President Obama: The Cave-in President

The key point. (0.00 / 0)

"As progressives, we have ourselves to blame as well. We didn't do enough to stop this madness! While the Tea Party put boots on the ground and sent multitudinous phone calls to their legislators, progressives sat back bemused by anxiety, misunderstanding, and frustration."

Really, this isn't about Obama. This is about us.  Look in the mirror, everybody; we're all responsible for the current situation we find ourselves in.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 23:07:06 PM UTC

Sure, Obama made mistakes here, but ... (0.00 / 0)

my question is what would have been a better outcome, one that was reasonably achievable -- given the state of the playing field?

Obama deserves blame for his mistakes that maneuvered him into a horrible negotiating position where he permitted the economy to be taken hostage -- no argument from me there -- but once he was in that position, the problem was not that he "caved."

What, do you think the outcome would have been different if Obama simply said "No" to the GOP with more conviction?

In truth, this deal is (or should be) just this side of acceptable to Democrats. Potential tax increases remain in play in the future with the scheduled expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. Medicaid is intact. The cuts to Medicare are to providers, not to benefits -- not perfect, I grant you, but probably not a distinction worth wrecking the economy over.

A tax increase was never going to be achieved at this stage of the game for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that a majority of members of the House of Representatives has signed a pledge not to increase taxes in any way. So, complaining that Obama failed to get a tax increase in this deal is true, but it is an irrelevant critique. No one could have achieved this goal.

That said, I agree with everything you said about the tea party and GOP irresponsibility, but what else is new? We have known for years that the modern Republican Party lacks ethics, integrity and any sense of decency, history or fair play.

As I have written, this negotiation is just beginning.

---

by: aznew @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:35:09 AM UTC

Amen (0.00 / 0)

" We have known for years that the modern Republican Party lacks ethics, integrity and any sense of decency, history or fair play." They have let the teapublicans run rampant with that mindset which has been brought to the forefront now.

---

by: glennbear @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:44:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The big mistake was not locking in a debt ceiling increase (0.00 / 0)

last fall, before Republicans and their loony-tune Tea Party cohorts took over the House. I mean, Obama was negotiating a deal anyway, so why not push all-out to include the debt ceiling in there?  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:59:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed. That was the major error (4.00 / 2)

He made one other. When the GOP first said it would tie raising the debt limit to deficit reduction, he engaged in negotiation on those terms rather than dismissing it out of hand. By engaging in negotiation, he legitimized the tactic.

---

by: aznew @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:13:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed. And it is TOTALLY illegitimate. (4.00 / 1)

Or at least it SHOULD have been; now, having given in to it once, is it "legitimate?" If so, we're in deep trouble.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:14:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think he will pay a huge political price both in (4.00 / 1)

Support and money in2012.  You should read the post on his facebook news fed announcing the deal...  People are pissed including independents

---

by: totallynext @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:40:15 AM UTC

Most of that initial anger will probably fade out (0.00 / 0)

but certainly, Obama will NOT get the kind of rapturous enthusiasm from activists that he received in 2008. The question is, can he win WITHOUT that level of enthusiasm/rapture?  Can $1 billion, the advantages of incumbency, the utterly lunacy and extremism of the Teapublicans, and (hopefully) the lameness of the Republican presidential nominee, compensate for the loss of activist enthusiasm? That's just one question heading into 2012 (another is, how bad will the economy be, and how much will people blame it on Obama, the Dems, Bush, the Republicans, etc.)?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:18:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know. This worries me (4.00 / 1)

Obama is counting that progressives and liberals will show up to vote. And those on this site will. I know I will, however unhappy I am with Obama at this juncture.

And so far Obama has been excellent at election calculations. But maybe he could be pushing too hard this time? He seems to be counting on most liberals voting for him, so he is ignoring us while he courts conservatives.

But since the late 60s, the regular pattern for strong liberals and leftist is not to vote or to vote for a spoiler. It was only during the Bush administration that many strong liberals began voting again for Democrats.

