Sarah Palin imploded, Beck is essentially gone, Tea Party rallies struggle to fill a phone booth

[Tom Rinaldo]

FOX news ratings keep dropping and their owner is neck deep in a major scandal. This is no longer 2010 when American voters decided to give Republicans a chance out of frustration over the economy.

Republicans got that chance and they blew it badly. Newly elected Republican Governors are fighting it out to see who can lose the most voter approval polling points each month, while recall petitions blossom for them and their legislative stooges. There isn't a single Republican Presidential candidate to the left of loony who is generating any grass roots Republican enthusiasm.

Republicans took power in the House of Representatives over the issue of lost jobs, then promptly ignored the economy to focus on "social values" issues and their crusade to strangle government. That included fumbling Republican assaults on two of the most admired government programs in the country, Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile Republicans continued to hitch their wagon to homophobic outrage while a sea change took place among the electorate in favor of gay marriages. With unemployment stuck at extremely painful high levels, the Republican response boiled down to eliminating the jobs of public workers. The only group of voters who want the national debate to focus on cutting the deficit rather than adding jobs are tea party fanatics who keep shrinking in numbers and loosing support from the public every week.

So how on Earth, with Democrats perfectly positioned to cash in on the electorates buyers remorse over having voted in Republicans last time, after the electorate has vehemently rejected Republican plans to "reform" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and with Americans clearly demanding more jobs, rather than more belt tightening, how on earth did we end up in this place?

Why is a Democratic Party President agreeing with the increasingly marginalized Right that deficit reduction is the central debate in America, with trillions of dollars of spending cuts now one of his highest priorities? And why the hell did he put Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare back on the table to face cuts when the public emphatically wants those benefits preserved?

[FLAprogressive]

1. Because we are transitioning to one-party rule.

[polichick]

2. Yep - who needs Republicans when Dems will do the corporate dirty work?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

18. That's exactly what is happening...

and was spelled out in this book published in 2004, with the Koch brothers prominently featured:



We needed REVOLUTION after Dubya; instead, we got Captain Bipartisanship.

[polichick]

20. "We needed REVOLUTION after Dubya; instead, we got Captain Bipartisanship."

Yes, even though we voted for a revolution.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

31. I voted for the last Dem standing and hoped (ugh, I detest that word now)...

he would get us on track to *some* semblance of sanity. But this is what my gut was telling me at the time about Obama, and my gut was right:



What a tremendous disappointment.

[polichick]

32. That cartoon reminds me of Hillary mocking Obama during the primaries...

Kinda hate that she wasn't that far off.

[JDPriestly]

94. It's about the only thing that Hillary was right about.

She is worse than Obama. Triangulation again. Please. No. Let's just get a progressive in there, someone who can be president for Main Street not just for Wall Street.

[Time for change]

103. Re: your Edwards avatar: I'd rather a president bring the US and world to ruin than commit adultery

Just kidding.

I really am glad to see someone who still has an Edwards avatar. If all our politicians were judged by the same standards that ruined his career, we would have had no FDR or JFK -- in which case our country would have gone down the drain a lot sooner.

That is not to condone aldultery, but there are far more important thiings we should be judging our elected officials by.

[JDPriestly]

112. I put the Edwards avatar back on my posts after the Weiner business.

Famous people attract sexual admirers. It's stupid for politicians (or other powerful people) to fall into the ego trap of getting involved even on Twitter with admirers in that way, but then it's just human.

And there are more important things. Edwards was just right (at least in his speeches and on his website) about most of those important things.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[creeksneakers2]

60. Obama was very clear about his plans to compromise

and negotiate. It was a central theme of his campaign.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Agreed

He openly said he would try to bridge the partisan divide and bring us all together. He never promised to magically do so on purely Democratic terms.

[indepat]

96. But it seem to me negotiations start at about 80-90% to the right of center and never

move too far from that point whereas a starting point of about 40% to the left of center would seem to be expected by 90% of the Democratic base. :patriot:

[Mechasr]

107. I don't want to bridge the partisan divide.

I don't agree with the right wing. If it's necessary to compromise I want a pres who starts 100% to the left and gives just enough to get a deal through. Or just tells them no deal.

Bargaining with gop is hopeless

[obxhead]

99. He never said he would begin by fully embracing Republican

demands as that starting point though.

[indepat]

110. How do we account for a such seemingly paradoxical and self-defeating

bargaining position by a Democrat? :shrug: :patriot:

[blank space]

108. IN response to these ->

creeksneakers2 (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-10-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #20


60. Obama was very clear about his plans to compromise
and negotiate. It was a central theme of his campaign.


Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-10-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #60

65. Agreed

He openly said he would try to bridge the partisan divide and bring us all together. He never promised to magically do so on purely Democratic terms.


Ok he did say that - so why hasn't he done this. This is the point we are all so sad about - why isn't he negotiating, why is he just capitulating and doing the dirty work of the Republicans?


