Progressives To Obama: 'Meh' (TPM)

[chill_wind]

PCCC has this reaction:

REACTION FROM PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: "Tonight, President Obama proposed corporate tax cuts paid for with cuts to Medicare benefits. Forcing Americans to choose between jobs and Medicare is unthinkable, especially for a Democratic president. America needs a massive government investment in jobs – not Medicare benefit cuts, not corporate tax giveaways, and not telling the unemployed to work for big corporations for free." -- The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has 800,000 members

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates#176

[ProSense]

1. Here are

the details of the plan.


As usual, PCCC's statement seems like it was written before the speech...from another planet!

[TheWraith]

8. Yep. When they have to make up their central premise, the fact-checking is pretty bad. nt

[DJ13]

2. Im all for the President's plan

Except for the part where he wants to pay for it by having the deficit committee add the cost into their plan, which means it will surely come out of the programs the newly poor from unemployment will most need in the coming years.

[bbgrunt]

23. ...and a balanced budget approach isn't stimulative.

[Hydra]

3. Sadly agree

Is there only "Center" right and Hard right as the choices now?

[gateley]

7. He can't do anything without votes -- do you really think

the Republicans would vote for something that's the least bit "liberal"? Or fair?

Hell, they won't even support what they supported previously, no way would they get on board with what we'd all like to see.

[Hydra]

12. He's shown no enthusiam for Lefty principles when he did have the votes

For two years, in fact.

Btw, those Repubs who are blocking him now? He invited those people into his house and was surprised when they burned it down...10+ times already.

He feels comfortable appealing to them on their terms though, and is surprised when they vote against him. I'd call that politically inept, but that's like calling Bush 43 stupid- it simply isn't true.

[gateley]

14. He didn't really have the votes -- if it made it to the Senate

McConnell was always threatening filibuster.

I honestly don't know what I'd do if I were he. Bottom line is, they're going to stop him every time they can. THEY'RE the ones who are selling us down the river, not Obama.

I truly don't know what else he could do.

[Hydra]

17. Well, let's look at what he could have done

A common meme is that he has no power without Congress. Did you know that one of the President's jobs is to enforce the law? That he could have had the DoJ investigate Bush, Cheney, Wall St., and most of the forces that are now circling his house and baring their teeth? The very Republicans in Congress that are stymieing him are more than likely involved in many illegal(and probably treasonous) ventures.

How about the Gulf Disaster, which is waking up again. We asked him to tighten regulations and get rid of the Bush people doing the "regulating." Didn't happen, and lots of people will die because of it.

What about the Debt ceiling? Why did he offer SSI on a silver platter rather than using the consitutional power he had to say "No default, get back to work, Congress."?

And mind you, this is a short list. If you look at what he's actually done, it's monumental. He's kept us in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan to possibly 2024 or later, kept the domestic spying going, given out Trillions to Wall St, expanded the TSA into disgusting realms...I tip my hat to what he's done over our objections.

[gateley]

20. I agree w/you on the Bush/Cheney/war and Wall Street issues.

And, I've often been somewhat horrified by his appointees and other actions.

But I was referring to the actions that require votes. There are plenty of things he can do on his own and he's done well on some things and really fucked up on others. But if he wants to get anything passed, he's shit out of luck.

[SusanaMontana41]

21. Then why not go bold? The country needs bold.

I liked Obama's tone, though there were parts of the speech — the rah-rah, the throaty inflections — that reminded me of Carter's "malaise" chat.

And once again, the president refused to lead, to call out the 'baggers. He urged citizens to call their congresspeople (I do that anyway) if they want a jobs bill. So we have to fight for a jobs bill because he won't?

The speech was fuzzy on important details. I don't trust this super-committee anyway; why give it a mandate to cut even MORE, and for what? Tax cuts?

[gateley]

49. I'd love to go bold, I'd love it if he opened his mouth and

started channeling Alan Grayson, but he's got to play to the broadest number of people he can to get the support needed to enact any of this stuff.

I was thinking last night that I'd heard him say at some gathering "we're not going to wait for these guys!" or something like that, and I wish he would have come out and said that first thing last night. But as I thought about it further, I thought all that would have served to do would be to alienate his opponents even more. That he really has to tread easily in this political climate, even though I hate it and yell about him when he does!

I've come to be almost meh about his speeches because he can really deliver -- it's just classic Obama, and I know that what's really important is what comes next.

I don't think calling out the baggers would have accomplished much, except make us stand up and cheer, and again, if there's any chance he can entice some to support this it doesn't pay to piss them off.

We have to fight to get Congress to pass this, he can only go so far. If it were just up to him he'd probably have signed something into law long ago, but pressure on our reps IS needed.

I'm really leery of The Committee, too. I don't trust the republicans and not all that confident of the Dems who are representing us.

There's a wide chasm between what I'd love to see him do, and what I think it's SMART to do. I wouldn't be able to keep it together if I were he, I'd lose it, and I can only imagine the frustration a President has to deal with in that regard.

More than kicking ass and calling people out -- which would feel GREAT -- I'm of the mind that we need concrete solutions in place and working. I think he has to do whatever it takes to achieve that.

