Obama has "actively shifted the debt debate to the right"

[brentspeak]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162415/rise-austerity-hawk-democrats

The Rise of the Austerity Hawk Democrats

Ari Berman
July 28, 2011

The fact that Senate Democrats are trying to out-cut the cut-obsessed Republicans pretty much sums up the current political debate in Washington. “Harry Reid’s plan wins the austerity sweepstakes,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/harry-reids-plan-wins-the-austerity-sweepstakes/2011/03/04/gIQA4U6rcI_blog.html">Adam Serwer wrote yesterday. “It's the austerity party vs. the austerity party,” blogger Atrios tweeted.

President Obama has actively shifted the debt debate to the right, both substantively and rhetorically. Substantively by not insisting on a “clean bill” to raise the debt ceiling at the outset and actively pushing for drastic spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs as part of any deal. And rhetorically by mimicking http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/why-is-the-obama-team-embracing-hooverism/">right-wing arguments about the economy, such as the canard that reducing spending will create jobs (it won’t), or that the government’s budget is like a family’s budget (it isn’t), or that major spending cuts will return confidence to the market and spur the economy recovery we’ve all been waiting for (Paul Krugman calls it “the confidence fairy”).

“For the last few months, I and others have watched, with amazement and horror, the emergence of a consensus in policy circles in favor of immediate fiscal austerity,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman">Krugman wrote on July 1. “That is, somehow it has become conventional wisdom that now is the time to slash spending, despite the fact that the world’s major economies remain deeply depressed. This conventional wisdom isn’t based on either evidence or careful analysis. Instead, it rests on what we might charitably call sheer speculation, and less charitably call figments of the policy elite’s imagination.”

In the last few weeks, the austerity hawk choir has only gotten louder. President Obama has successfully used the bully pulpit to undermine the case for progressive governance.

[Armstead]

1. Yup. Had a golden opportunity in 2008 and we blew it.

[karynnj]

28. What would you have wanted us to do rather than what we did?

By 2008, our choice was the unacceptable Edwards, Hillary Clinton, who we knew was a centrist and Obama, whose votes were somewhat to the left of Clinton's.

The second tier included Dodd, more liberal, but the Countrywide stuff likely would have come out in the GE and although I wanted to be impressed, I wasn't every time he was on a talk show. Biden was a centrist and he never gained any real support. That left Richardson, who had problems and had very poorly overseen the election in NM in 2004.

The people that didn't get in that the party had promoted - Bayh, Warner, and Vilsack were all as centrist as Clinton. After January 2007, there was no one really to Obama's left left in the race. (and yes, I include Edwards there due to his only record in office being there and the fact that he was a chameleon.)

Obama was the best choice we had - and it is premature to claim what he will do with the debt ceiling. The problem was that we should have fought back harder against the Republicans lies on heathcare - so we would not have lost as much in 2010. The Republicans controlling the House is painful.

[Armstead]

31. I wanted Obama to actually be a moderate liberal at least...

I supported him over Clinton because I did not want more corporate centrism.

In retrospect, I suspect Clinton would have been more liberal than Obama has been, and she'd have actually fought the GOP harder.

[karynnj]

33. I agree on the first sentence, but not the second

Clinton would have been to the right on foreign policy - as can be seen by the cases where their positions could be seen. In Honduras, Obama called it a coup, while HRC was telling Republicans on the SFRC not too worry (while Kerry and Berman were taking a left position that it was a coup and it should not be accepted). In the end HRC won. On Afghanistan, it was HRC who sided with Gates for the huge surge, pulling him to the right but not completely. On Egypt, HRC was again to the right.

I expected both to be about the same on domestic issues and thought Obama might be better at working with Congress. I am not convinced that HRC would not have been worse based on 1993.

[Armstead]

34. I was thinking primarily on the domestic front..

..although Obama has been quite the hawk.

As for working with Congress, I think Clinton would have been more willing to push the Democrats to fight for at least mildly liberal things rather that starting at the GOP position for the sake of pseudo-compromise.

But I guess it's all speculation at this point. Suffice it to say in reality, I believe Obama could have/should have been more of a principled liberal, and meant it.

[karynnj]

39. I agree with you that it is all speculation at this point

In fairness to Obama, many saw in him what they wanted to see. In fairness to us, he was really pretty vague at times.