And to be fair - he said a lot of things besides just what you have extracted - most of which he has simply ignored, trampled on, thrown in the bin.

Obama is a train wreck.

[Cal33]

93. The Repubs. have shown nothing but contempt for Obama. They made no

bones about trying to bringing down Obama, his administration, and the Dem. Party.
They've rejected every overture he has made toward bringing the two parties
closer. The only way was to do everything the Republican way -- 100 percent.
And they've kept it up right up to this minute, a total of 2-1/2 years. And
Obama is still stuck on bi-partisanship, and continues to offer them
appeasement!

Something is wrong somewhere. Doesn't it take two to tango? And I've always
thought Obama was a fast learner! I still think he is a fast learner, except
for his obsession about bi-partisanship. Nothing can tear him away from
this idea. He is simply stuck with it -- forever, and regardless of any
consequences.

[JDPriestly]

95. That was one of the issues on which I preferred Edwards.

Edwards had experience facing down corporate lawyers. I don't think Obama had any clue as to how the corporations negotiate -- how many flunkies prepare memos on just how to negotiate with a particular person or organization like Obama.

They just played Obama like a harp.

It is such a shame that Edwards cheated on his wife. He was the only candidate who understood what we are up against.

[Time for change]

100. He didn't make it clear that he'd break every major campaign promise that he made

except of course his promise to be "bipartisan".

I think David Sirota said it as well as anyone:

After all, much of the complaints about the president have been about campaign promises that he didn't just fail to fulfill -- but that he refused to even try to fulfill.

Indeed, when a political candidate promises to try to pass a public option to compete with private insurers, attempt to crack down on Wall Street abuse, do what he can to stop unfair trade deals, oppose extending his predecessors tax cuts and avoid initiating costly new wars sans congressional approval, and then once in office works to kill a public option, refuses to prosecute Wall Street crimes, presses the rigged trade deals he opposed, supports the extension of his predecessor's tax cuts and starts a new war in Libya with no congressional authorization -- whose fault is it that he ends up in reelection trouble?

There are 8 links in that short second paragraph. Here's the link to Sirota's article:
http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/07/07/obama_social_security_cuts/index.html

[firehorse]

55. yes, red and blue are just distractions from the fact we are a one party corporate capitalist countr

Just a week ago people here were bashing dems like me who voted for Nadar. And frankly the reality check we are getting now is why people like me voted for Nadar. We knew back then that both parties were really hosting political theatrics as smoke screens to distract from the fact that the shadow ruling party in control were corporate fascists of both parties.

[Taverner]

74. It's been one party rule for quite some time

Only now, the formalities will cease

[Nothing Without Hope]

82. Exactly. Obama is an excellent front for this.

He's charismatic, a brilliant speaker, knows how to make people hope he can make things better --- and a total corporatist who is "working with" the GOP to promote and consolidate corporatist goals. It is a major betrayal.

[Speck Tater]

3. We need honesty in politics. Let's start by giving the parties their proper names:

The Koch Party, The Chase Party, The Dow Jones Party, ...

[Beartracks]

83. Why not. Corps get naming rights to everything else they fund. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

91. it has been said before...

but make politicians wear NASCAR uniforms so we can see who their sponsors are :)

[BeFree]

4. Why put it on the table?

To show he is willing to deal. To make independents want to have four more years of Obama.

All we can do at this point is hope that the pubbies show their true colors and not deal. If they don't make a deal, Obama wins, if they do make a deal Obama wins.

Obama winning is the most important thing for Obama.

[polichick]

7. "Obama winning is the most important thing for Obama." - Agreed...

I would just ask, To what end?

[BeFree]

12. What end?

Power.

But in the best possible outcome, Obama in his second term is able to turn this country around. I believe he sees the need to do so but has been held back due to circumstances. But then I may just be an optimist.

Could be that it is just a quest for even more power. Like cheney...

[Cal33]

97. I've been holding on to the hope that Obama might have some

plan up his sleeve for a long time now, and haven't given it up completely, in
spite of every appearance to the contrary. I realize that wishful thinking
is playing a big role.

I hope that he'd like the idea of being described in future history books as
being one of the great presidents of the USA. I wouldn't expect anyone would
take any odds on it, though.

[NICO9000]

85. Caving-in every single time is not the same as "winning"

[awoke_in_2003]

92. name an ex-president...

who isn't VERY wealthy.

[emulatorloo]

15. I agree it is a a ploy to paint Republicans into a corner

Each time Obama is on TV he hammers on raising taxes on the Rich and closing corporate loopholes (corporate jet line is pretty good I think). See how reasonable and common sense we are, they are the crazy ones. That battle I think the Dems are winning.

[BeFree]

28. Actually, I think Obama loves us

I think he likes us to get fired up and make noises. It is a fine line he draws, but when he gets up on stage he really does speak our side. He just has to be careful he isn't labeled a hippy lover.

