

It was a spite vote and spite never leads to anything good.

SueInCa
Member

Ok, I am going to admit it, I am in a bad mood today. But if I were president right now and I had an upcoming State of the Nation speech, here is what I would do:

I would explain very calmly that “I understand the majority of Americans do not want government run healthcare and for that reason we are discontinuing the bill, BUT, since the majority do not want gov run healthcare we are also going to now discontinue Medicare, Medicaid and any payments to hospitals for non paid emergency care. The people want to save money and get government out of their lives, so this is the best way to do just that. Oh and good luck in dealing with the insurance companies on your own. And now I will take any questions people might have………………..”

Talk about a “shock doctrine”. But then I am not president and probably for good reason.

nellie
Member

I think the Dems made a huge mistake at the outset.

They should have presented Health Care Reform as Medicare for All. It would have been very difficult for any opposition to shoot down that idea. They just didn’t have the courage to do it.

SueInCa
Member

The only one not to compromise in this whole mess is Nancy Pelosi. I am not real fond of her, but I used to really really dislike her. I have some respect for the woman now.

SanityNow
Member

I think it is a great idea and would satisfy my current acerbity and desire to see the fauxgressives and baggers howl.

SueInCa
Member

can you see the phone banks lighting up, the servers at the WH and Congress would go down for sure. they thought the attention with the TARP was bad, this would probably take down their data center LOL.

SueInCa
Member

That was supposed to be State of the Union speech

LABC63
Member
LABC63

LOL!! Well, since the american people have spoken (according to every media source on the planet) and do not want this, that sounds like a plan to me – I can do the “I got mine, fuck the rest of you” attitude just as well…

I am in foul mood too, btw….:{

SueInCa
Member

LOL, but someone just needs to say it to the nation, in a nicer way than I just did.

BTW I would add that seniors will get a final statement to show that for the most part, they received more care than they paid for and in the event they did not, a refund check would be included, closing their account.

BigDogMom
Member
BigDogMom

Sue, I think you’ve hit on something here…no ticky no shirty, oh well, next person in line….

It might be high time that someone reminds these dimwits what the government does do for them…

BigDogMom
Member
BigDogMom

Sue, I am hoping your being sarcastic, LOL, 🙂 !

Saying something like that would surely snap everyone to attention and back to reality!

SueInCa
Member

In a way, I am, but in another way I am not. I guess I would love to see the storm after such an announcement, clarifying they are all hypocrits and think only of themselves.

BigDogMom
Member
BigDogMom

Actually I agree with you and I have tried to no avail posting something like this over at other sites…

Some seem to willfully forget what and how much our government does for us, and how little, percentage wise, we pay in taxes compared to other countries.

Would love for Obama to say “Fuck you everyone, I’m cutting you all off to save money and cut the deficit…”

Questinia
Member

Isn’t “collusion” another, albeit very cynical, possible operant of “bipartisanhip”?

Done cloakatively, of course. Yay! I used that word! Or should I say “Coakleyatively”

Questinia
Member

I’m sometimes left, especially after yesterday’s “upset” in Massachusetts, with the feeling that “fighting for the people” is not wholeheartedly embraced by this administration.

Isn’t anyone struck by the dissonance between Obama’s ability to perform so seamlessly during the election (in order to attain power) but has little influence on what happens in Massachusetts? You’d think this would be anticipated. Really anticipated. Perhaps it could not be, but that would be kind of odd.

Has Obama become too centralized and lost the “feelers” of the periphery? The periphery become increasingly important as the complexity of the system increases. Or does his election approach have no practical merit when applied at the top. Where is that bottom-up mantra now? He certainly needed bottom-up to attain power. He doesn’t need it now to maintain the status quo, whether inadvertently or not.

Or, I wonder if the Massachusetts election was partially “thrown” so as to continue the status quo in the main spheres of the financial and healthcare sectors (both highly corporate connected) while actual items of change were made in areas of less consequence to the well-being of the people. Areas of change not felt by the people.

I will continue to support our President. But is he naive or shrewd?

KQµårk 死神
Member

Obama thinks in strategic terms, years down the road. This center right nation is filled with short thinking reactionaries. The new breed of progressives are just as reactionary. So call it what you want he’s not thinking on the same level as most people.

The fact is our system of government does not work with this level of hyperpartisanship. That’s exactly why since LBJ, JFK and FDR we have done nothing major for domestic policy in this country.

Questinia
Member

But how many years down the road? Isn’t there a shelf life for some of the things he would like to institute, as in, how much time a President actually has to be effective?

