Yes … you! YOU! are part of the plan to elect a Republican in 2012.
It's simple divide and conquer. The Republicans adopt outrageously unpopular stands and hold popular actions hostage, knowing that Obama will get blamed more than they will. (He's PRESIDENT, dammit!)
They think/know that Obama will hemorrhage support from the left if he gives the GOP what they want; they know that he will hemorrhage support from the non-ideologicals if he doesn't get something significant done on a host of very popular policies. (Ending tax cuts for the wealthy; extending uemployment benefits; creating jobs; public option; and on and on.)
Point is … this is not even necessarily about how much the GOP loves tax cuts for the rich — though surely they do love that.
It's with the active intent of discouraging you. It's with the active intent of keeping you, Ms.-Mr. Grassroots Activist/Base Leftie, off the streets and off your phone going into 2012; making sure that you don't have a good, heartfelt story to tell about your candidate.
It's not a by-product; it's not a fluke; it's not an accident or windfall for them. They know what they're doing.
So, you know, it's all going according to plan.
Addendum: In the comments, Jefferson Nix asks:
Isn't the President discouraging enough voters on his own?
To which I respond:
I think that in his prickly relationship with the “professional left” and his base, he is playing into the same dynamic. He should know better. So should we.
My point here is not to absolve the President of his responsibility, or even to say that he's made the right choices. I'm only pointing out the dynamic at play, and we're all playing our parts delightfully well, I must say.
masslib says
Presidenting is hard.
charley-on-the-mta says
stomv says
jkleschinsky says
the GOP has manged to do is get me fired up.
<
p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>”Fool me once…, shame on, shame on you?
Fool me, can’t get fooled again.”
liveandletlive says
sure, the Republicans play Democrats for fools, and the Dems fall for it every time. Whatever happened to reconciliation. Didn’t the Bush tax cuts get passed through reconciliation? Why couldn’t the Dems have pushed a strong tax bill through the same way?
<
p>Enabling is allowing someone to flounder and fall continually while the significant other either denies that it’s happening or supports that very behavior. Then there is this other thing called “tough love”, the better and more productive way to change behavior and put someone on to a more positive and successful path to constructive solutions and necessary steps for change.
<
p>You can blame the Republicans for Democrats behavior if you want. I’ve done it myself in the past. But, unfortunately, enabling weakness is perpetuating weakness and I think I’m done with that.
<
p>These are not Democrats I’m willing to spend vast amounts of volunteer time and money supporting. Besides, there is not much I can say; they have not given me any number of talking points that I can proudly speak out about while talking to people. The only thing I can do is talk about how awful the Republicans are and make sure that everyone I know knows what the Repubs are up to and what their ideals are. However, if there is a progressive Dem running against Obama I will support that candidate enthusiastically. Maybe if we can all come together and do the same, we could have a chance at electing a strong progressive Dem for President in 2012. It can happen, but we have to do it together.
jimc says
<
p>They sailed through, getting Democratic votes in the process.
christopher says
That’s why they only lasted ten years rather than being made permanent from the getgo.
masslib says
Both sets were passed through reconciliation. The 2003 vote was 50/50 with Cheney casting the deciding vote:
<
p>http://www.senate.gov/legislat…
somervilletom says
Miller and Nelson, both voted in favor.
ryepower12 says
it was passed with reconciliation. 52 votes, I believe.
jimc says
I hate to be wrong. Sorry. The votes I had in mind, it turns out, were the votes for reconciliation.
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…
<
p>Senate roll, 58-33-2-7
http://www.senate.gov/legislat…
<
p>House roll, 240-154-39
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200…
<
p>My fact was wrong, but my point stands. Broad support for the tax cuts, including Democratic support.
<
p>I kept thinking of that during the healthcare debate. They gave Bush his top priority after he
lostbarely won, and they wouldn’t give their own president his top priority after he won overwhelmingly.<
p>
ryepower12 says
they decided, after getting the majority in the Senate, that because the republicans used it for deficit spending, and they thought it was wrong, they should get rid of it… and so they did. That wouldn’t have been a bad idea…. if there was a way for them to enforce the Republicans couldn’t just undo in the future. The thing is, though, it’s only a majority vote taken at the beginning of a session.
<
p>So… they could have used reconciliation, and probably would have, if they didn’t grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. Others, more skeptical than I, would just suggest enough of them wanted this outcome on taxes all along. I don’t know if I’m willing to buy into that, but it’s certainly not the least plausible theory I’ve read thus far. I’ts certainly hard to believe they’re this stupid.
jasiu says
<
p>I finally heard someone on the radio explain this and what they said jibes with the Wikipedia page on reconciliation.