[AverageJoe90]

34. Perhaps, but.......

I still think he tends to be a bit too timid for his own good.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. He loves me, he loves me not. He loves me, he loves me not

Ain't it a bitch to have to guess what your President really feels about you?

[BeFree]

36. It's tough

I have been in the middle of some negotiations, and when I went all out being bold and forceful, I usually ended up losing in the short term. I think he's been tempering himself to keep from being labeled a radical zealot like I was.

BTW, tho, I almost always won in the long term. Why? Because I was correct. I really believe had I been more politic, it would have been easier on everybody with the same outcome and in the same time frame. But that's just me.

[loveandlight]

56. this is a tough one

I understand the desire, and sometimes I can agree but other times I see other things that don't seem to fit that pattern, like starting a new war in Libya or drone bombings in Afghanistan, and I wonder why there? Even some Repubs don't want those things. Who is he tempering himself with there I wonder??

So yeah, in general, with the craziness of the Republican party right now, maybe you have to be careful. But how much is too much in that regard, I keep asking myself. And how much are we giving away that we will never get back, because each step in their direction just emboldens the right wing to keep going more to the right, as we keep chasing them, and pretty soon we find ourselves in the briar patch and don't know how we got there.

[BeFree]

58. Reality is

He is president of the modern American Empire.

Is it any wonder we are not the president? Empire would not allow us such a station.

In the animal world, the head of the pack rules with power.
Empire is an animal world construct.

However, the up and coming are always a threat.
One can simply erase that threat by making their airplanes drop out of the sky.
The other way is politicking them into submission.

[rhett o rick]

68. But the problem is you still think that the Dems winning will save the middle class.

It isnt a battle between the Repukes and the Dems, its a battle between the corporatists and the lower classes. Just because the Dems win, as they did in 2008, doesnt mean they will undo the damage.

[21st Century FDR]

16. Fuck the so-called "independents"

These are the people who are so goddamned fucking clueless that they literally don't know the difference between how the policies of FDR saved this country, and how the policies of Reagan - and EVERY President who came after him are destroying it.

Why the fuck should anybody continue pandering to these dumbasses? :wtf:

[BeFree]

26. Independents

The largest voting block in many places. The most easily persuaded to change their votes. The swing votes in many elections.

Personally, I have commiserated with many an independent who used to be republican. They are easy to sway even further. And if I have seen this, you can bet Obama has seen it too.

[cstanleytech]

43. "Obama winning is the most important thing for Obama.'

Its important for us (the american people) as well because if someone like Michele Bachmann gets into office I am willing to bet that whats happening now with the economy and the national debt will look like good times.

[Enthusiast]

78. Independents are against cutting social security and medicare. nt

[BeFree]

80. Maybe. But they are wishy washy

And maybe a little dumb? Otherwise they'd be dems, eh?

[elocs]

5. A perfect time for the Democratic Party to pull itself apart and self destruct,

snatching defeat from the hands of victory.

[polichick]

6. Or to remember who we're supposed to be - and nominate somebody...

...who will fight for those principles.

[elocs]

10. This is the real world and not a DU fantasy--Obama will obviously be our nominee.

That doesn't mean all Democrats will vote for him or that he will get as much support as he did the first time.

We are kind of in once bitten, twice shy territory. You know the fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me experience. Most people don't like to be made the fool.

If from somewhere the Republicans find a decent candidate and the economy is still in the crapper then I think Obama will be in big, big trouble.

[polichick]

13. If the Democratic Party thinks it's fine to nominate someone who...

...perpetuates horrific Republican policies and enables more horrific Republican policies, it has become irrelevant - no need for it to go on.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Obama will be our nominee

Republicans will nominate someone worse than him. I accept those political facts. They don't answer the question I asked though. This is a damn good time to ask them. No deal has been finalized yet and nothing that is agreed upon becomes law unless Congress agrees. These are questions I hope some Democrats in Washington will ask themselves now.

[polichick]

19. imo it's become pretty damn clear that his agenda is far from ours...

The thing is, how many of those Dems in Washington are really still with us?

[emulatorloo]

21. that's why I'm calling my Dem Senator and Rep again on monday.

I am not like many DU'ers - I haven't jumped to the conclusion that "cost cutting" = cuts to benefits. None the less I feel the need to tell my Congresspeople where I stand on this - SS and Medicare beneficiaries need their benefits, and the wealthy need to be taxed more.

[Auntie Bush]

51. I'm with you kid!

[EFerrari]

8. Same reason it's happening in Europe. The political class

pledges its allegiance to capital, not to its voting base. It's shocking for some of us but it shouldn't be after we watched George Bush steal two elections and no one lifting a finger to do anything about it.

[socialist_n_TN]

22. "The political class pledges it's allegiance to capital,

not to the voting base." That's it in a sentence. And if you STILL don't believe it, let me remind you of the Greek PM who said that capitalism is more important than democracy. ALL THE BOURGEOISIE POLITICIANS BELIEVE THAT. Including ours. They have pledged allegience to capital, NOT the people.