With a weak economy that has been particularly punishing to young people and minorities together with many disillusioned activists, Obama may be engaging in a risky gamble rather than engaging in a safe move to the right.  

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 13:25:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama was dealt a VERY tough hand (0.00 / 0)

Has he played it perfectly?  Definitely not. Has he played it well, overall?  I'd say so.  Still, remember, he inherited from the REPUBLICANS a nasty recession, two wars (unpaid for), and massive deficits as far as the eye can see.  If he can get through this with saving the economy from Great Depression Part II and passing a major health care reform bill, plus lots of other good stuff like ending DADT, I'd say that's pretty good. HOWEVER, we have tons more work to do, and I say "WE" because we all have to work our butts off to take back the House, hold the Senate (and increase the # of Dem Senators if possible), and most definitely keep the White House.  Let's get working!

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 13:33:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ADHD Progressives (4.00 / 1)

The White House is counting on the short attention span of the so-called Progressives. This deal will be "kinda" remembered, but not enough to cause a single "self-proclaimed" Progressive to do anything different than what they are presently doing.  There's always some new horror to behold committed by the Republicans which will quickly turn the attention of a Progressive. Obama will swat at that horror with his tiny flyswatter, and the Progressive can go back to what he was doing feeling somewhat satisfied that somebody's doing something about that nasty right wing fly. I
believe this pattern has already begun.  Didn't Obama just do something with women's birth control coverage?

---

by: hathaway @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:56:35 AM UTC

Women's Birth Control Coverage (0.00 / 0)

To women who need insurance coverage for birth control and other necessities relating to their reproductive health, let me assure you that what the new law is doing to guarantee coverage is not using a "tiny flyswatter." To women who want the ability to control their reproductive health, again I say, it is NOT a "tiny" matter.

Plus, what exactly are "so-called Progressives"?

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 15:50:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What happened to LIBERAL? (4.00 / 1)

We no longer use the word "liberal" because the right-wing made it a dirty word and in typical "Progresive" fashion we changed our name. We always let the right write the narrative and we put up a whimpering defense and retreat. Thus we are no longer "liberals" and there are no tax increases on the wealthy, but we do have coverage for birth control until the Republicans don't like that and you know what happens next. I think Rep. King has already begun the narrative. Follow the plot, get good and angry before the climax, and do your best whimpering during the falling action.

---

by: hathaway @ Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:13:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hindsight is 20 / 20.... (4.00 / 1)

Overall the President and his team have made an awful miscalculation regarding the opposition party.  They were silent about TeaParty racism .... they rationalize the 2010 election results .... they legitimize the rantings of Fox News ....

They just don't seem to "get it" ... or want to admit that their presidency and by extension the Democratic Party is considered illegitimate and incompetent by the Teapublicans. The disaster which was the last decade is shaping up to be another decade of policy disasters.

Paul Krugman warned last Sunday on ABC News that we're going to make Japan's "lost decade" seem mild & manageable in comparison. Bottom line ... there is no dealing with the libertarian stoked Tea Party ... they are out to destroy, ham-string, dismantle, etc .... the federal government ... but particularly anything that would have to do with social programs.

Obama better be thinking about the Democratic Party before himself ... because  he'll go nowhere fast if the Republicans keep the house and gain the Senate.

People who say divided government works best are Republicans at heart who had a good 10 year reign .... look where it has left us.

---

by: Say What @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:56:11 AM UTC

You don't always get what you want (4.00 / 1)

We need to acknowledge that the Republicans have some power over the country, the tea party specifically. Obama couldn't wave his magic wand and make them go away. Now that we have acknowledged the problem, maybe Democrats will get moving and do something about it.

---

by: commentator1 @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:55:13 PM UTC

The time to fight these battles is not in August (0.00 / 0)

There's only one time of the year that these battles can be fought and won, and that's in November.  Far, far too many Democrats and Democratic-voting independents only come out as a reaction to truly horrible Republican misgovernance.  That's a fact.  Republicans have to run the economy right into the ground before a lot of Democratic voters get the message, and after they do get the message and win an election - like in 92 an 08 - they immediately assume that the war has been won - not just a battle - and they don't vote again until another calamity comes around.  