<
p>
<
p>And when did they use it?
<
p>
stomv says
If I understand correctly, that rule is a rule that the majority is allowed to establish at the beginning of each two year cycle, and passed by simple majority. In other words, it’s only the rule because the Dems made it that way.
sabutai says
So the fact that Obama has refused to directly the Republicans on any of this is irrelevant?
<
p>Here’s the deal — if the Republicans took crazy and extreme positions and dared Democrats to fight back, and then won that fight, I’d have little trouble with that. It’s not impossible; Nancy Pelosi does it almost every day.
<
p>The fact is Obama scurried back into his White House the second it was intimated he had a fight on his hands. That is why I’m angry. And I’ll go ahead and say it — Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Joe Biden have all shown more fight than Obama has.
charley-on-the-mta says
… and I would have liked to see it.
<
p>
Well, so the hell what? Are they president? You wanna re-litigate the primary? Live in the past much?
<
p>I think the thing we forget is that Obama doesn’t just want one thing. He wants a lot of things: economic stimulus (which he got); Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal (which he didn’t get, but that’s not his fault — he may get it yet); a NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AGREEMENT which, you know, is kind of a big deal; and so forth.
<
p>How much of that are you willing to scotch for the tax cut issue?
<
p>I’m not even saying that you (and apparently everyone else) are wrong on this; just that it’s not an simple 100% choice.
stomv says
spent an awful lot of chits on health care. Good idea? Bad idea? Dunno. I’d have preferred cap and trade, but nevertheless, they spent chits and months on that, instead of getting lots of other things done.
<
p>They controlled the clock, and they ran out of time. I think they could have been more disciplined and gotten a whole lot more through.
masslib says
of government. Enshrining the Bush tax cuts into law is going to be devastating for the Democrats. Spending is the other side of the equation, and Obama got exactly the inadequate, non-jobs focused, tax heavy stimulus he asked for. The ineffectiveness of that stimulus is how we lost Congress. And, START? That’s a bipartisan policy. You don’t go around trading social or foreign policy for economic policy anyway, but he didn’t need this tax deal to pass START.
<
p>But whats so pathetic is the tax fight was completely winnable. Let the unemployment extension run out right before Christmas and see how long the public tolerates that. Let the tax cuts expire and then propose retroactive new cuts targeting the middle class, and just see how easy it is for the Republicans to ignore the will of the people. You act as though the tax fight was not one worth having. I find that astounding.
bob-neer says
A negative can’t be proved. We’ll never know if this is an accurate prognostication, but recent history suggests very clearly that when Republicans overreach they get bitten by a pragmatic backlash. Shutting down the government under Newt Gingrich is a case in point. That hurt them badly. Holding 98% of the population hostage for 2% during a recession and time of war could have been equally damaging. More broadly, if Obama won’t lead on this issue, which he campaigned on, it throws into question his whole ideology. Maybe 2008 really was all just talk. That way, disaster lies: once any leader loses their credibility, it is very hard for them to continue to govern. Johnson with Vietnam, Nixon with Watergate, even George W. Bush after Iraq was found to have no WMDs and Brownie was found not to have been doing such a heck of a job. I’m not saying that the tax decision was Obama’s Watergate. This is far less dramatic or extreme. What I am saying is that he has hurt his credibility, and left millions of people, perhaps, wondering what he stands for.
petr says
<
p>The new congress STARTS Jan 5. After that day there exists a strong possiblity that, no matter what anybody wants, Washington STOPS. You think we have A BETTER chance of getting unemployment extensions AFTER Jan 5? No matter how angry the public gets the GOP can stall, whittle, poison and generally gum up the works. Or they can agree to not stall, whittle, poison and generally gum up the works, in exchange for a flat tax or some such stupidity. Obama says no and suddenly, for enough of the right people, failure to extend unemployment benefits is the prez fault.
<
p>With a Dem Senate and a GOP house (and a GOP house run by a feckless milquetoast like Boehner) we’ll get emergency stopgap measures the severity of which everyone agrees upon (debt ceiling, defense spending, etc…) and NOTHING ELSE. With some 85 new GOP housemembers, a significant portion of whom are teabaggers (already biting their tongue over deficit spending) you think unemployment benefits are a ‘completely winnable’ fight?? After Jan 4? Fuggedabowdit…
christopher says
Pull a Harry Truman and start campaigning now for 2012 against a do-nothing Congress.
sabutai says
I meant to say that Obama refused to directly confront Republicans. As for “so the hell what”, I’m pointing out what a poor choice Democratic voters made in choosing their candidate, and how far outside the history of fighting for working families Obama sits.