Thanks for nutshelling it EFerrari. :fistbump:

[EFerrari]

30. I don't see what other conclusion a reasonable person can come to

when the politicians routinely say they can't do what the majority of the people want them to do.

[underpants]

9. Why? because the DC press corp is carrying the Fox News water for them

and DC has convinced itself that this nonsense is near the truth.

[emulatorloo]

11. +1 n/t

[kenny blankenship]

14. What do we got left...Oh I know Michele Bachmann -better throw SocSec & Medicare to the wolves

or Michele Bachmann will flay us with her laser beam eyes! There's a good excuse to rip the New Deal a new asshole. She's a real threat. We better capitulate now while we can still get good terms.

Or how about Mitt Romney? He's not just "Presidential timber", he's so stiff he might put America into a coma if we don't play along on "entitlement spending". You may be inclined to laugh but I want you to picture this: Mitt Romney, at the convention, doing the Macarena on TV. America could go rigid and catatonic from coast to coast. Who would intervene and save us then? The Chinese? I doubt that very much.

[katnapped]

49. Don't forget Teh Supremes!

Then it's OMG OBAMA CAN'T SEND THE COURT ON A LURCH TO THE LEFT (which the fan club refuses to admit will never happen)

[kestrel91316]

23. I was concerned about some of Obama's stances even before the primaries.

But I got all caught up in the frenzy of our first black president. I was so enthusiastically supportive of him that I conveniently forgot about those nagging fears that he would turn out to lean more right than I liked.

My fears were proved true. He HAS leaned more right than I like on so many issues. I am very angry about a lot of things he has done and failed to do.

But he's still better than any Republican out there.

[EFerrari]

29. I really don't think this is a problem we can totally pin on Obama.

I don't think anyone who wouldn't go along with this would make it past the filters.

[russspeakeasy]

40. "but he is still better than any republican out there"

That is a prime definition of 'condemned by faint praise"...

[Auntie Bush]

53. And he'll pick out a more liberal Supreme Court Justice and maybe even Justices.

That in itself is all important. We must get out and vote for Obama...even if you think he's too conservative for the Democratic base.

We just have to get him reelected! Can you just imagine how much more those Thugs will reduce taxes on the rich and corporations? Also, the fools will all but eliminate any possibility of a woman getting an abortion...no matter what the reason. We'll see many more women die from illegal abortions. So, our lives really do depend on getting Obama reelected. Besides, I think this disgusting, stubborn congress has forced him to the right. If we get more Dems in office in 2012, he'll be able to run a lot more to our liking. I think that's what he has planned.

[customerserviceguy]

62. He won't be able to get the kind of Justices we need

if he's stuck with a Republicon Senate. I fear that most of all, it takes quite a long time to overturn a Senate, but the House can be changed over in a mere two years.

Frankly, when I look at the math, I cannot see us holding the Senate after the 2012 elections, even if dingbat Bachmann is the Rethug nominee. In fact, her nomination will insure it, because many independents will assume that Obama will win re-election, and will vote for a GOP'er to 'counterbalance' him.

[The Big Vetolski]

88. Constitutional Convention. Abolish the Senate.

Why should Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming have as much clout in the Senate as California, Texas, and New York? This part of the Constitution is outdated and should be discarded, IMHO.

[customerserviceguy]

118. Well, you'd have trouble

getting enough states to agree with that, even in a Constitutional Convention. States that would likely lose influence from such a convention will see it in their interests not to approve one.

There's an inherent equality in letting the sparsely populated states have as much influence in the Senate as the more populous states that you mention. If the citizens of those populous states had been significantly threatened, they would have instructed their congresscritters to disapprove the applications of the less populous states, so they saw an advantage in having them.

Yes, the reasons for having them as states rather than territories might indeed be outdated, but we are left with it as an accomplished fact.

[Mechasr]

109. Congress and Senate are more important than the whitehouse

The gop built from the bottom up over 30 yrs. Local elections count big.

I hope Obama wins the whitehouse but I think congress and senate (filibuster proof) are more important

[EC]

24. I'm thinking there is a reason they are being so bold

in the States with regressive policies...Gee, like they aren't afraid of not being re-elected? So I wonder why?






I don't think our votes count anymore.

[Populist_Prole]

81. Grabbing what they can before they are put in check

That way they'll walk away with more, have more, and have a more solidified position to deal from once they are being effectively opposed.

In a rough analogy, it's like a bunch of looters grabbing what they can before the cops come...as they can hear the sirens blaring distantly.

Trouble is: How much damage will they do before they are put in check..............

[johnaries]

25. Ah, Hello? It's because we hit the debt ceiling.

Have you been hiding under a rock? :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Yes, it's an unprecedented moment in American History

that automatically requires punching holes in the bare minimum guarentees of the economic safety net that most Americans depend on to now or later keep food on their trables, a roof over their heads, and affordable essential medical care when they retire.