On economics, I guess I should have paid more attention to the fact that he taught at the University of Chicago, but again in fairness, he was in the Law School not the Economics Department - though his advisers were not liberal and I suspect that is why Krugman was no fan. However, the people he put everywhere were the Clinton team - and I suspect that would have been Hillary's choice too. (Back to the we really had no choice.)

I never saw EITHER of them take a stand that was the least risky in the years they shared in the Senate. (Unless you count HRC's voting for Kyl/Lieberman on Iran, which was risky for the democratic primaries. Believe me, I was not implying at all that Obama was not more hawkish and conservative on foreign policy than I expected. I blame myself there as I assumed that the more detailed things your senior Senator said as a surrogate (especially on human rights and things like completely ruling out torture) were Obama's position - even though Kerry never explicitly said they were. I gave his and Kennedy's comments that claimed Obama was like them too much credence.

I think Obama made a huge mistake on the negotiations here by agreeing to the Republican frame. It is mind numbing to here the RW state that Obama has no plan for dealing with this crisis. Obama did too have a plan - raise the debt ceiling as has been done many many times. The Republicans have conflated this into reducing the deficit - in crisis mode. Where they are now claiming that raising the ceiling IS there compromise.

I hope that if this really continues until August 1, that the President goes on TV, explains that raising the debt ceiling does not spend more money than Congress already authorized, acknowledges that the norm has been that Congress raises this, and points out he was worked with them for months, as have the House and Senate Democrats and they are not interested in any compromise. He then should explain the ramifications of Cut, Cap and Balance - the only thing being offered. (Maybe pointing out the logical inconsistency of this bill committing both Houses to passing a bill NOT YET WRITTEN. He also should explain why the government is not like a household, but that the Republicans are wrong that most people do not engage in deficit spending. They do if they take out a mortgage to buy a home, an auto loan to buy a car, an education loan for college, or a line of credit to repair the roof. On the latter would they prefer letting the rain in and long term destroy the value of their home?)

Then having defended the Democrats for voting down the Republican plans, he should argue that his oath of office does compel him to act - and use the 14th amendment. The right will go ballistic, but the country itself should agree with him in doing this as NO ONE wants the chaos and loss of a default.

This will make getting a 2012 budget a nightmare, but consider that if he gives them all this for the dept ceiling, imagine what they will ask for for the budget. (It kind of reminds me of the kid book - "If you give a moose a cookie" where each thing given leads to another request.)

[Honeycombe8]

47. Yeah, it's speculation. If she'd won, someone would be saying "If only we'd elected Obama,"

at least he would've fought the GOP harder."

You never know what kind of President someone will be until they ARE President, I guess. Maybe even the candidate doesn't know. One thing that happens is that situations and events happen that aren't foreseen, causing the President to change the focus of what he wanted to accomplish and how he wanted to approach the Presidency.

[karynnj]

29. Self delete = duplicate

[Honeycombe8]

46. A golden opporunity for what? nt

[Cali_Democrat]

49. Real change. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

50. Oh. That. I had forgotten about that. Funny, huh? Just a campaign slogan. nt

[still_one]

2. Absolutely correct, and that Obama is jumping onto the deficit bandwagon is insane /nt

[ProSense]

6. Obama

has been talking about reducing the deficit for years

During the last sess Congress, he wasn't the only one: Feingold Unveils Major Bill to Slash the Deficit, Cut Wasteful Spending

The notion that trying to reduce the deficit is a RW endeavor is completely bogus.

[still_one]

8. You don't cut programs during a depression. Not until jobs and the economy improves

Incidently, the President was NOT for tying the debt ceiling to the deficit. He changed his mind later when the republicans set the agenda

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

13. Comment = Moronic! n/t

[Fire1]

26. Good one!!! LOL!! n/t

[treestar]

15. Tell the Republicans that then

And tell them we should not default on the debt.

[ProSense]

16. You have

"Incidently, the President was NOT for tying the debt ceiling to the deficit. He changed his mind later when the republicans set the agenda"

...no idea what the President is thinking.