<
p>”Living in the past” is a common gibe for anyone who doesn’t want to use the past in order to learn for the future.
<
p>I find it charming how you think Obama wants all this stuff. What’s your proof? His gosh-darn serious promises? Like his promise on the tax cuts, closing Guantanamo, pulling out of Iraq, depoliticizing security, DADT?
<
p>It isn’t a simple 100% choice, Charley. But I find it a clear choice on whether to enable Obama’s sellout of the Democratic agenda or not.
charley-on-the-mta says
Did you want an administration full-court press? You got it. He got a majority vote in the Senate, which isn’t enough b/c the Senate is broken, not the president. The dude is not 60 senators. Same w/ public option, and on and on.
<
p>We’re in agreement on Gitmo — it should be closed. I think he’s going slowly on Iraq, but frankly I don’t know enough for sure to say this deadline or that is best, except that it should be as soon as practicable. Give me a standard by which to measure his performance or lack thereof.
bob-neer says
To eliminate what he could. And worked Congress for the rest. At a minimum, he did not have to appeal Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. Some very tough arguments against your position here on Pam’s House Blend “DADT: Five “Durable” Myths.”
<
p>
sabutai says
The dude is the commander in chief, and the top-line of a ticket that includes the Senate president. The filibuster can be ruled out of order (remember when Republicans were going to do that?) Dude could have pressed Reid to write a new organizing resolution to be shoved through the Senate that dropped the filibuster. Dude could at least try (there’s that concept again) to fix the Senate.
<
p>Here’s my standard: what has he achieved? In the closest America has gotten to one-party Democratic government since the 1940s, what has he achieved?
charley-on-the-mta says
What the **** has Obama done so far?
<
p>My goodness, Sab … when you get mad you throw some hanging curveballs.
<
p>If you really think that Obama hasn’t done anything to improve social justice and keep this country from absolutely running off the rails, you’re no different from the Slurpee-drinkers on the other side.
<
p>Think on it!
mark-bail says
it’s all part of the Republican plan!?
<
p>If I read your diary right Charley, those of us who object to Obama’s conspicuous lack of leadership, are part of the problem. We’re fools. It’s you, with no evidence or even much clarity, who really understands the 3-dimensional chess of the GOP?
<
p>The Republicans have a plan. That’s part of politics. Up until now the Democratic Party has either lacked a plan or been too timid to act on it. Now, the Democratic Caucus finally realized that it’s worth standing up against tax cuts for the rich. Bernie Sanders laid out the talking points yesterday. We had a winnable issue, but the President doesn’t lead on it. He’s the public face of the party. Where has he been?
<
p>I know some people that used to post and comment here who feel like their opinions are no longer welcome at BMG. I’m starting to feel the same way. Not because we disagree, but because all you could manage here was a few paragraphs of assertion.
sue-kennedy says
Obama is unlikely to lose support for implementing his campaign promises. Those “tax cuts for the wealthy” crowd have never really flocked to his rallies. Those opposing gays and lesbian openly serving in the military did not run out to vote Obama. The anti single payer health care devotees, they voted for the other guy. When given the choice between a Republican and a Republicrat most Republicans vote for the Republican.
<
p>On the other hand, the people who’s issues aligned with Obama’s campaign promises – they’re feeling a bit dejected. The professional left that worked overtime to get Obama elected, perhaps a bit insulted. And all those who voted for the “Change” Obama promised are only seeing Obama change his position.
<
p>If you add to Obama’s predicament that the failed economic policies he is currently embracing are acknowledged to have brought us into the recession, they are not likely to be any more successful just because its now the Obama tax plan instead ot the Bush tax plan. Obama can now plan to run for re-election with the economy continuing to flounder.
<
p>There’s nothing like campaign season when you get to go door to door talking with the unemployed, who are losing their homes and tell them that some study says that the economy really is getting better or –
it would be worse with the other guy.
mark-bail says
with Obama’s campaign promises are still allowed to suck it up. And that, my friends, is not playing into the hands of the Republicans. Really, it’s not. Really.
<
p>Anyway, I’m going to hold a press conference on it real soon. Bill Clinton will do most of the talking because I have a Christmas party to go to. You know how it is for those of us in the ruling classes.
<
p>Less cynically, read my diary “Thank You, Mr. President” for a link to Elizabeth Drew’s piece on Obama’s White House. The picture she paints is not an attractive.