Silly of me not to see that.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[daleo]

37. Beck, Palin, Tea Party may be weakened

But the money that made them is still there.

It's hard to stand up to the power of big money, once it has really dug in. The rich have had 30 years of being told (since Reagan) that they don't have to pay taxes or care about the rest of society in any way. A whole generation of rich have grown up with this message constantly repeated - they believe it because they have heard little else and it's what they want to believe.

The media empires has been built on this message, so everyone important got to where they are by parroting it. They know nothing else. Politics is infected with this message too, so most politicians reflexively stand up for big money over all else. It's how they got to where they are too.

From my reading of history, eventually this spiral leads to a revolution or equivalent breakdown and rebuilding. France of around 1780 is probably a good parallel.

[cstanleytech]

42. No, if there was going to be a french style revolution it would have happened when the ship sank

under Bush.
As for why its on the "table" its called politics, so far though we dont know what if anything Obama is proposing to cut let alone any cuts have to make it past these initial talks to the congress and senate for them to debate and vote on.

[daleo]

44. Revolutions can't be scheduled

But they can be predicted.

[DallasNE]

39. This Is Far Too Critical

From where I sit the GOP is boxed in by Grover Norquist and back on their heels following Obama's recent press conference. Did you notice that Boehner, in backing away from a comprehensive, balanced approach has gone back to the Biden formula that Cantor walked out on awhile back. In other words, because Boehner was boxed in he had to cave on the Biden plan while Obama stood firm. This looks like a pretty solid victory to me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Cantor walked out AFTER cuts were "agreed on" BEFORE revenue increases were discussed

That's why he walked out when he did. Methinks Boehner is propsoing going with those spending cuts and calling it a wrap. In other words all spending cuts, no closed loopholes or tax increases. If that ends up being the deal it is NOT a Democratic victory.

[DallasNE]

54. You Have The GOP Talking Points Down Pat

You have just accused Biden of pulling a double cross on the GOP by bringing in taxes after a deal had been reached. Like nearly all GOP talking points, it is a lie. Americans get the government they deserve so beware of what you ask for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. I didn't think I was unclear but maybe I was - I'll clarify

I fully understand that all of the discussions that Biden was party to were exploratory in nature, and even more important, it was always understood that regardless of what order in which issues were tackled, there was no implied agreement to any piece of the negotiations unless there was agreement reached to all pieces of the puzzle at the conclusion. Cantor walked before the next scheduled part of the discussions began and you are correct, there was no double cross by Biden or any other Democrat regarding raising revenues. Democrats always insisted that be part of the negotiations.

The point I intended to make is that Republicas will try to now double cross us, by trying to claim there was agreement on a package of cuts, and saying let's call that the whole deal and move forward. That is what I expect them to try. I don't know if it will work but if it does it will be a victory for their side.

[AlinPA]

75. The GOP will vote against the debt ceiling increase. Their base wants the default to hurt Obama.

[Fumesucker]

41. Main Street may see things one way..

But the DC Village sees things as the courtiers wish to see things.

As far as policy goes the only opinions that count are those of the courtiers, politicians, media figures, pundits and so forth.

[craigmatic]

45. The middle is definately up for grabs but Obama hasn't fixed the recession and the cuts

he's proposing aren't going to win him or the party any friends. If he'd only abandon the centrist nonsense and go further left in rhetoric and action more people would come to his side. This is one of those cases where middle of the road gets you run over.

[quaker bill]

47. It is called "calling a bluff"

The risk of Bohener signing off on a trillion dollars of tax increases and being able to hold his majority together to pass it was nil. It is called a "put up or shut up" move. Bohener never had these cards in his hand and it was time to get him to admit it.

This is how one negotiates when one party is acting in bad faith. You need to put them in a corner where they either must show their cards or fold and leave the table. Bohener folded and left the table. There was never any risk that he would do otherwise, the risk was that he would go about for weeks seeming "reasonable and willing to work with the Senate" when this was never true.

Of course, on the other hand, if he had signed off on a trillion dollars of increased taxes, his coalition with the teabaggers would have collapsed, the "deal" would never have passed, and 2012 would look alot better for the dems. This is called "heads I win, tails you lose".

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. It's called calling the wrong bluff.

The "heads I win, tales you lose" scenario you describe was perfectly in place already before the so called "Grand Bargain" started taking form. Democrats were offering trillions of dollars in spending cuts and showed willingness to settle on closing a couple of outrageous tax loopholes that even Bohener couldn't defend with real conviction. The spending cuts Democrats were poised to sign off on cut 4 or 5 times much from the deficit than the loophole closings would have contributed.

That was when to call their bluff. Republicans got to slash trillions from government spending in return for sacrificing stuff like tax write offs on private jets and ending tax subsidies for Big Oil, the most profitable corporations in America who get more from the government than they give to it. Try to sell refusing that deal and forcing an economic crisis instead to the American public, and you can see how weak a hand Bohener was holding.

