Lawrence O'Donnell Bugs Me

[no limit]

Today he spent the entire show beating "progressives" over the head with the idea that Obama didn't have any choice on the tax cut issue. He kept insisting it was impossible for a president to pass a tax increase.

What was really ironic about that is he finished his show with commentary about the Clinton tax bill. Clinton in 1993 did get tax increases passed. When Clinton did this it was called one of the biggest tax increases in our history by the media. Yet he did it. And we had some of the best economic times ever during his administration.

So in the first part of his show Lawrence O'Donnell said Obama had absolutely no way to pass tax increases on only a tiny fraction of our population even if Obama has huge majorities in both chambers of congress. He belittled anyone that thought any different from him on this point. Yet in the last part of this same exact show he explained how Clinton was able to pass a tax INCREASE on EVERYBODY with much less Democratic members in congress and far less public support.

Did anyone else watching his show tonight notice this? I can't believe none of his guests called him out on it. This type of blatnant hypocrisy really frustrates me.

[dennis4868]

1. He's actually a very smart person...

and the only person in primetime that actually knows how the congress works because he used to write the laws....he made alot of sense tonight.....great show!

[no limit]

5. So you disagree with what I said?

On which part?

[dennis4868]

17. Yes...

Obama had no other choice but to make this deal with the repubs.....NO MATTER WHAT, THE REPUBS WOULD CONTINUE TO FILLUBUSTER ANY TAX CUT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS ONLY.....No matter what Obama would do the repubs would not give in to a tax cut only for the middle class....Obama and the American people were being held hostage for tax cuts for the rich and Obama could do nothing and allow tax rates go up on the middle class or make a deal which he did and he got unemployment insurance for another 13 months, extending the earned income tax credit to benefit families, college tax credits, and a pay-roll tax cut.

[no limit]

21. So how did Clinton pass a tax increase with far less democrats in congress?

[Capn Sunshine]

24. By compromising

he gave them financial deregulation. Maybe you forgot about that.

[no limit]

26. Can you be more specific please?

The financial deregulation that took place didn't occur until the end of Clinton's term. Tax cuts occured at the beginning of his term.

If you have some actual examples I wouldn't mind being proved wrong.

[dennis4868]

27. Actually....

Clinton was not up against a fillubuster....he only needed 51 votes. Obama needs 60 votes for EVERYTHING! That's a major difference....also, last week Obama got more senate votes in his favor (53) for a tax increase on the rich than did Clinton (51). But like I said, Clinton only needed 51 votes, Obama needs 60 votes.

[no limit]

31. So the filibuster didn't exist during the Clinton administration?

you sure about that?

[dennis4868]

39. It did....

but the repubs were not using it every damn time there was a vote like they do now....they realized that they did not obstruct enough during the clinton years and that's why they feel he got re-elected. Now they fillubuster everything to obstruct and now allow any improvement in the economy and they know that liberals will blame Obama and not them.

[no limit]

41. ahh, so you are saying that things were far more civil during the Clinton administration than now?

I seem to recall this thing about a stain on a dress, what was that all about in this civil enviroment?

[dennis4868]

48. The stain on the dress was during Clinton's 2nd term...

in any event, the fact is that Clinton's tax increase was not fillubustered by the repubs although they did not get one repub vote but enough to pass the senate (51 votes). VP Gore had to vote to break the tie.

[no limit]

52. So why did they not filibuster then but they do now?

I mean they were willing to impeach back then. Filibuster seems like a much simpler idea, no?

[dennis4868]

55. As I said...

The repubs now say they were wrong for not making life more miserable for clinton by fillubustering all the time during his first term (they feel that this is why he got re-elected) and now that they have learned their lesson they fillubuster everything under Obama.

[no limit]

62. The only problem with your theory is that they did filibuster under Clinton

they did so all the time.

So what other excuse do you have?

[dennis4868]

64. YOU MISSED MY POINT....

THEY DID NOT FILLUBUSTER CLINTON'S ECONOMIC PLAN TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY...CLINTON ONLY NEEDED 51 VOTES. Obama needs 60 votes....SO WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT?

[no limit]

68. No, I got your point perfectly

you said they didn't filibuster Clinton's tax increases. I am asking you why? They were willing to filibuster all kinds of Clinton's policies. On top of that they were willing to impeach him. So why stop at the tax increases, why did they let those pass?

[dennis4868]

74. The tax increases were...

early on in the clinton presidency....things did not go very bad between clinton and the repubs until Ginchrich took over power in the House (Clinton's first term - 2nd year)....that's when all the fighting/impeaching started in the 1990s....But remember, before Obama the fillubuster was not really used to kill legislation. It was used to get certain things included in legislation ALL THE TIME.

