I has some serious issues with Paul Krugman during the campaign, and his seemingly irrational criticisms of Obama. I really was confused as to what Krugman was doing to damage the prospects of the far better (than HRC and certainly McCain) candidate—I am just now starting to realize what he might have been getting at...
The Professor weighs in on the stimulus package the Senate put together, and he takes another swing at Obama in the process.
Only now Obama deserves the beatdown, and if anything, Krugman is letting him off too easily.
How the Democrats can take sweeping victories in all possible races, and the most positive Presidential approval ratings ever and turn that into a mandate for a handful of phony-ass "Centrists" to screw the pooch is beyond me.
In his attempt to give this package the sheen of bipartisan support, Obama (thru the all-to-willing Reid) handed all the power over to DINO Ben Nelson and the two or three Republicans that might come across to support it.
In this all-to-typical capitulation process the Senate scrapped and slashed pretty much all of the good stuff in favor of tax cuts that won't do jack shit to stimulate the economy. The bulk of the Republicans will still vote against it, and when it fails they will hang it on Obama and the Dems.
He has seriously kneecapped his Administration three weeks into the first* term, and fucked the country over even worse.
I am beyond disappointed.
*First? How 'bout only? I'm not sure I'm crazy to think this could set up a Carter-like downfall.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
About Me
Associates
Allies
- John Cole's Balloon Juice*
- The Phil Nugent Experience
- Andrew Sullivan*
- Political Animal | Steve Benen
- Matt Taibbi
- Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! Go!
- Talking Points Memo | Josh Marshall
- Obsidian Wings
- Gun Toting Liberal
- Shakesville
- Daniel Larison
- Daily Kos
- Mark Kleiman
- Digby
- Glenn Greenwald
- The Rude Pundit
- The Agitator | Radley Balko
- Crooks & Liars
- Kevin Drum *updated*
- The Talent Show
- Kung Fu Monkey
- BlondeSense
- Keith Olbermann
Athletics
And the rest...
- Sweet Juniper!
- blurbomat | Jon Armstrong
- dooce | Heather Armstrong
- LENS | NYTimes Photo Blog
- Stuff White People Like
- Boing Boing
- Kottke.org
- Jalopnik
- I Watch Stuff | Movies, etc.
- The Superficial
- AlternaDad | Neal Pollack
- Offsprung
- GeekDad
- The Comics Curmudgeon
- Superdickery.com
- Seanbaby
- Cap'n Design
- An "Onion" Classic
- Stuff White People Like
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from Mr Furious 53. Make your own badge here.
Archive
-
▼
2009
(212)
-
▼
February
(27)
- Stupidest Post of the Day
- The Daily Lie
- GOP = Sonny Liston
- Post-Game Analysis [UPDATED]
- SOTU Liveblogging
- Why It's Called "Fat Tuesday"
- Grade AA
- Dick of the Week: Fight! FIGHT!
- Oscar [the Grouch]
- Tool Time
- The Task
- Quote of the Day
- Happy Valentine's Day...
- Dick of the Week: Juan Williams
- Sabotage
- Lecture Hall
- Not Getting It
- Obama Accessorizes
- FAIL
- Bite me.
- Sunday Link Dump
- Medicatin' in the Minivan
- POTD: A Letter From Michael Phelps
- Howard's In?
- Accounting 101
- Dick of the Week: Christian Bale
- Affirmative Action
-
▼
February
(27)
Adding It Up
8 comments:
"How the Democrats can take sweeping victories in all possible races, and the most positive Presidential approval ratings ever and turn that into a mandate for a handful of phony-ass "Centrists" to screw the pooch is beyond me"
What does this mean?
In other words, Obama and the Democrats were in a position to capitalize on a broad mandate based on the elections for a new direction—an actually bold, progressive agenda. A massive public works project...something.
They should have gone to the two or three reasonable Republicans and saying, "Here's your chance to cross over and be on the right side."
Instead, they went on their knees and asked, "What do we have to do to get your votes? Seriously, you name it! We'll do whatever you want..."
I think Obama was correct to initially offer the Republicans a chance to contribute, but once it became clear that all they would offer is spending and tax cuts, Obama should have just walked on by.
There is no need to pass a crappy plan with 58 Democrats and 2 Republicans if it sucks and won't help the country, just so Obama can call it bipartisan. The 38 Republicans that oppose it and the whole damn media are sure as hell going to label it a Democratic plan anyway.
He could have pushed for a GOOD plan that would actually help the economy and the country and rammed it through, daring the Republicans to stop it.
By letting a few Senators in the middle exact their pound of flesh, Reid and Obama have spoiled the chance for this to do as much (or any) good.
So let me ask another silly question .. if there are more democrats than republicans in the senate than who cares if it is a bipartisan package or not?
Now, I squeaked by American Government with a 65 average and I am pretty sure its because the teacher didn't want me back .. but doesn't majority win the vote? Or am I missing something here?
Why can't he just push the plan he wants through without the 2 republican votes? Or is that basically what you are saying .. lol.
And really if I am way off base and completely not getting it, please feel free to pat me on the head and direct me to the little bus. lol
Dude, you seriously need to come in off the ledge. Here. And here. Not dismissing your concerns as invalid, but we're a long way from the point where anyone should be getting apoplectic.
No, Furious is right.
The right wing lost the argument. They are wrong.
There is no need to appease, no need to back down, no need to give them everything.
Just say: OK, this plan is too expensive? We'd better get rid of the tax cuts.
I wouldn't go as far to say there was a mandate, nor does there seem to be support for another huge bailout. Personally, I would have preferred they take their time instead of trying to ram this through as fast as they can and only include about 5% towards infrastructure.
I'm with Steves. One reason that no one is happy is that the whole plan looks like it was thrown together at the last minute with duct tape and chewing gum.
Unlike that debacle of a "bailout bill" last fall, slowwwwwwwwwwwwww down and THINK about what needs to be included and what doesn't.
Put together a solid bill that includes infrastructure spending (although not even close to $900 billion of it), some of the tax cuts that Obama campaigned on, and eliminate all the porky nonsense, both the left and right wing versions of it. WE need to save, not spend right now. The deficit is already too damn big.
Then, once the bill is solid and sound (and in the $500 billion range, or preferably a lot less), tell the fucking Republicans to pound sand if they don't like it. No one needs their votes.
There is no need to pass a crappy plan with 58 Democrats and 2 Republicans if it sucks and won't help the country, just so Obama can call it bipartisan.
You got it. That's the whole problem. So starved is Obama to be the antithesis of the last 8 years that he is actually missing what it means to be that antithesis. There's reaching across the aisle, then there's capitulating to a tyrannical minority. Obama's doing the latter, and he looks weak.
Cole had my favorite analogy of bipartisanship:
I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.
And Obama is saying "well, I guess I can stomach some anthrax so I can say that we have an agreement on dinner, but you gotta eat a least a little salad, okay? No?"
Post a Comment