I do believe Obama is a leader, that is clear. The role of a leader is to see farther down the road and inspire the people to follow. But there are some people who don’t want to follow because they are just not ready. Contrary to bipartisanship, they should be left at the old campsite until they’ve had enough time to process there is more water and softer moss at the new one.

Don’t ask me why I chose softer moss. But I do think soft moss is important.

KQµårk 死神
Member

It sounds to me like what Obama needs to do is more portfolio management like we did in R&D. You start out with an empty pipeline. You have short, medium and long term goals you start stuffing down that tube obviously the short term objectives come out first fill up the now part of the tub and the medium and long term projects fill up the back of the tube and come out later. The point is to always have flow in the tube by working on a proper ratio of each type of project. It’s late and I took my meds so I probably could say it better but that the idea.

For the last few months Obama has been working longer term project too much with Afghanistan and healthcare policy while people want to “see” results with the economy.

SueInCa
Member

This president is doing as well as could be expected with the hand he was dealt. IMHO the TeaBaggers just proved they have no agenda other than to vote republican. They can talk all day long about third party candidates but until they put their vote where their mouth is, they will remain an unbelievable fringe organization. They were put together to hurt Obama and quite frankly, most dems are letting them get away with it. There was no big showing of Indies or Dems in the healthcare debate. If there was, the media, including MSNBC, totally ignored it. Until Dems start making noise, we will continue to be ignored. Indies will not be ignored because they have the power to move elections from one side to the other, teabaggers are known for their ignorance and they provide comic relief, Dems are known for their willingness to just sit back and let it happen.

FrankenPC
Member

I agree with 99% of this post. I think it’s dead on.

I disagree with: “And those so-called Progressives who want only to condemn Obama can kiss Rush Limbaugh

SueInCa
Member

You are right there. I see it the same way that you do. One thing though, President Obama needs to get tough. He needs to stand up and be counted and get rid of Geitner(LOL) I can live with Rahm, but not Geitner. It is a little known fact that Geitner’s father and Obama’s mother worked together in the macro economics field for countries like Indonesia at the Ford Foundation………………..that makes me nervous.

“While at the Ford Foundation, Dunham worked with Peter Geithner, father of Tim Geithner (who later became United States Secretary of the Treasury in her son’s administration), to develop the Foundation’s microfinance programs in Indonesia”

kesmarn
Admin

There’s certainly no doubt that this President has had an uphill battle from day one.

Forgive me for posting a fairly long quotation from E.J. Dionne’s column of 01/19/10:

“WASHINGTON–In June,2008, before the financial implosions that would come a few months later, I asked two smart financiers who happened to be Republicans about the future of the seemingly shaky American economy.

“Defying the moment’s conventional predictions that we would somehow muddle through, one of them offered a dire and uncannily accurate forecast. He explained why banks would blow up, investments would crash, and the federal government would have to spend “at least $300 billion” to bail out financial institutions.

“The other financial expert listened, took a sip from his drink, and smiled. ‘This,’ he said, ‘would seem like an excellent time for the Democrats to take power.'”

Questinia
Member

This was precisely what Naomi Klein described as part two of the “Shock”.

kesmarn
Admin

Q, could you elaborate a bit on Klein’s idea? I haven’t read much on this. Thanks much.

Questinia
Member

I heard her say in an interview that was all planned by the Republicans and the financial sector. That they would drive the system into the ground, hand the mess over to the Democrats, allow discontent too foment, then by appearing favorable to the electorate again, continue their mo.

This was, in other words, Part II of “Disaster capitalism”, Part II of “the shock”.

Naomi Klein was predicting this, I believe, even before Obama was elected.

nellie
Member

Isn’t it interesting, though, how much Obama bashing Klein has been doing, considering the theory she presented in her book.

Her hands are not clean in this, either.

SueInCa
Member

I am surprised at her as well. I watched a talk she gave at the UCC in Florida and based on what she said there, I was shocked to here her badmouthing Obama like she is now doing. I just do not get it………..

kesmarn
Admin

Sounds like it could end up being the classic pyrrhic victory.

Thanks for the clarification, Q.

KQµårk 死神
Member

Don’t forget two other strategies. Repubs are always bad at running government which fits their self fulfilling prophecies. The twist we now see is big business coconspiring with the GOP to create unsustainable recoveries for them and hinder recoveries for Dems.

nellie
Member

Spot on, kesmarn.

We are being played by experts.

kesmarn
Admin

Thanks, nellie.

Obama’s doing an admirable job of trying to play in a seriously rigged game. And, unfortunately, he’s also had a bit of lousy luck thrown in, too.