The far-left purist position on the tax compromise would be a death knell for the Democrats.

[RBInMaine]

The far-left purist position can not and will not pass the United States Senate under any conceivable circumstance. Period. End of story. These purists do not represent mainstream liberals nor the majority of the nation which wants to extend middle class tax cuts, extend the stimulus tax cuts for the middle class, and extend unemployment benefits. The purists will NOT (as they did NOT with healthcare and do NOT on ANY issue) get millions of people to storm the halls of congress to get their position enacted. (Where was THEIR "fight" during the healthcare debate? Christ, even the nutcase Glenn Beck can muster more people to the National Mall. Were they out in droves standing up to the TeaHaters as the TeaHaters stormed and shouted and screamed at town hall after town hall meeting? No. They were home bitching about Obama being too far to the right over the public option, and then many didn't even bother to get off their butts to vote. They sulked instead.) It is utter foolishness. Too many of these people have never governed a damn thing, nor do they understand political reality and how our system works.
They can not see that if middle class tax cuts expire and more and more people who are unemployed go without unemployment benefits, it will be terrible for the economy and Democrats will be blamed. Whether the purists want to see it or not, the R's did in fact actually have to deal and they did in fact have to give up on many of their policy preferences. And, as Obama has said, this policy and principle fight will go on even with the compromise. Anyone who has their pulse on the sentiments of the national majority of citizens knows that a failure to act due to ideological squabbling will be extemely damaging to our party. Please naysayers, see the obvious writing on the wall. Pass this moderate compromise, and fight the ideological fight soon enough but a little further down the road. Otherwise, get used to even more R's in congress in 2013, and then you'll be real happy won't you?

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Very insightful post. Thank you. Rec'd eom

[msongs]

2. yes those awuful scummy far left purists who thought obama's words had value lol nt

[dgibby]

5. Yep, the same ones who worked and contributed to get him elected.

Just proves how out of touch and stupid they are, doesn't it?

:evilgrin:

[Psephos]

3. You said what needs to be said.

Truthful words are not beautiful;
beautiful words are not truthful.
Good words are not persuasive;
persuasive words are not good.
- Lao-Tzu. Tao-te-ching.

[mikekohr]

21. Nice

[bluestateguy]

4. It's not far left, but I do see your point

And the fact is that John Bayner's House will not vote for a dime of more unemployment insurance. This bill locks in 13 more months (until February 2012).

But it's not far left to oppose it. Plenty of sensible people on the center left, the center and even the center right have a problem with more tax cuts for the rich.

[RBInMaine]

8. And so do I, but they are TEMPORARY, and ACTION is needed NOW.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. They'll help make up for the coming social security cuts.

Great stuff, marvelous.

[polmaven]

27. I think the UI extension

of 13 months is for the period of 12/1/10 through 12/31/11

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Because 18 years of 'compromise' has worked so well (tm)

Our economy is strong. Our middle class is vibrant. We are at peace.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RBInMaine]

13. I've organized and worked more political campaigns than most people have seen. The TeaBaggers have

out-organized the "progressives" dramatically over the last two years in the national big picture regardless of some exceptions. When you in your infinite wisdom can articulate a scenario where the public option could have passed the US Senate or where your desire to only extend tax cuts for the middle class can as well (which just FAILED in the Senate in case you hadn't noticed), then response again. I do not agree with the tax cuts for the rich at all, but in politics you do what is POSSIBLE, not what is "ideal" which usually doesn't exist.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. The teabaggers have Fox News, RW radio, and a shitload of Dick Armey money behind them.

And if the public option had no chance in the Senate then why the FUCK was it promised? What did they expect to happen when they pulled a cynical bait-and-switch on progressive activists like that? And it wasn't just us dirty hippies who were pissed. There were quite a few Dem members of Congress who had to be arm twisted and cajoled to get on board because they were threating to vote against it.

What does that have to do with what I posted at the HCR rallies anyway? YOU were the one talking about how the Far Left Purists aren't going out in the community to promote our ideas. I gave you an example of progressives doing just that and you ignored it to lecture me about the legislative process.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. you speak the truth.

expect to be hated.


But please keep speaking!