They think that one vote every 4-8 years will somehow be a magic wand, and whoever they help elect will have hyper-intelligent, malevolent dictatorial powers to right all of the wrongs in a couple of months with just a few waves of the magic wand.  Reform the health care system, save the environment, win the wars, get the economy pumping at high speed, end hunger and homelessness, get everyone a job and balance the budget.  All in six months to a year.

I think that Obama will win handily next year, but his presidency is shaping up, politically, much like Clinton's. The main difference, of course, is that Clinton led during a booming economic environment.  The 1994-2000 period is really shaping up as a true Golden Age, with a booming economy, low unemployment, large increases in wealth across all economic classes, good to excellent foreign relations, successful use of military force (in the Balkans).  If it hadn't been for the Gingrich crew doing EXACTLY like the Boehner crew is today - trying to piss in the punch to try and further their personal political goals - it would have been a perfect 6-7 years.

Of course, Obama has a relatively poor economy to deal with, plus the teabaggers and an even worse Republican political apparatus who's sole goal is to hurt Obama.  They could care less who else gets hurt, they have a single, narrow goal and the rest is collateral damage, even if the collateral is the United States and the damage is long-term structural damage across the board, from the economy on down.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 16:59:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We spoke; they won't listen (0.00 / 0)

The reality is that we did speak up. We called and emailed congress to the point of bringing down the capitol servers and clogging the phone lines. The problem is that our politicians don't listen. They only listen to what they want to hear.

Look at the polls. Most Americans were opposed to the deal that we ended up having. Did that had any effect? No. They just ignored those polls. Had the polls been in support of the deal, they would have claimed that Americans wanted it. But because it didn't serve their purposes, they just ignored it.

The main problem is that most of us operate under the assumption that our democratic institutions work. It is not working anymore. Our representatives are not listening. They fear more the backslash of rich campaign contributors than voters. Voters just legitimize the pickings of campaign contributors. Our democracy is broken.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 13:11:59 PM UTC

"Our Democracy is broken" (4.00 / 1)

You're right, and one of the main ways it's broken is that only 10% or 20% of voters show up for many/most primary elections. Which means, de facto, that the most passionate, hard-core elements of each party get to choose their nominees. On the Republican side, that means the Teahadists. And that, combined with the fact that most districts are "incumbent protection"/safe, means that Republican incumbents realistically only have to fear ONE possible way they're going to get tossed out of there: by a challenge from their (far) right. Thus, the Republican Party lurches further and further to the right every cycle.

Meanwhile, Democrats and progressives need to wake the f*** up, get off their asses, get involved, and of course VOTE - in every single election.  What happens when Democrats and progressives do NOT vote in every single election?  A few cases in point:

*President George W. Bush instead of President Al Gore
*Governor Bob McDonnell and AG Ken Cuccinelli, plus Republican gains in the House of Delegates, instead of Governor Creigh Deeds, AG Steve Shannon, and GAINS in the House of Delegates (including keeping excellent incumbents like Chuck Caputo and Margi Vanderhye).
*Tea Party victory in November 2010, and Speaker John Boehner, instead of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
*This abysmal debt deal, instead of a far more progressive one.

How much clearer does this have to get before Dems and progressives wake the f*** UP?!?!?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 13:23:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mostly agree (0.00 / 0)

I don't think the problem is getting Progressives and committed Democrats to the polls. We vote in election after election.

The problem is getting the vast number of, for lack of a better word, "moderates," people who hold political opinions, but are not necessarily committed to acting upon them to the polls.

These are the people who, IMHO, are behind the disconnect between what the polls tell us the country wants, and what the election results produce.