[no limit]

76. So you are saying Gingrich is everything that is wrong with our country today?

Which is why Clinton won reelection?

Im not sure if you are aware of this but Gingrich was in the house since 1978. Which is long before Clinton.

[dennis4868]

67. By the way...

the repubs have completely broken the filubuster record in just 2 years under Obama...But with regard to the Clinton plan to raise taxes on the wealthy he only needed 51 votes because the repubs decided not to fillubuster....in Obama's case he needs 60 votes to increase taxes on the wealthy....

[JamesA1102]

78. Here's a chart

[phleshdef]

83. At no point in history has the filibuster threat been used like this.

[no limit]

85. WHY?

[JamesA1102]

94. I don't know

but maybe you should build a time machine and go back and ask them why.

[phleshdef]

96. lol, best response of the night.

[JamesA1102]

98. He does seem to be

purposely dense.

[no limit]

99. So you are under the impression that the past never matters?

Becauase we don't have time machines?

Funny enough Bush agrees with you.

[JamesA1102]

109. No But times and conditions change over time.

And to not recognize those realities is being dense.

[karynnj]

113. Yes they were - in 1993 - long before Monica arrived on the scene

Many of the more moderate Republicans then were knocked out for more conservative ones.

[dennis4868]

28. Actually....

Clinton was not up against a fillubuster for his tax increase....he only needed 51 votes. Obama needs 60 votes for EVERYTHING! That's a major difference....also, last week Obama got more senate votes in his favor (53) for a tax increase on the rich than did Clinton (51). But like I said, Clinton only needed 51 votes, Obama needs 60 votes.

[JamesA1102]

57. Because back in those days the GOP was not abusing the cloture rule

yet Clinton didn't get all the Dem votes and VP Gore had to be the tie breaker.

[no limit]

Why didn't they abuse it then? They were willing to impeach...

and you are trying to tell me that eventhough they were happy to impeach they would take the high road on the filibuster? That makes no sense to me since the republicans used the filibuster under Clinton all the time.

[JamesA1102]

75. That was in Clinton's second term, not in his first.

And since the GOP controled the Senate during most of Clinton's presidency they didn't use it all the time.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

66. O'Donnell said Clinton could have done it with 53 votes...

...but the rules have changed and now you need 60 votes.

[no limit]

72. When did the filibuster rules change?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

80. I'm only reporting *exactly* what he said, in fact...

...it wasn't clear to me whether he meant that literally or figuratively. :shrug:

I hope someone can clear this up.

[no limit]

84. I say he was full of shit. If anyone wants to clarify that fine by me

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

88. I'll wait for clarification, too, but in the meantime...

...I just couldn't believe the way he talked over everyone making his point that Democratic Presidents never get what they want from Republicans, why expect Obama to get what he wants?

And when Adam Green gave examples of Presidents who used the bully pulpit, like Harry Truman, he shouted, "Democratic President. Give me ONE Democratic President."

FUCK!

[no limit]

90. His point was using weasel words.

He might be technically be right. But the point is that Clinton got tax increases for EVERYBODY passed without any republican votes. So why does Obama need any when he has far more democrats in congress than Clinton could even imagine?

[Bandit]

115. He did it by reconcilliation, remember how Al Gore had to cast the tie breaking vote.

The same way Bush* got the tax cuts passed in the first place. Without the help of Ben Nelson Republicans would not have the fifty votes needed so Dick Cheney could cast his tie breaking vote.

[hlthe2b]

10. That he is... HOWEVER, he was demonstrably wrong...

on his much lauded viewpoint that health care reform would never pass, COULD never be passed on reconciliation. He was extremely vocal and repetitive against those assertions, which were proven wrong. I like LO. He is intelligent and has a lot to offer to the discussion. I will always welcome, listen to and consider his opinion. But, just don't assume he can't be wrong.

[dennis4868]

22. ummmmm....

every media person who is giving their opinion about the tac cut deal has been wrong about something...so what's your point?

[hlthe2b]

34. Some want to point to LO as justification that THEY are

automatically right and the opposite viewpoints held by KO, RM, and several on LO's panel are automatically wrong. While I give LO his due, that is a ridiculous assertion, IMO. LO has been proven very publicly wrong on issues on which he held claim to superior expertise to the mere pundit, columnist, or political activist who held opposite opinions.

[dennis4868]

42. But he sure makes sense...

with regard to the latest tax cut deal between Obama and the repubs....he knows how congress works and alot of these people who go on TV have no idea...he especially knows about tax policy....that was his expertise while he worked in congress.