:hug:

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Here in my State we send two Democrats to the Senate

And I have DeFazio in the House. We get it done. Now in Maine, they have Snowe and Collins, two Republicans, and I say that is because the Democrats there fail to elect Democrats to the Senate.

[RBInMaine]

18. Maine has an indy streak, and Snowe and Collins are "moderate" Maine institutions.

[CakeGrrl]

9. Mobilization - not a strong suit here, methinks.

Conspiracy theorization? Check.

Armchair quarterbacking? Yep.

Vision? Long-term thinking? Not so much.

[RBInMaine]

17. Spot on.

[Hello_Kitty]

26. What do you do?

You must be really active in your community. Share some of your tactics with us.

[CakeGrrl]

40. I'm not part of the "Primary Obama" crowd

so I'm simply making my observations reading the comments of those who do.

Those who do want him challenged also seem to largely have this "he needs to give me a reason to vote for him" attitude, which is rather passive. It goes with the comments that imply that they'll happily vote for a primary challenger if one materializes. And in some cases "anyone but Obama" will do.

Not that I'm interested in coaching or encouraging this contingent, because I'll oppose a primary challenge, but I wonder who will truly LEAD it? And will they get this sub-group of Democrats who clearly seem to abhor the notion of "cat herding" to coalesce behind this sole hope to unseat the President?

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Well that's a non-answer.

Pretty much what I expected. Again, I'll ask. Are you, CakeGrrl, doing anything substantive to organize support in your community for the President's objectives?

[Bluenorthwest]

10. When religious anti-equality politicians claim to be "Sanctified"

when they explain why some minorities should not have equal rights, the defenders of those politicians appear to be insane when they speak of others as promoting 'purism'. The President promotes theological, traditional purity of prejudice against GLBT people. He actually says his kind are 'sanctified by God'. So coming around calling others names about sanctimony and purity is just hilarious, stark raving comedy gold.
"God says I am better than you. Also, you are sanctimonious." I mean, come on, the irony is thick.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. Lol. Resisting the bush tax cats is a far left position now..?

[RBInMaine]

16. They are being resisted. They aren't permanent, nor will they be, and that fight will continue.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. Lol..

[Hello_Kitty]

25. If this 2 year extension goes through, color them permanent.

There's always some way the GOP can hold the American people hostage.

[baldguy]

15. And you know this how?

The fact is the "far-left purist" position - for taxes, for health care, for support for the middle-class, for unemployment extensions, for anything - has NEVER been fought for by our "Democratic" politicians, in spite of the overwhelming support of the Democratic base and the populace in general.

That's the major difference between the Dems and the GOP. Not that the GOP has a different ideology, not that they lie incessantly and needlessly about everything, not that they're corporatists, proto-fascists and fascists. It's that Republican elected officials stand together and fight for their principles. That is what draws independents & other politically disinterested people to the GOP. People view them as winners, and the GOP's propaganda arm consciously works to promote that view.

The death-knell of the Democrats will be if they continue to do as they've always done - capitulate to the Republicans at every turn. Why bother voting for Democrats if they don't introduce legislation in support of Democratic principles and don't vote for it when it comes up?

[RBInMaine]

22. You don't get it. In a recession, the majority wants RESULTS. This compromise needs to happen be-

cause it is what the economy needs RIGHT NOW. I agree with what you say in terms of needing to have principles, a clear message, unity, etc., but current economics DEMANDS this action and time is of the essence. If this fails, the economy will suffer and the R's will be able to blame the Dems since they have signed on to the compromise. This will damage our party bigtime. It will be very, very nasty for us. We just tried to pass a tax extension only for the middle class, and it FAILED. Do you think that is going to change somehow? Now is simply not the time to wage this ideological war. The majority you speak of want economic results, and in the end they don't give a rats ass how the sausage is made. You are gambling with the food on people's tables. The issue of PERMANENT tax cuts will continue to be there and will be there going in to 2012, and at that time we'll have a wonderful opportunity to wage that fight. (And I am NOT for permanent tax cuts for the greedy rich anymore than you are.) Right now we have to think in terms of economics and timing. For NOW, the economy needs this bill to pass. It is what is POSSIBLE.