[still_one]

24. The Democrats did NOT want to tie the two together

White House and Democratic leaders initially protested, citing grave economic consequences of toying with a debt-ceiling hike. But they eventually acquiesced as Republican leaders made it clear they weren't budging.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/gop-senator-maybe-we-shouldnt-tie-debt-vote-to-deficit_n_898350.html

[leveymg]

21. You're right about one thing: Obama has long threatened to cut SS and has been groomed to do it

Obama's obsession with "reform" of Social Security was seen by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post in 2006. It was at that time that Obama emerged among what is called the Hamiltonian Democrats, a group of bankers led by Robert Rubin, formerly Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, and Robert Altman, financial icon of the right-wing of the party. Meyerson's article was about the new Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institute. It was through that forum that Obama publicly announced that he found the attachment to Social Security held by most Democrats to be part of what he called "tired ideologies", and that he was a Hamiltonian willing to leave it behind.

The following shows that for years Obama has had his eyes on cutting the social safety net, and for years has been aware that will not be "a bloodless process", but he is fully cognizant that it will indeed be painful for large numbers of Americans. Now, he is the willing executioner, a role he has been groomed for by the banking wing of the Democratic Party. This is, indeed, Obama's anointed hour.

(Following adapted with thanks from a DU post by madfloridian: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1540315&mesg_id=1540315 )

Hamiltonian Democrats

It's come to this: The chief project to restate Democratic economics for our time was unveiled a couple of weeks ago, and it's named after the father of American conservatism, Alexander Hamilton.

Necessarily, the authors of the Hamilton Project preface their declaration with an attempt, not altogether successful, to reclaim Hamilton from the right. The nation's first secretary of the Treasury, they note, "stood for sound fiscal policy, believed that broad-based opportunity for advancement would drive American economic growth, and recognized that 'prudent aids and encouragements on the part of government' are necessary to enhance and guide market forces."

Which is true, as far as it goes. Hamilton believed in balanced budgets and in the government's taking an active role to build the infrastructure and fiscal climate that business and the nation need to succeed -- ideas as alien to the current administration as support for collective farms. But Hamilton also feared the common people, dismissed their capacity for self-government and supported rule by elites instead.

That might be enough to deter most Democrats from naming their firstborn economic revitalization scheme after him, but the authors of the Hamilton Project are made of sterner stuff. They include Peter Orszag, an estimable Brookings Institution economist; investment banker Roger Altman, formerly of the Clinton Treasury department; and, chiefly, former Treasury secretary and current Citigroup executive committee Chairman Robert Rubin, whose iconic status within the Democratic mainstream has waxed as the median incomes of Americans under the Bush presidency have waned. Rubin has also become a seal of good housekeeping for Democratic candidates seeking money from Wall Street. When Bob Rubin talks, Democratic pols don't just listen; they scramble for front-row seats and make a show of taking notes.

Obama was one of the main speakers at the 2006 opening of the Hamilton Project.

Restoring America's Promise of Opportunity, Prosperity and Growth

Moderator:
Peter Orszag
Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

Panel One: Restoring America's Promise of Opportunity, Prosperity, and Growth

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

Robert Rubin
Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Citigroup Inc.

The Reverend Jim Wallis
Founder, Sojourners; Author, God's Politics


Transcribed from the pdf version of Senator Obama's speech.

Obama is speaking of Robert Rubin. They were talking about the "losers" in the new free market economy.

Bob and I have had a running debate now for about a year about how do we, in fact, deal with the losers in a globalized economy. There has been a tendency in the past for us to say, well, look, we have got to grow the pie, and we will retrain those who need retraining. But in fact we have never taken that side of the equation as seriously as we need to take it. So hopefully, this is not just going to be a lot of preaching to the choir. Hopefully, part of what we are going to be doing is challenging our own conventional wisdom and pushing boundaries and testing these ideas in a vigorous and aggressive way.

....Just remember, as we move forward, that there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. There are people in places like Decatur, Illinois, or Galesburg,Illinois, who have seen their jobs eliminated. They have lost their health care. They have lost their retirement security. They don't have a clear sense of how their children will succeed in the same way that they succeeded. They believe that this may be the first generation in which their children do worse than they do. Some of that, then, will end up manifesting itself in the sort of nativist sentiment, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment that we are debating here in Washington. So there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. This is not a bloodless process.

It is indeed not bloodless, and now 5 years later we feel the pain. Yes, there are real consequences when you forget about the putting the people first.

There was an article in the Financial Times 2006 about this Hamilton Project. The link has only the title, but no article...but here is part of it.

Rubin wants to lead Democrats' economic course

"Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and most influential Democratic economic adviser, launched an initiative on Wednesday aimed at influencing the economic policy debate and charting a course “diametrically opposed to the current policy regime”."