[dennis4868]

43. But he sure makes sense...

with regard to the latest tax cut deal between Obama and the repubs....he knows how congress works and alot of these people who go on TV have no idea...he especially knows about tax policy....that was his expertise while he worked in congress.

[hlthe2b]

49. He's a smart guy... He will undoubtedly offer good insights

on a variety of issues. That doesn't mean he will always be right. In fact, in discussions on issues in previous months, I recall RM mentioning a number of changes in Senate procedures and policies that have occurred since the Clinton era, which is when LO last served in the Senate. So, even with his vast experience, that does not mean that his interpretation or assessment of the current setting will be correct.

To wit, many here hung their hat on his very adamant statements re: HCR passing and that reconciliation could not be used. I recall that vividly. He was, in the end, quite wrong on that score.

[dennis4868]

59. From what I read the guy still hangs out at the senate...

and keeps up with the happenings of the senate....put it this way, I trust him more than RM and KO....Tonight RM was not being intellectually dishonest when attacking Obama's deal with the repubs....

[hlthe2b]

60. I fell asleep during RM... will have to watch later...

[dennis4868]

61. From what I read the guy still hangs out at the senate...

and keeps up with the happenings of the senate....put it this way, I trust him more than RM and KO....Tonight RM was not being intellectually dishonest when attacking Obama's deal with the repubs....

[JamesA1102]

82. I don't agree

I think RM was being very intellectually dishonest. She cherry picked facts and misrepresented what the President said.

[JamesA1102]

53. I thought so too.

I loved it when he asked that one gut what was the lowest tax bracket and he didn't know. How out of touch is that?

I also loved it when he called out Hamsher for lying about the estate tax.

[Subdivisions]

2. You know he was a Congressional aide in 1994, don't you? n/t

[no limit]

4. I do, in what way does that dispute what I just said?

[Subdivisions]

7. It doesn't. I was just pointing it out just in case you hadn't heard him brag about it

several thousand times.

Indeed, I agree with you. He was being a big dick.

[GOPNotForMe]

13. OMG I just bitched about that below.

Didn't see your comment. Apparently spending a few years on the Hill doing behind-the-scenes bitch work means you are an expert on anything legislative and you can shut your guests down with this amazing factoid every. single. night.

[hlthe2b]

25. More than that, he was Chief of Staff to Senate Finance committee

when Moynihan chaired it, leading the tax-writng efforts for Clinton's first budget.

That said, he, like anyone else, can sometimes be wrong. Smart guy, though and one whose opinions shouldn't be discounted.

[provis99]

3. O'Donnell is just an angry, incoherent socialist.

He hates liberals, and won't pass up an opportunity to bash them as weak and cowardly. He's just bitter because his own political preferences aren't held by too many Americans.

[hlthe2b]

15. Your statement makes no sense at all....

"an angry, incoherent socialist" that "hates liberals" What the hell does that even mean?

[flamingdem]

37. Bernie is a socialist, but Lawrence is also very pragmatic, not idealistic nt

[TwilightGardener]

6. They were not able to pass a middle-class-only tax cut (which would have

meant the wealthy's would expire) in the Senate. The measure failed. So, he's right.

[no limit]

12. He kept insisting it was not possible to pass tax increases

then he went to explain the Clinton tax bill which did just that. How do you consider that "right"?

[TwilightGardener]

20. The Senate held a vote to essentially increase the wealthy's taxes (by letting

their cuts expire, but saving the middle class cuts) and it failed. This just happened last week--not in 1994 or whenever. So he's correct.

[no limit]

29. You didn't answer my question. I would appreciate if you did

Clinton didn't have 58 democrats in the senate, he had far less. Yet he was able to pass tax increases on EVERYBODY. How did he do that?

[TwilightGardener]

38. Different times, different circumstances, different Democrats, different Republicans,

different economy, different media.

[no limit]

44. Wow, how much things change in just 15 years.

I guess back then things were magical. Those were the good old days. It's not like the republicans would do something crazy such as impeaching a president over a blow job. No sir. Things were civil back then.

[TwilightGardener]

46. Things have changed a lot in 15 years. And they're searching for a way

to impeach Obama as we speak--probably for less than perjury.

[no limit]

50. Yet they didn't filibuster back then. Why?

[TwilightGardener]

51. I don't know.

[no limit]

54. That's my issue, I don't know also. But it makes no fucking sense.

And Lawrence could have mentioned this irony, he chose not to.

[GOPNotForMe]

8. He annoys me too.

I liked him on the McLaughlin Group and enjoyed him well enough as a commentator on the various MSNBC programs. But he is insufferable on his own show. He is smug and cocky as hell, rude to his guests, seems to have a very short fuse, and thinks being a contrarian means he's right.