By not simply calling that bluff instead of offering a grand bargain instead here is what the Democrats lost. Number one, as unlikely as you say it may have been that Republicans would ever have taken that deal, stranger things have happened before in politics. Yes it was a long shot, but would you feel comfortable playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a hundred chamber gun instead of in a standard six shooter. It is reckless to unnecesarily bet your politcal soul no matter how good the odds are in your favor

Number two, Democratrs just blunted the best political argument in their favor heading into the 2012 elections by putting Medicare Medicaid and Social Security on the potential chopping block. The clearest most winning contrast to Republicans that Democrats had was a reputation of being time tested true guardians of those programs who will defend them to their political death. Now that no longer is so clear cut. Now it looks like Democrats could sell them out if the price is right.

Number three. An offer once made never simply vanishes without a trace. It permanently establishes that Democrats were open to making that type of deal with Republicans. You might hsave noticed that the need to raise the debt ceiling has a tendency to come along again every so often. What if Republicans insist that cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits be placed on the table for the next round of talks, and what if Republicans prove slightly more flexible next time? It is harder to refuse to do something that you have shown a willingness to do before.

[quaker bill]

70. You describe the bluff that was called

Bohener walked away from the table in a refusal to sacrifice "stuff like tax write offs on private jets and ending tax subsidies for Big Oil".

This is precisely what happened. Further, nobody got "trillions of dollars of cuts" because the deal is off. Yes the discussion will come up again, and the terms of this discourse have been laid out. The only terms on which the conversation will be worth scheduling is for the republicans to come walking in with new revenue from the wealthy and business community.

It is never hard to refuse to do anything. If you offer something on particular terms and the deal is not taken, there is no reason in politics that the price will not be higher next go round. In fact that is the way it usually works.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Actually reports today indicate Bohener walked away from agreeing to end Bush tax cuts

as part of the so called grand bargain. Cantor is the one who walked away from talks when they reached talking about closing those loopholes.

[AlinPA]

77. There is no way the GOP house will approve the debt ceiling increase. They want the default.

Teabaggers now rule the GOP.

[The Big Vetolski]

89. Really? They are playing poker. They're bluffing on a pair of deuces

while Obama is holding a straight flush, and betting Obama will fold.

Why not? He's always folded before. They may be right. I hope not. Anyway, this is not nth dimensional chess. It's poker. And, so far, Obama's been a sucker every time. Maybe not this time, though. Next year's his re-election year, after all.

Let America default on our debts. So what? What's the worst that can happen? According to the Director of the IMF, higher interest rates and falling stock and bond prices. That's about it for the short term. So what? Call their bluff, Mr President. They'll fold in the end, though it may take a few months. Tell your buddy Jamie Dimon to suck it up.

If you dare. Go 'head. Surprise me for a change, Barack. Show some freakin' BALLS for once.

[AlinPA]

111. The republicans are not playing now. They are waiting for August 1. No way Boehner

disappoints the teabaggers and the rest of the crazies in the GOP.

[Long Shadow]

48. Well then, it's settled.

In 2012, Obama will reelected in a landslide, Dems will retake the House and gain a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

[Liberal_in_LA]

52. so Palin is no longer viable?

[wiggs]

59. This is basically the same question about dem leaders that DU

has frustrated, mystified, angered, and outraged DU for a long time. Dems have had the issues for years and years, yet they cede the power and the message over to someone else.

If you ask the public about individual issues....the progressive stance is favored, nearly always. But four factors succeed in muddying the waters, drawing everyone into their own camps so that the corporatist path always wins: 1) limitless corporate money spent on lobbying and campaigning 2) consolidation of media so that the RW message trumps all 3) RW willingness to lie, smear, exaggerate, use fear and hate and polarization, rewrite history and science, and generally deceive on the facts, and 4) there are always a few dems who believe in the RW goals for an elitist America that gets strength from powerful corporations and imperialism.

The exact same mechanism that convinced 70% of the public, at one point, that Hussein had something to do with 9/11...is working to convince the public that SS is badly broken.

How on Earth...indeed.

[SnowCritter]

61. And the damage is done.

Even if the Democrats manage to retake the House and get a truly filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the damage is already done. And that's the problem.

The economy is severely damaged and the people who caused the damage are continuing to obstruct any and all efforts to recover; to build it back up. Since it takes longer to build a "thing" than it takes to destroy a "thing" and since a sizable portion of Americans don't seem to have the patience (or attention span) to tolerate the length of the construction process, it is unlikely that a Democratic House and Senate will stay that way for long. The MSM is controlled by the right and their message will be "See! They're not getting it done! You need to elect us so we can fix it!". And the those aforementioned Americans will swallow it hook, line, and sinker (like they did the last time) and America's slide into Fascism will continue.