<
p>Obama has the opportunity to learn from what’s happened. His Presidency, regardless of the number of terms he eventually serves, depends on it. I just hope he’s not too smart to correct course.
mark-bail says
Realism means he’s right. He makes tough decisions, which means he makes the decisions and if you don’t like it, that’s tough.
ryepower12 says
are you sure you aren’t talking about Obama?
jefferson-nix says
Isn’t the President discouraging enough voters on his own?
<
p>Perhaps he can continue to blame Bush for his troubles when he runs for RE-ELECTION. A strong leader definitely needs more than 4 years to fix the mistakes the previous administration made 5 years ago. Now I get why he thinks people need 99 weeks of unemployment.
charley-on-the-mta says
I think that in his prickly relationship with the “professional left” and his base, he is playing into the same dynamic. He should know better. So should we.
alicew says
mizjones says
The plan as I see it:
<
p>1. Obama continues most of the Bush policies, hoping the independents who helped elect him won’t notice. New policies such as the health insurance laws are skewed to help entrenched interests more than ordinary citizens.
<
p>2. Obama scolds progressives, when they call him on #1, using rhetoric designed to appeal to independents, who distrust “partisanship”.
<
p>3. Progressives are divided between those who revolt against this gamesmanship and those who meekly watch their aspirations go down the drain in the hopes of getting a few crumbs from the table.
<
p>4. Those revolting (see #3) are marginalized by the media and the mainstream Democratic party. Many well-meaning Democrats urge progressives to be quiet, out of fear that criticizing the President from the left will drive voters to swing to the right. The well-meaning Dems, by going along to get along, enable policies that hurt the middle class.
<
p>5. When the right-leaning Democratic policies fail, those who created them get blamed for the failures…by the Republicans, for not being conservative enough! When Republicans take over, their policies fail too, creating an opening for right-leaning Democrats. Either way, big business wins.
<
p>Charlie, I’m not suggesting that you planned this, but it’s a plan that your post plays into.
<
p>Maybe the well-meaning, get-along Democratic rank and file should stop accepting this abuse? As long as they demand little, they will get stepped on again and again.
charley-on-the-mta says
Well, I just think you’re completely, absolutely, 180 degrees wrong on #1. You cannot honestly look at the status quo versus the health insurance law and tell me that it is not a massive, massive step forward 8 ways from Sunday.
<
p>If you can get 60 votes for single-payer, I’ll take it! Short of that, we did OK with health care. Once it’s actually implemented, Dems will like it more, Repubs will hate it less. That I’m absolutely positive of.
mizjones says
Some health care improvement, which still falls quite short of what is needed, is an exception that proves the rule. I’ll be the first to agree that it is good to insure 30 million more citizens. The other side of the health care bill is that we still pay far too much for what we get. I have yet to see evidence or models that indicate that the current still-costly system is sustainable.
<
p>Obama worked behind closed doors to kill the public option, which had strong voter support. He had promised transparency in his campaign. He could have at least made the “negotiations” public.
<
p>And the other policies? Must I try to list them? Examples are:
<
p>Continuation of 2 unnecessary wars/occupations.
<
p>A financial ‘overhaul’ that leaves us open to further abuses by Wall St. A stimulus that did not take into account financial models to indicate how large it needed to be, in order to yield long term benefit. A circle of financial advisors who are associated with the same Wall St. firms that got the country into financial trouble.
<
p>Enabling of current and possible future torture on the part of the government.
<
p>Continued erosion of our civil liberties, for example by not restoring the authority of the FISA court.
<
p>Appointment of a Deficit Reduction Commission that was stacked with members who have advocated the end of Social Security. Such a commission was rejected by Congress. Obama created it anyway via executive order. (Why don’t we have an Employment Commission instead?)
<
p>If there had been only one or a few issues on which I disagreed, I would have a different overall opinion.
sabutai says
This is punditland fiction. “Sixty votes” is a rule that only began mattering very recently when it was abused. It could be made to stop mattering if anyone had the guts. This is the equivalent to decide against building a hospital because it might induce people across the street to jaywalk on their way to the emergency entrance — what’s more important, the rule or the result?
<
p>The Republicans were ready to blow up the filibuster over a few lower-level judgeships, yet the Democrats wouldn’t do it for healthcare?
mizjones says
<
p>If Obama gave me some substance for a good, heartfelt story I would jump on it. This is not about just one policy that I disagree with, in the context of many that I support. It’s the opposite. Obama has made a few decisions I support in the context of many more far-reaching ones that I do not.