---

by: aznew @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 13:31:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

redistricting, safe seats, and those engaged (0.00 / 0)

Lowell and Alan, you're making some really good points and I think a couple of our biggest problems are the lack of competitive districts made worse each redistricting when we allow incumbments to draw their own lines. As Lowell explains, once you have the majority of House seats being non-competitve, add to that who gets involved the most with primaries, campaigns, committees, etc. Might not agree with all the Abromowitz says, though his main point is the same as yours, Alan, that our elected officials aren't disengaged, rather the opposite- they are most responsive to those who are most engaged, leaving out a vast number of folks who you describe, Alan.

http://www.amazon.com/Disappea...

---

by: clark @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 14:05:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Money is the biggest problem; polticians are second (0.00 / 0)

When the ability of politicians to run is dictated on how much contributions they can get, the interests of big donors will trump the interests of voters.

This dynamic disenfranchises people in a real sense. Sure, they can legitimize elections with their votes, but they don't have any real representation. And this depresses civic participation since they don't see what the point of voting is.

We can't use the explanation that the problem is that liberals and progressive are not organized or voting. They did organize, they did vote, and they gave Democrats the presidency and the two chambers. And what happened?

We progressives are running out of excuses for our Democratic politicians. We are close to the point where we can't even claim that we are better than the GOP in protecting the middle class and the poor. Or maybe we can, because we know enough to know that it is mostly true, but other people won't believe us.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 14:06:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our leaders listen (0.00 / 0)

But not to phone calls, tweets, emails, or even polls.

Nor, in my opinion, should they.

In a Democratic Republic like ours, the simple truth is that leaders answer to VOTERS, and no one else.

So, sure, polls are interesting to talk about, but they do not, and IMHO should not, drive politician actions.

 

---

by: aznew @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 13:28:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what is the point to calling, tweeting or emails? (0.00 / 0)

To make us peasant feel happy?

So our Democratic Republic is just a turn-taking despotism, where we elect mini-dictators to different offices every two years?

So how does Frank Wolf answer to me as a voter when he has a tailor-made district to keep him in office until he dies?

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 14:17:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Answers (0.00 / 0)

Yes. Tweeting is the new opiate for the people.
Yes, though they come in all sizes.
He doesn't --see Lowell and Clark's comments, above.

---

by: aznew @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 14:39:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But... (0.00 / 0)

Was it "most" Americans who were calling?  The Teapublicans are committed and loud.  

---

by: Clemgo3165 @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 14:35:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Broken Democracy?? (0.00 / 0)

I don't know that our Democracy is broken per se ... but I do believe that the Republican propaganda machine ... and their messaging discipline ... has had an ENORMOUS effect on the political process.

FACTS don't matter. Truisms (hell outright falsehoods) trump facts ... and along with doublespeak one develops the "legitimacy" of the Teapublican view.

You know ... "government is evil" ... so blowing it up to save the American people from this evil Washington government is not just okay ... it's the morally right thing to do.  There is a sizable group of people who drink this kool aid every day .... on talk radio ... on FOX news ... at conservative websites.

The "Know Nothings" flourish and are nourished by Murdoch's Orwellian Machine .... because facts are inconvenient truths that some Democrat trotted out to justify spending more of "my" money.

History will tell whether we've just witnesses the snapping of Democracy's neck.... but I think it's just whiplash.

---

by: Say What @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 14:33:46 PM UTC

Keith Olberman Special Comment (0.00 / 0)

Keith Olberman now appears nightly (daily replays) on Current TV (Al Gore CEO). Last night's program on this debt debacle included an interview with Mr. Gore and this special comment from Keith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I strongly recommend Countdown as an antidote for Fox News posioning. Keith's comments last night were inspiring.

---

by: glennbear @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 15:04:47 PM UTC

Saw that piece .... (0.00 / 0)

he spared ... NO ONE!

Say What ... you will ... Olberman calls them as he see's them. Wasn't he an umpire or sports announcer ... or something??

---

by: Say What @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 16:52:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sports (0.00 / 0)

Way back when he was a commentator on ESPN when the program was live. His sports knowledge is encyclopedic and his grasp of political issues is nearly as broad.

---

by: glennbear @ Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 18:22:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]