..."The Hamilton Project, which will be based at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, will be run by Peter Orszag, an economist and senior fellow at Brookings. Policy papers unveiled yesterday proposed vouchers for summer schools and giving teachers tenure based on standards for effectiveness. “That is not consistent with certain orthodoxies we are familiar with. I think that’s a fairly controversial proposal. I wouldn’t say that’s a yawner,” said Mr Altman.

The white paper also called for entitlement reform but acknowledged the political constraints that helped stall Mr Bush’s drive to reform Social Security. “The principal problem is one of political choice and will and what is most needed is a bipartisan approach for deciding among the options,” it said.

Barack Obama, a Democrat senator from Illinois, welcomed the initiative as a way of transcending “tired ideologies”.

Also in 2006 James K. Galbraith wrote a column about this group. Some of it was pretty scathing. From the Guardian UK:

A speech I'll never give

On the budget deficit, the Hamiltonians echo the unshakeable Brookings Line: deficits must be cut before anything else can happen. We've been around this track so many times that we might for once consider the politics before the merits. The fact that the Republicans do not share this attitude inevitably means that they get what they want and we never get what we want. Even if budget deficits had important economic costs I'd be prepared to pay them, in order to meet some social and environmental objectives in this country.

..."Deficit-fetishism also underscores and bolsters a longstanding insider campaign to cut and partially privatize the Social Security System. The Hamilton Project strategy document doesn't mention Social Security by name. But it is riddled with codewords about the "long-term entitlement problem" which, it avers, can only be solved by a "bipartisan commission" acting on well-known options, behind closed doors.

In fact, Social Security is our most successful social insurance program. It is in better financial shape than ever. No economic or budget imperative requires that it be cut, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. There is no Social Security crisis, and no real "long-term problem" involving the program. Medicare and Medicaid are also not the worst parts of our health care system; the problem of health care insurance could best be dealt with by expanding, not cutting those programs. The Hamilton Project's promise to deal with these issues by "bi-partisan consensus" behind closed doors is a promise to exclude the voices of labour, the elderly, the poor, and loudmouths like me. I will resist. The correct policy toward Social Security is, and remains, what the late Robert Eisner always recommended: leave it alone.


After those words by Obama in 2006 at the opening of the Hamilton Project,I expected something, some ideas to comfort or ease the pain of the people. But there was nothing said. Here is how he ended his speech.

I think that as long as all of us retain that sense of passion about the ultimate outcome that we want, which is a stronger, more prosperous America than we are passing on to our children, then I think we will do well in this process. I am glad to be a part of it.

He seems to be saying that if they remain strong their policies will prevail, but they need to be aware of the pain being caused. No solutions are offered or discussed for helping that pain. . .

[ProSense]

23. Wow

a lot of nothing but spin without a single quote from Obama about cutting Social Security benefits.

Did I miss the actual quote?

[leveymg]

25. Read more closely, please. Note: "tired ideologies"

and the revision to the introduction.

[ProSense]

30. Still no quote, huh? n/t

[leveymg]

32. That's a quote. What are you looking for, a stump speech?

[Fearless]

51. +10000!

[Armstead]

37. How about looking at the content and the context?

You aren't going to find a quote by Obama saying "Let's gut SS and Medicare and rip the heart out of social programs."

But if you look at what this group is proposing -- and who is behind it -- and the fact that Obama is on board with it and endorses this, should tell you something.

[ProSense]

38. "You aren't going

...to find a quote by Obama saying 'Let's gut SS and Medicare and rip the heart out of social programs.'"

Damn, the President is really sinister: Sixteenth-dimensional chess?

[Armstead]

40. Sometimes, i wish you'd actually digest things instead of...

just trying to defend your position and show how clever you are.

If you look at the backing and the proposals of that group (and similar "centrist" ones) it's a far cry from what the traditional liberal ideals of tghe Democratic Party. It is basically republican conservatism with a slightly kinder facade.

You might think that's a good thing. Which is fine. But better to acknowledge the reality, instead of just batting down facts that contradict your predetermined narrative.,

[ProSense]

42. Hmmm?

"show how clever you are."

Stop projecting.

Now, where the hell is the quote from Obama that says he plans to cut Social Security benefits?

An actual statement is reality. Everything else is opinion, speculation or an attempt to "show how clever you are."

[Armstead]

43. You just proved my point

[ProSense]

44. No, I didn't

Is that more of the "clever" thing?