[baldguy]

31. When was the Senate debate on the middle-class tax cut?

When was the vote?

Right: The House passed it, but it was NEVER brought to the floor in the supposedly DEMOCRATIC-controlled Senate, and it was NEVER debated there and NEVER voted on. Therefor the DEMOCRATIC Senate leadership and the DEMOCRATIC President NEVER tried to pass it. Instead they caved to the Republicans, to their eternal shame.

[CakeGrrl]

41. There were two failed procedural votes last Saturday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x553473

And Obama clearly indicated that he DID want it done earlier, and Congress failed to bring the votes. Blame Congress. Do they not have responsibility for their actions in representing the interest of their constituencies, or is the President responsible for personally ensuring that they do THEIR jobs as well?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. K&U nt

[OHdem10]

23. Drop the Far Left Purist bit, please. Not even Republ;icans

who know me, would not call me that.

[jefferson_dem]

28. You make much sense.

Does.Not.Compute.

Where's the anger, the hate, the cynicism, the principle over progress?! C'mon... get with the program!

[whosinpower]

29. This tax cut compromise thingy will win not a single democratic vote

In just a few short months - in 2011 when the mantra of cutting social security rises from the steaming heap of deficits - I will ask you if a person should kick the ideology fight down the road once again and give in.

I will tell you a secret. If a leader shows such little regard in his principles, his own ideology, that he gives it up bit by bit, piece by piece, for the sake of getting something done rather than nothing, at the end of the day, why should we have any faith in that leader, when he has no committment to his own principles or what he believes in? What does he stand for? What does he believe in? Where are his principles that he tosses them away at the first opportunity? The house passed a bill to extend tax cuts to the middle and lower class - overwhelmingly. The people want it. OBAMA CAMPAIGNED ON CEASING TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY. HE WON OVERWHELMINGLY. HE HAS A MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE TO FULFILL. The Senate shut it down. Where was Obama's threat that inaction would be on THEIR heads?

This issue was a no-brainer for the democrats. They had allot of popular support for their stand. And if there were democrats who needed to be taken to the woodshed - then so be it - DO IT. But do not infer that more republicans would get elected if democrats and Obama dared to fight for something they were supposed to have believed in. And I will say something more - taking certain persons to the woodshed IS NOT FAILING TO ACT. IT IS FIGHTING FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.

We have heard the song - fight another day before. Save your powder.

[Davis_X_Machina]

30. It would be a glorious defeat, though.

Righteous. This place would be rocking.

And isn't that what it's all about?

[grahamhgreen]

33. This is moronic. If we do nothing - the tax cuts expire. It's a win. He's killing our party.

You may not be in the right party.

[CakeGrrl]

42. I'll bet people who actually have a personal stake in UI benefits would disagree with you.

Republicans gave the unemployed a big "screw you" during the vote to extend those, and thanks to the President, they're back in play. People who depend on that money for basic survival probably have more pressing issues to consider than your standoff approach.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

35. Does DU have a "wagging finger" smiley?

Seems like it'd save you a lot of typing.

[high density]

36. Back in the summer the chant was Deficit Deficit Deficit

Then as the election approached it became Tax Cut Tax Cut Tax Cut, which continues. In March we will be back to Deficit Deficit Deficit mode when we have to vote up the debt ceiling. And it will be blamed on the Democrats.

[DirkGently]

37. Doesn't the "majority of the nation" also oppose tax cuts for the rich? As do Dem Congresspersons?

The attempt to characterize objection to Obama's capitulation on this issue as a fringe position of dewey-eyed "purists" rings pretty hollow, when the President is arguing publicly with high-ranking members of his own party. And they're arguing back.

All the name-calling in the world can't put Obama in the "mainstream" on this one, nor marginalize the many who quite reasonably object to his defending what amounts to co-option of the Republican position without a fight.

[niceypoo]

38. We will never know what kind of deal we could have gotten

Because Obama refused to fight for us.

[WiffenPoof]

39. It Seems To Me (as a purist)...

Our goals should always be one step beyond our reach (as a beginning point of negotiations)...This way we insure that we get the absolute most we can get out of a deal.

-PLA