Unlike Glenn Beck, I truly weep for my country. :cry:

[Bendra]

63. I want to believe

that Obama wants both parties to put up or shut up and let the country watch who does what; and that stirring outrage will take the American public away from America's Got Talent for minute if only he can get their attention.

[creeksneakers2]

64. I don't see the GOP crashing right now

If you look at the latest polls they show no major shift away from the GOP on either the generic congressional polls or the polls of Obama against an unnamed Republican.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_president_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.html

The economic problems which contributed to the GOP victory in 2010 are still there. Its likely that the public will vote just on that in 2012. There are lots of issues now that Democrats are polling ahead on by wide margins, but none of those issues are changing the bottom line.

All of the talk on DU about us versus them and what we don't want to see ignores some basic realities. We are on a death course fiscally. If interest rates go back up, the US will be paying a trillion dollars a year in interest on the debt. The debt is growing at an unsustainable rate. We are at risk of the nation going into default in the near future. While congressional members of the GOP may fear the consequences of defaulting on the debt, they also individually face face the end of their incumbency if they vote for any tax increases. Even if Boehner caves, its unlikely his members will, since they care more about themselves than what happens to the country.

Obama, on the other hand, cares more about the fate of the country than anything else. He's in a jam and he has to do something.

I can think of things he could do to put more pressure on the GOP. But Obama may be worried that whatever label he puts on the GOP may come back on Democrats when they eventually compromise.

[Hamlette]

66. surprised to see this after yesterday proved much of it wrong

when Obama advocates cutting benefits I'll panic, until then, I'm not falling for some ill sources rumor in the WP.

The GOP caved, what more do you want?

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. You gotta follow the news closely

White House says Boehner balked over taxes, not entitlements
By Sam Youngman - 07/09/11 10:01 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/170553-white-house-says-boehner-balked-over-taxes-not-entitlements

Boehner "couldn't do revenues from wealthiest Americans," a White House official said.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) all but extinguished hopes for a big deficit reduction deal because he refused to support any tax increases for the wealthiest Americans, a senior administration official said Saturday night.

The White House official also disputed the charge that President Obama was not willing to give ground on entitlement programs, saying that is "not true."

" couldn't do revenues from wealthiest Americans, he walked away over that," the official said. "They are telling people we couldn't do entitlements, not true."


It is duly noted that no definition was given over what "giving ground on entitlements" means exactly. Nor is the White House official named. But it is extremely unluikely that The Hill would use that phrasing if the source was not, in fact, a White House official who agreed to be quoted. There are other terms used to describe leaks and trial baloons that are not official; terms like "unidentified source", "official who asked not to be named", and "someone close to the President" come to mind.

While "giving ground on entitlements" is admittedly a vague term that leaves ample wiggle room, the impression conveyed by that term is far less vague. It is natural to make the assumption that "giving ground" means giving ground to the Republican position on that matter. We know the Republican position on that matter, it was authored by Paul Ryan and passed by the House in the Republican budget plan. So "giving ground" naturally implies some movement in that direction. At the very least the Administration has to know know that many will, fairly justifyably, read it that way. It opens Pandoras Box and allows suspician to enter that Democrats are willing to consider a future Social Security system and Medicare program that falls somewhere in between the way Republicans and Democrats now want it run.

[AlinPA]

69. IMO, Palin is going to run. The media will play it as a contest between her and Bachmann. The

media will go berserk and Americans will go batshit crazy over it.

[BiggJawn]

71. Relax at your Peril.

Don't order that victory champagne yet, friends.
Else you wake up one Wednesday in November to the shock that we now have a batshit-crazy, Right-Thinking, Dominionist, Christian Reconstructionist Authoritarian on their way to the WH.

[jberryhill]

116. Well that's a far better outcome than having one's anonymous DU persona embarrassed

You gotta think about priorities.

When the world goes to Hell, don't you want to be the last one left to say "See, I told you so."

[creon]

73. No one knows

Everyone is guessing and/or fulminating.

The plain facts: no one knows the motivations of the political actors; no one knows their intentions. Everyone is basically projecting onto them. Pure guesswork.

Both parties will be pinned against the clock. That is when the political actors might begin to negotiate. That is when they may discover their own motivations and their own intentions.

In those final days, we shall see either wisdom or folly.

I will wait and see what those people actually do in the final 24 to 72 hours. I do not know how to read minds.

[krabigirl]

76. We don't need the GOP, the democratic party has filled their war-happy role.

[suffragette]

79. Implementing G20 Austerity measures but avoiding the "A" word

since people have seen the damage to citizens in other countries from this plan (along with the skewed benefits to the financiers who caused the crisis and are benefiting from the so-called austerity measures).

edit for typo

[Clear Blue Sky]

84. Neither party is getting anything done.

The economy is a mess and getting worse.

[Hubert Flottz]

86. Maybe the "Rapture" really did take?

That's prolly JC will come back to Earth. Heaven stinks too bad now I spose.