Where's the quote? No quote = BS.

[roxiejules]

41. How about a quote from Third Way...

via Third Way Press Room:


"...entitlement reform should be part of the solution to America’s deficit challenge..."

“Third Way has long argued that entitlement reform should be part of the solution to America’s deficit challenge. Not only will it put us back on a sustainable fiscal path, reform will save and strengthen our social safety net. We applaud the President’s willingness to do the right thing and lay hands on the “third rail” of American politics.

Some on the left will attack the President for putting Social Security and Medicare fixes on the table, but without action these programs will eventually crowd out our ability to invest in America’s future and force us to default on our promise to provide for tomorrow’s seniors. Postponing reform indefinitely is not an option, and to delay is not progressive.

[Mimosa]

53. Leveymg, thanks for the info

Back when Obama was running for the Presidency I don't think any of this background was available. If available, facts got lost in the 'fog of war' campaign atmosphere.

I was very concerned in 2008 about Obama being close to Robert Rubin. How close he was, spectators like me only found out too late. :( Obama's inspiring speeches and interviews made it seem he was less conservative than he has turned out to be.

[Honeycombe8]

48. Don't know about others, but my beef isn't that reducing deficit is RW; it's HOW you do it.

Obama never suggested that cutting spending ONLY is the way to reducing a deficit, even in good economical times.

And the spending being cut is to Social Security (which doesn't affect the deficit, is my understanding) and Medicare and Medicaid was beyond imagining three years ago, when Obama took office. Who'd have thought it?

[ProSense]

3. "President Obama

has successfully used the bully pulpit to undermine the case for progressive governance"

Obama: Default Would Be ‘Reckless And Irresponsible’ (via TPM)

The text of President Obama's nationally televised address on raising the debt ceiling, as prepared for delivery:

Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we've been having in Washington over the national debt - a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation's credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

<...>

So the debate right now isn't about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?

That's not right. It's not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country - things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we're talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they've pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

"Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer."

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach - an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today's stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling - a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand - raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won't be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

<...>

Weekly Address

<...>

The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share – or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get.

It’s pretty simple. I don’t think oil companies should keep getting special tax breaks when they’re making tens of billions in profits. I don’t think hedge fund managers should pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. I don’t think it’s fair to ask nothing of someone like me when the average family has seen their income decline over the past decade – and when many of you are just trying to stretch every dollar as far it it’ll go.

We shouldn’t put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of folks who’ve already borne the brunt of the recession. It’s not reasonable and it’s not right. If we’re going to ask seniors, or students, or middle-class Americans to sacrifice, then we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest Americans to share in that sacrifice. We have to ask everyone to play their part. Because we are all part of the same country. We are all in this together.

<...>

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. He did say all those things.

The point is, what he SAYS and what he DOES are at odds.

I'm tired of the fucking speeches - I want to see him back some progressive PROGRAMS.

[treestar]

14. Do you think he does not back progressive programs?

He is trying to avoid the default, not trying to cut the programs. And there is other spending cut. And the cuts to SS are never really defined here. Everyone just assumes what they are.

The only cut to Medicare mentioned on this board as being part of it was to not reimburse providers for uncollected debts. That falls on those evil corporations everyone here rants on about.

Make sure there are enough Democrats in the next Congress so that it can all be reversed.

[Fire1]

27. Bingo!! n/t

[Autumn]

4. Recommended. My feeling is that there is

no reason for not insisting on a “clean bill”. And now that the pukes are split, that is just what they need to do.

[Divine Discontent]

7. right, I see the pukes being split as a golden opportunity for the Senate/Pres to show they have the

upper hand, and get the "sane" members of the GOP to vote with them to end this impasse before we're all burned because of the teabaggin' fools who would love to watch this country burn down.

The president doesn't have the best advisers, imo, well, I guess I should say, he doesn't have the most progressive advisers, and hopefully, he hears clearly from Sen Reid and Sen Kerry and others in charge of that chamber, that they need to seek a quick agreement with the members of the other party who don't want to see the nation fall apart and see prices soar, and then shortages begin from job cuts, and on and on with all the furthering results of us defaulting. I wonder if he'd try the 14th Amendment, even though I don't think see how that is really meant for him to use in that manner, but hey, if it works, then use it.