And how many times per week does he bring up that he worked on the Hill at some point so therefore he knows more than any guest ever? He pulled that crap tonight on Jane Hamsher re: passing a middle-class tax cut in February or March being impossible because writing retroactive tax code is impossible. Who said they'd be retroactive tax cuts? Ugh he's a douche.

[asdjrocky]

9. DLC MSNBC plant. nt

Don't watch him.

[NorthCarolina]

105. Like Chris Matthews. nt

[tpsbmam]

11. I have to disagree. I liked hearing his perspective and thought his show

was balanced. He had a good mix of guests & heard a variety of perspectives. I don't think he beat progressives over the head, I think he merely talked about his take on the Obama tax issue coming from his perspective as someone who's been involved in writing & getting tax legislation passed. Thought it was an interesting show. He didn't convince me, but his input made me think.

[no limit]

18. I dont mind hearing his perspective but it bugs the shit out of me

what made me upset was actually the guests. They were weak, didn't challange him.

[JI7]

14. he criticized Landrieu who isn't progressive , liberal etc

[no limit]

16. Thank you for bringing this up

he made it seem like Landrieu was some new progressive hero today. Did you see any threads on here praising Landrieu?

[JI7]

19. i saw one earlier , someone brought her up as a way to bash Obama

it was something like "even Landrieu opposes........"

[no limit]

23. You think "even Landrieu opposes..." is an endorsement of Landrieu?

I didn't see a thread, but that certainly doesn't seem like an endorsement of her. Yet he did make it seem like she was some new progressive hero.

[Poboy]

36. Right. Why not run a Sanders clip?

[no limit]

40. I'm not sure I understood your reply

[BzaDem]

30. He never said it was impossible to let taxes increase in general. He specifically said that it was

impossible to convince any Republican today to vote for a tax increase.

And he is exactly correct. People who think giving speeches in Republican states will change a SINGLE Republican vote (let alone 7) are delusional.

[no limit]

33. How many republicans voted for the Clinton tax increase?

Believe me, lawrence o'donnell weasle words on this issue didn't go over my head.

[BzaDem]

45. Not a single one. They had reconciliation instructions in the budget, so they could use

reconciliation. We do not have a budget, because blue dogs (and some progressives) wouldn't vote for one. That prevents new reconciliation instructions. So no reconciliation.

[no limit]

56. So you are saying we can't get 50 democrats out of 60 to agree to a tax cut for the middle class?

While more than 50 democrats agreed to a tax INCREASE for everyone during the Clinton administration?

[BzaDem]

63. No. I am saying 60 is the threshold, because we cannot use reconciliation

for the reasons I just stated (no budget was passed).

[no limit]

65. So Clinton got his tax increases passed using only a majority because of the budget resolution?

Obama didn't have the same option?

[BzaDem]

79. Correct, because no budget was passed, because progressives and blue dogs couldn't agree on a budget

No budget, no budget reconciliation.

[no limit]

89. So the democrats don't have 50 members in the senate that said they were for middle class tax cuts?

Even if those tax cuts didn't include the richest americans? Now I know the blue dogs are convenient punching bags but are you absolutely sure that what you just said is true?

[BzaDem]

92. How many times can I say it. We do have 50. 50 ISN'T ENOUGH. We need 60.

We cannot use budget reconciliation, since no budget was passed.

We held a vote on the middle class tax cuts only. It got 53 votes. Therefore, it FAILED, because 53 is a lower number than 60, and 60 is the requirement.

[no limit]

100. Again, Obama had the same tools available to him that Clinton did.

How you keep not getting this is beyond me.

[BzaDem]

101. Not when House progressives and House bluedogs couldn't agree on a budget.

They did agree on a budget under Clinton. They didn't under Obama. Therefore, no budget. Therefore, no budget reconciliation available.

[no limit]

104. And Clinton had nothing to do with the fact he got his caucus (which was much smaller than Obama's)

to go along with him?

I often heard Obama being called a jedi master. I guess you think that's the case for Clinton, right? He must have had some amazing magical jedi powers back then that Obama can't harvest.

[Sheepshank]

32. I think Lawrence O has quite a brilliant mind and a clear way to see the political maneuverings..

If there is anything that bugs me about his presentation, is that it feels like he dumbs it down a little too much. I wish he'd keep up the graduate level rhetoric and bring us all long. It may do us all a little good!

[flamingdem]

35. He looked very smart tonight after the diatribes by KO and Rachel nt

[seabeckind]

47. I found him to be insufferable

He kept belittling his guests and refused to recognize their positions.