[CleanGreenFuture]

87. What is this...phone booth...you speak of?

[Schema Thing]

90. Did I miss where the Republicans in Congress turned it over to the Dems?

I didn't hear about this new development, Tom.

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. What about that gives them all the cards?

Republicans having the House that is. Everyone in the House has to run for reelection in 2012 also. If Democrats are the real "adults in the room" then they know that you can't give in to every demand that children make out of fear of their tantrum. Republicans know they can't pass anything by themselves, and they know also that if they end up looking like worthless idiots to most Americans they will lose control of the House. Yes they have a hand to play and yes they can cut some kind of deal with Democrats because of that, but it's so much more funfor them to act like they are holding a Royal Flush to bluff Democrats into giving them the pot.

[Time for change]

98. Because our government is corrupt to its core

There are two reasons that our government is corrupt to its core: 1) Bribery of public officials is legal in our country, as long as it's called "campaign contributions"; 2) With the weaalth gap widening to probably the largest extent in U.S. history, the money of the few is able to purchase more and more government favors, to the extent that a majority of our elected officials today believe that it is in their political interests to favor the wealthiest 1% over 99% of the rest of us.

Therefore, the wealth gap and the corruption of our government are mutually reinforcing. The more money they have, the more government favors they purchase, which further increases their wealth compared to the rest of us. The multi-trillion $ bailout of the big banks, with almost no strings attached, is a prime example. That money came from the American taxpayer and had almost no effect on our economy except to multiply their wealth and power.

When enough Americans wake up to what is happening that all the propaganda in the world won't get them to go along with this, then it will be over for them. I hope to see that happen before I die.

[Amonester]

106. The true answer. ^^^^^^^^^^^

The original change that must happen before any other changes can ever be implemented. Until then, the only change that will happen will be for worse. And that original change will not happen from within the walls of Congress or the WH, because it will have to come from within the people applying enough pressure (general-strike style) on the powers that be.

Everything else is a waste of (precious) time.

[dan shays]

102. Because the corporados own it

Faux "News" may be losing in the ratings but they've won in the market share. The far-right Repugnican Noise Machine is the darling of Corporate America, they carry the water and no one in the boardrooms gets their hands dirty. You know this. Obama (who may well be in the boardroom himself) knows it too. The corporados own the media and the media defines the terms. What we say here or in operations like MSNBC or The Nation have only a marginal effect. So, either Obama is trying to appear "reasonable" or he is actually going to give away the store 'cuz he's with the corporados. Maybe that's a difference without a distinction. We'll know soon enough.

[Glimmer of Hope]

104. Didn't David Gregory show a new tacky magazine cover of her today?

[Douglas Carpenter]

105. because Obama and the Dem leadership essentially agree with the Republicans on economics

and have for the past thirty years or more. Just as New Labour in Britain have essentially followed Tory/Thatcherite economics for the past several years. Granted, in both cases they are less ideological and somewhat more moderate about it than the self-declared right-wing parties. But the basic ideology of "market-based solutions" with less government intervention and more room for the profit motive to tackle social problems has long been the orthodoxy while the social democracy, the New Deal and the Great Society have faded into mere distant memory.

The leading political strategist of the Democratic Party recognize that it is a lot easier the party to raise the kind of massive campaign war chest needed to conduct a modern campaign when you have a much more Wall Street friendly party. The leading strategist also recognize that today's Republican Party have alienated traditional Republicans with the Religious Right over social issues. Therefore they see the Democratic Party's path to victory is by taking up the political demographic space once held by more moderate Republicans. Since liberals, labor, progressives and low income voters have no where else to go, they are confident that they can hold onto these constituencies by default.

[freedom fighter jh]

113. I'm not sure he has put Social Security on the table.

In the past few days, several posts have questioned the source of the idea that Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are up for grabs. When you look closely at news articles, some of those attributions are pretty vague. Yesterday I saw a video (don't remember which one, but it's in DU videos) in which Bill Daley, of the White House team, said something about Social Security not being up for negotiation (tho he did say it needs to be "strengthened," whatever that means). It would make sense to exempt Social Security from these negotiations, because it is funded by a separate fund.

I'm not sure, but I'm starting to think that the fear of Social Security cuts is fueled, at least in part, by hype.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Anakin Skywalker]

115. Umm.....Because they are Wimps?

[TNLib]

117. I wonder the same thing.

But I do know people that are in agreement with republicans.
But those same people don't really understand they are talking about cutting ss and medicare.

I really think that the average person is out of touch with what is going on with the debt ceiling crisis and the media has done little to inform the public.

On the other side democrats were duped into electing a candidate with a very short voting record that was very pro-corporate and now they expect him to be a progressive. Obama is a corporatist and not far from neo-con policies and he's defiantly DLC.


I think we are a nation of ill-informed voters on both sides of aisle and that is how we are in this mess.