[woo me with science]

12. +100000

[KoKo]

62. "Obama is governing like a moderate Republican. Republicans are governing like Grover Norquist".

from the article:

"But let’s forget about the 2012 election for a moment. Right now, the public is being deprived a real and vital debate about how to solve the economic crisis. Obama is governing like a moderate Republican. Republicans are governing like Grover Norquist. The net effect is that US politics keeps shifting further and further to the right."

[BeyondGeography]

5. More like passively, which means he can undo it

[woo me with science]

9. K&R He has poisoned the Democratic message for the foreseeable future.

People keep talking about August 2 as though it will be the end of this. As though everything will be over, someone will have won and someone will have lost, and we can move on to the next battle.

The truth is that we have *all* lost. Not just Democrats. All of America. And this is a critical loss that goes far beyond August 2 and this ginned-up debt ceiling crisis.

Our Democratic President has validated and cemented Republican framing and talking points about what the economy needs to recover. Against the advice of hundreds of economists, he has backed and justified deep spending cuts that will make things worse, not better.

And by offering Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security up on a platter, he has corrupted what Democrats have always stood for: defense of the most vulnerable among us.

He has poisoned the Democratic message and transformed what used to be a malignant *Republican* framing of our budget and our economy into an accepted *bipartisan* meme. Whether or not entitlements are slashed this time, he has ensured that we will be fighting assaults like this to the most vulnerable among us for a very long time.

I am angrier and more heartbroken than I can remember. We need to back strong, principled Democrats for the White House and both houses of Congress. We need to take our party back.

[msongs]

20. we went from "I welcome their hatred" to endorsing and enacting the republican party agenda nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Unrec.

:hi:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

19. rec to zero

:eyes:

[JimGinPA]

22. UnRec To Minus...

This OP, a "Democrat", scours the internet for any negative articles about Democrats to post here. Not a member to pat on the back IMHO.

[Mimosa]

54. Brentspeak IS a democrat and has been on DU for a looong time

The article is not a 'negative article about Democrats'. It is a commentary from The Nation, a recognised progressive publication, about a very real and harmful direction which has been occurring within our party.

[JimGinPA]

58. Yeah...

A month less than I've been here & I stand by my statement. The only reason this 'Nation' article was cited was because it was anti-Obama.

[KoKo]

59. You are unrecommending an article from a well known Dem Progressive Journal ?

What kind of Democrat would do that? :shrug:

[bvar22]

35. No Doubt about it.

Slashing Government Spending and Weakening the Safety net during a Recession & Jobs Crisis
is Conservative Republican Dogma,
and it has NEVER worked.

During Recession and Jobs Crisis,
Democrats INCREASE Government Spending on JOBS Projects,
and STRENGTHEN the Safety Nets.
THAT has a proven track record of WORKING.
THAT is what Obama should be PREACHING from the Bully Pulpit,
NOT trying to be MORE conservative than the Republicans.


By repeating this Republican bullshit,
and offering up Trillions in Spending Cuts and Entitlements Trimming,
Obama has INDEED moved the dialog WAY to The Right.
Nobody in the White House, and few in Congress are offering Traditional Democratic Party Solutions.

REPEAT:
Cutting Government Spending and Weakening the Safety net is
Conservative Republican DOGMA.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[Armstead]

36. +1

[Fearless]

52. +2

[Mimosa]

55. +3

BTW, I recced this article. It is telling the TRUTH, not bashing Democrats. Democratic candidates will lose elections if they keep trying to match Republican rhetoric. The voters will vote for the 'real' Republican every time, to paraphrase President Truman.

[bvar22]

57. When Telling the Truth is twisted into "Bashing the President",

really BAD things are headed our way.
Alarm Bells should be ringing for every single "Democrat".
A "Democratic" President has put Social Security and Medicare on the Auction Block.
What more does it take? :shrug:



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[woo me with science]

61. This was the hyperbole of how far a capitulating President might go.

There is no more room for hyperbole. We are living a reality.

I have never seen so much shameless, guffawing defense of cruelty in my party before. Ever.

This is no longer the Democratic Party any of us grew up supporting. The sooner people realize that this was not a cave, but a collusion, the better.

[woo me with science]

60. Thank you.

The sooner people realize that this was not a cave, but a collusion, the better.

The party has been infested by the Third Way. This is what they want.

[DirkGently]

45. Yep. There is an ugly, mindless consensus that only RW rhetoric works in America.

[blkmusclmachine]

56. It's where the WH feels most comfortable, after all.

n/t