DC Democrats are ceding the entire traditional Democratic economic ideology

[kpete]

DC Democrats are ceding the entire traditional Democratic economic ideology

by Laurence Lewis for Daily Kos

On Thursday, we got this news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030206983.html

President Obama on Wednesday intervened in a partisan brawl that threatens to shut down the government, inviting congressional leaders of both parties to sit down with Vice President Biden and work out a compromise to fund federal programs through the end of the fiscal year.

The official statement called for a "bipartisan" approach. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-on-budget-deal-we-cannot-keep-doing-business-this-way/1 There seems to be a presumption that no one has been paying attention the past couple years, because the only people that still believe in bipartisanship are also likely the holdouts on Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The way it actually works is that every time the word is mentioned, Democrats give ground on core principles while Republicans have to accept that they get only some, but not all, of what they want. The administration's framing of its role also is interesting. Republican administrations tend to think of themselves as partisan, representing the core values of their party. This administration seems to think of itself as a mediator between partisans. Triangulation you can believe in.

Back in December, at the press conference after he cut the bipartisan deal with Republicans to make the disastrously irresponsible Bush tax cuts his own, President Obama gave this stunning response:

Look, here's my expectation -- and I'll take John Boehner at his word -- that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen. And so I think that there will be significant discussions about the debt limit vote. That's something that nobody ever likes to vote on. But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he's going to have responsibilities to govern. You can't just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower.

And so my expectation is, is that we will have tough negotiations around the budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping Social Security checks going out, keeping veterans services being provided, but at the same time is prudent when it comes to taxpayer dollars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/952834/-DC-Democrats-are-ceding-the-entire-traditional-Democratic-economic-ideology

[Wilms]

1. .

[Hawkowl]

13. Caption the picture

"Change you can believe in." Can you believe they bought that? HAHAHAHA!

[phleshdef]

2. Like it or not, the entire government WILL be shut down without a bipartisan agreement.

There is no getting around that AT ALL. That much should have been apparent after the November elections. There is no way to get any budget passed without getting the Republicans to agree to something. You can keyboard warrior yourself to death with favorite buzz words like "triangulation" for the next year if you want. You aren't effecting reality in the slightest.

America gave Republicans the power in 2010 and elections have consequences, fortunate or unfortunate.

[Wilms]

3. Democrats gave Republicans the power in 1980. n/t

[pscot]

7. I guess we better just

give the Republicants whatever they want then. Now is no time to stand on principle.

[ProSense]

4. The President

also said this about the tax cuts:

INSKEEP: Let me ask you about something that we heard from one of our listeners. … The question that we got was: “Please ask him how keeping the tax rate for the richest the same as it has been for a decade creates one single job.”

OBAMA: It doesn’t, which is why I was opposed to it — and I’m still opposed to it.

The issue here is not whether I think that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a good or smart thing to do. I’ve said repeatedly that I think they’re not a smart thing to do, particularly because we’ve got to borrow money, essentially, to pay for them.

The problem is, is that this is the single issue that the Republicans are willing to scotch the entire deal for. And in that circumstances — in that circumstance, we’ve got, basically, a very simple choice: Either I allow 2 million people who are currently

link

Here is what the President said recently

But let me also say this: ]I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon. We need to attract the best and the brightest to public service. These times demand it. We’re not going to attract the best teachers for our kids, for example, if they only make a fraction of what other professionals make. We’re not going to convince the bravest Americans to put their lives on the line as police officers or firefighters if we don’t properly reward that bravery.

So, yes, we need a conversation about pensions and Medicare and Medicaid and other promises that we’ve made as a nation. And those will be tough conversations, but necessary conservations. As we make these decisions about our budget going forward, though, I believe that everyone should be at the table and that the concept of shared sacrifice should prevail. If all the pain is borne by only one group -- whether it’s workers, or seniors, or the poor -- while the wealthiest among us get to keep or get more tax breaks, we’re not doing the right thing. I think that’s something that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on.

<...>

Summary: Don't vilify public employees; public service is vital; teachers are underpaid; you can't put the burden on workers, seniors and the poor while supporting tax cuts for the rich.

That needs to be repeated by everyone, including Demcoratic pundits.

What tends to happen is a statement like that is get ignored. It would be good if some of the regulars on talk shows reiterate the good points he makes. Senator Sanders did this often on Social Security:

<...>

“If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.

<...>

That reinforces the message and holds the President accountable for his words. It also helps to ensure that these resonate to counter messaging that's being pushed across the Republican spectrum.

It seems that posts like the one linked to in the OP iare designed to gin up outrage at the President and reinforce three bogus messages: 1) There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. 2) The President needs to be primaried. 3) The President hasn't earned and doesn't deserve your vote.

Don't believe it, read the comments. Some of them are vile.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

8. Your post is yet more proof that Obama sure talks the talk a lot

And that's about it.

[vaberella]

10. Brentspeak, since you know better. What are his other options?!

Really. How do you negotiate with a bunch of insane buffoons that was given power by fellow Americans?! Tell me that.

[old mark]

14. Well, he could try being a Democrat...if he knows what that is...nt

[Autumn]

15. It's a case of pay attention to what I say,

and ignore what I do.

[Hawkowl]

12. His hypocrisy is stunning

As is his lack of core principles. I take that back. He has ONE overwhelming core principle: CAPITULATION to the rich.

[xchrom]

5. recommend

[andym]

9. It probably doesn't matter what the Dems in Washington do

The teaparty has the GOP in a holy war against government. They believe they are in the final battle to achieve Reagan's vision of no government. Do you think they really care if the government gets shut down? Why should they? Except for the defense department they would like the government to disappear. The shutdown accomplishes just that. The extent of their program cuts is unprecedented and just what Reagan and his followers (esp GW Bush) anticipated when they promoted their dual strategies of unpaid for tax cuts and continued/increased government spending. Their utopia will be our dystopia and it will be incredibly difficult to stop them, given just how conservative the GOP has become and the strength of their fundamental anti-government feelings. It'a always easier to destroy than create, and our governmental system is setup so that stalemate can actually be quite destructive. It takes two parties willing to compromise to govern when power is split and they don't appear willing. The President and the Democratic Party made a series of grave miscalculations the last two years that have allowed the GOP to energize a far right led movement that has taken control of the House and that will probably cost the USA dearly.

[old mark]

11. I have to laugh when I read about the "liberal media" and "Obama's radical agenda"

but it is sad laughter. I only wish that what these RW idiot fascists were scaring themselves about were true...but it is a very bad joke.

mark