For example, he said Obama had to compromise on the estate tax because it was currently zero and any other move Obama might make would not have a good result. But the estate tax reverts to the pre-bush rates next month if nothing is done. So the threat to the repubs is to do nothing. They would have to compromise to get anything. Same with everything else.

I agree totally with whoever pointed out that Obama had no business making any deal behind congress' back. As far as I'm concerned the dem leadership should point out to anyone who might listen that they don't work for Obama and that they make the tax rules -- not him.

He's just a guy with an opinion -- and it sucks.

[phleshdef]

81. His logic was infallable and they are responsible for their own embarassments.

They were nailed by his arguments and had no real rebuttle in return. They were reduced to stuttering over their weak arguments. But I can understand why one might find real world logic to be insufferable when it flies in the face of their stubborn ass point of view.

[no limit]

86. Instead of attacking who is not here can you respond to what I said instead?

I would appreciate that.

[OHdem10]

58. The problem is the two wings of the Party and each Senator

thinks he or she is the "king/queen of the Hill.

When they took a vote in the Senate, how many Senators
did not support that last bill.

If Obama had had a 60 vote majority he could have
simply pushed his version through. He did not have
the votes in his own Party. This meant he went
into Negotiations in a weak position rather
than a position of strength. The GOP knew this.

We have deficit hawks who think this is the only
issue.

[madinmaryland]

69. Think about this. Clinton got the tax bill passed, but there was no way

he could get any sort of health care reform passed and essentially gave up. Obama got health care reform passed, but there was no way he was going to get a tax bill passed.

IT's called political capital.

[no limit]

70. Obama's HCR reform was insanely weak compared to Clinton's

So I hoenstly don't buy that argument. Especially when you look at the fact the majority of Americans didn't support tax cuts for the rich

[TwilightGardener]

71. Which one is now law?

[no limit]

73. I think my point went way over your head.

Once again.

[TwilightGardener]

77. You get the strongest legislation that will pass out of the Senate. Why is

that over YOUR head?

[no limit]

107. How was Clinton able to get unpopular legislation through the senate?

You keep ignoring this.

[madinmaryland]

87. The point is, the president normally has one shot at getting a major piece

of legislation passed. Obama and Clinton both got their one major signature piece passed.

[no limit]

91. The point is that Obama had much greater majorites and got far less done

[BzaDem]

93. Than Clinton???

:rofl:

[nckjm]

95. Well, he sure bugged me tonight!

I totally disagreed with his assessment. I just don't see how we can give in to their "hostage demands" and not expect this to their MO for the next two years until they take back the White House and both houses of Congress in 2012(they are UNSTOPPABLE). They've seen how easy it was to get what they want by taking Americans hostage...why wouldn't they use this strategy again and again. They might find it much easier than just saying "no" all the time. They are brilliant strategists. No one can touch them in that regard. They were temporarily out of office, but NEVER out of power. Wake up America.

[lamp_shade]

97. Damn I missed it. I'll look for clips.

[inna]

102. I noticed he was screaming at Jane Hamsher, too, it was weird.

[karynnj]

103. The tax increases were in the budget - and passing the budget needs just 50 votes

There were more than 50 Democrats then and there were some sane Republicans.

This needs 60 votes and there is NOT A SINGLE Republican in favor of it. As O'Donnell pointed out, there were 3 votes on Saturday - on the President's preferred plan of no roll back above $250,000 - and two alternatives with the threshold set at $500,000 and $1 million. Each got just 53 votes - 7 short. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/04/senate-republicans-block-tax-cut-plan-that-leaves-out-high-earner/ How would you get that passed.

O'Donnell did not say that Obama could not get this if he even if Obama has huge majorities in both chambers of congress. He said he can not get it through the Senate and he pointed to the three votes.

[no limit]

106. And Obama couldn't have done the same with his budget?

[karynnj]

112. Not at this time

The budget is done only once a year.

[no limit]

116. I understand that. They didn't see this problem coming in 2009 nor earlier this year?

[ddeclue]

108. It's NOT passing a tax increase..it's letting tax cuts lapse..NOT the same thing.

Larry the Liar...:eyes:

[realFedUp]

110. Not a fan of his.

I don't think his show will last.

[no limit]

111. I would love for them to replace him with Cenk

[Bluenorthwest]

114. Larry and his wife will get tons of extra cash from the cut

It is that simple. He makes huge money, so does she, and they will save more than most of us make. So of course he will defend the butter on his own damn bread.

[morningglory]

117. I like him, but he spoke out against the "public option" and has

spoken against Social Security in past appearances in the media.