<
p>I’ve said this before, Obama is either politically inept or a conservative Trojan horse. Bush made so many changes with fewer that 60 Republicans in the Senate. He used recess appointments and executive orders. Now I’m supposed to believe that such a degree of change is not possible. Huh??
charley-on-the-mta says
Don Berwick, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Inspired choice. Former Harvard Med. School prof and head of Institute for Healthcare Improvement, an organization that tries to figure out how to spend health care $ wisely, for the purpose of health not maximizing profits. You want a BFD? This was a BFD — absolutely massive amounts of money at stake — how do Medicare and Medicaid spend their monies? GOP was filibustering him.
<
p>You ever hear of Elizabeth Warren — whom they also would have filibustered?
<
p>This is off the top of my head.
<
p>Here’s the thing: Bush did recess appointments and executive orders, and that strikes you as strong, tough, decisive. Obama does the same damn thing, at great length and with arguably even greater consequences (hello EPA/CO2), and to you they’re all caves.
<
p>What. Ever. Thanks for providing as clear a case of liberal catastrophizing as one could ask for.
joeltpatterson says
Obama took too, too long to get to the recess appointments.
mizjones says
You have also, I trust, heard of:
<
p>Timothy Geithner
Larry Summers – named as a top economic adviser that did not require a confirmation
Ken Salazer (oversees Dept. of Interior, which ultimately oversaw drilling permits to BP)
Robert Gates – Bush holdover
<
p>It is not clear that Warren will have the authority she needs to make a difference. In October, she indicated that she thought the best way to get a handle on the foreclosure frauds would be through the courts. None but the Treasury Department is putting up a roadblock to this effort, by not allowing TARP funds to be used for legal aid to foreclosure victims. See Treasury’s War on Elizabeth Warren and Tarp Funds for Legal Services for Foreclosure Victims Blocked by Treasury
<
p>Refer to an article by Glenn Greenwald for some fierce comments about the other Obama economic appointees:
<
p>
<
p>Transcript of the Black interview: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…
hoyapaul says
It is correct that Obama should not be absolved of all responsibility for not pushing harder on some issues, or for his politically tone-deaf move of scolding the “professional left” and so forth. But the fact is that we need Obama and Democrats in Congress, or else progressive policies have NO chance of moving forward. We can complain about the direction of the Obama Administration; we can correctly grouse about his giving in to quickly to Republicans on things like tax cuts; we can lament is overly-cautious approach to important issues like repealing DADT.
<
p>At the end of the day, however, it’s a hell of a lot better to keep pushing for Obama and congressional Democrats to move on issues by explaining why we’re right and the Republicans are wrong, than it is to throw up one’s arms, give up, and make absurd accusations that Obama is a right-wing plant who’s just as bad as Bush. Not only does this ignore the realities of modern American governance, but it’s also giving up on your principles.
<
p>If we give up on Obama (and Democrats generally), then by default we give up the political system to the Republicans. And anyone who thinks that “this’ll show ’em” to ignore the Left, or that progressive policy has just as good a chance to move forward under a President Palin and Republican Congress, clearly isn’t paying close enough attention.
kbusch says
Next year is the time for unity.
<
p>This year, less so. Late 2010 is the time to pressure the Democratic leadership to fight rather than to place still more hope in pandering to non-existent persuadable conservatives.
mizjones says
http://my.firedoglake.com/ffla…
<
p>Wall St. makes sure that it has representation in both parties. Obama is one of “their guys”. You may call my accusation absurd, but please show me where he has forced Wall St. to take a hit in order to benefit ordinary people.
<
p>Show me the long list of advisers he has engaged to counter the forces of Wall St. I can think of one.
<
p>I am not giving up on Democrats in general. Most of the rank and file share traditional Democratic values and could be a powerful force to advance them. I don’t see a third party as a viable option.
<
p>I only give up on Democrats who can be seen turning their backs on these values again and again. This includes many in Congress as well as Obama. As Dick Durban said in a candid moment, “The banks own the place.”
jconway says
Ever since McGovern the Republicans run against Democrats being unpatriotic, non religious, and in favor of poor brown people instead of working white people like you and me. And it has worked in nearly every election except when their nominee pardoned an unpopular President, a third party candidate ran more effectively with the same message, or when Bush torpedoed the GOP brand through eight years of incompetence. And the only thing the Democrats can do is try and co-opt that language. We have been running scared for so long we have forgotten how to run strong. Most Americans are not liberals or conservatives. They just want food on their table, good schools for their kids, and peace and security abroad and at home. They tend to trust strong leaders that promise and deliver on these things and reject vacillating and indecisive leaders. It is time for Obama and the Democrats to go behind close doors, get on the same page, and then emerge loud, proud, and ballsy. Lets get it happen. The intra-party knifing has got to stop, but the spinelessness at the top needs to go as well.