[SusanaMontana41]

58. Excellent summation!

I still want bold, though, because the 'baggers won't pass anything he proposes anyway. Cantor's trial balloons have me worried.

[Hydra]

48. The law enforcement is related, actually

When you think about it, the President has a "Tool Kit" of powers to use to keep things running smoothly. Law enforcement, executive orders, staffing, message control, etc. All of these things used correctly could have garnered him significant votes if he so desired. This isn't a general case, though.

Recall that in 2008, the GOP was discredited. We could have run a ham sandwich against them and won in a landslide. It was a unique moment for us in that we had significant political capital and an extremely weakened opposition party. The House GOP said at the time, "Our job now is to say 'No' to anything Obama (brings up)" For whatever reason, Obama relegitimized the GOP and let Bush and Cheny go, even though we know they were never elected and committed high treason.

Therefore, the continuing meme that Obama is powerless is laughable. If Jeb Bush runs for 2012, he won't be laughed off the stage. That was just one of Obama's miracles.

He's an amazing guy, probably the most fit for the office in decades...but it's increasingly clear that he ran as a Democrat because he knew the latent racism in the Republican party would have been too hard to overcome for him to get the nomination. If that's the case, it's a sad thing. The Republicans he feels like he relates to will never accept him into their fold(Or if they do, it will be like Bill Clinton, and they'll never stop dumping on him even as he's in the "club"), and he thinks that looney leftists like me are not worth knowing.

Very lonely place.

[gateley]

54. I agree - he should have come out of the chute full boar when

the momentum was on our side.

But he didn't and we're where we are today, and there is a lot he CAN'T do because of that obstructionism.

We should have seen it coming when, early on, he signed the papers to close GTMO, and look how that ended up.

I can't get on board with a guy who graduates from Harvard Law and chooses to go into community service rather than pursue a high paid, flashy career, is a Republican at heart. Just doesn't gel in my mind. I really don't have any explanations for much of what he does, and criticize him loudly when he makes truly terribly decisions, but I also see there's another side of the coin -- that when he WANTS to advance something, they just stop him cold. In those instances, he does need the votes. :shrug:

[Hydra]

59. Here's the real problem

You don't get into the presidential arena without help. One of my better friends lives in Chicago, and she warned me that Obama was part of Daley's gang along with Rahm, and that they were VERY bad news. Very powerful, very slick, and very bad for the community at large.

I was also pointed to something interesting a few months ago here that explained a lot if it applied to the current administration- "Hamiltonian Democrats." Never mind that Hamilton didn't have a non-imperial bone in his body.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315

I'm not so concerned about the whys as some- I'm more concerned about where we're going and what that's going to cost us...and I find none of this religious fervor over RW conservatism to be at all reassuring in that regard.

[gateley]

64. I'll check this out - thanks.

You never know, good people get bitten by that Power Drug and the good heart can shrivel up and die.

It's more of a gut feeling with me that he's really an honorable person. I've been wrong before, though. I WANT to believe that's true because of the good he HAS done and hell, I just really like him! Plus he picked Biden who I trust totally.

If you're right, the REAL problem I see is 2012. No way could we get a viable candidate up there who would WIN, and if it's not Obama, we get those RW whacks. As disappointing as Obama has been in a lot of ways, it's nothing to what we would get under a Republican WH, IMO. As we learned, they just do whatever they want and get their attorneys to say it's legal.

[polmaven]

36. I often wonder

how many times that has to be repeated....The House under Speaker Pelosi passed a TON of progressive legislation, much of which never reached a vote in the Senate due to Republican obstructionism....Rinse - Repeat! Over and over again.

[gateley]

50. It's even worse now. So many get lost in the Committee Black

Hole and never make it out on the floor for a vote. It's almost criminal, I think.

[sce56]

77. Let them filibuster then we can rightly say they are the problem!

[SwampG8r]

19. so....move the country to the right

and be happy with it?

[polmaven]

38. How about

we go out full force to increase the number of Democrats in both Houses to the levels FDR and/or LBJ had? Then some progressive legislation would actually reach his desk.

[SwampG8r]

75. 100 percent agree

i am not trying to be a dick here but if we compromise with the right then incrementally we have to move rightward to do it
they do not want to compromise as compromise has an element of fair dealing in it and they will not deal fairly with us
i am in the reddest place on earth and there is again NO chance we will get a dem rep
but i will be out there again banging my head against a rock telling them the truth and someday maybe someday.....

[tgal]

82. You first

Get rid of Scott Brown.

Romney.

[gateley]

52. That is 180 degrees opposite of what I feel, and it irritates the

fuck out of me when people accuse me of having that attitude.

Tell me this. What would you do right this minute if you were Obama?

[SwampG8r]

76. i apologize if you felt i was talking about you in particular

although poorly done i was commenting on the administrations search for compromise and where it takes us
in fact i agree with you on a better congress
and i have no problem believing obama would sign progressive legislation if he ever saw it
i was commenting on the fact that we keep moving right because we are trying to compromise with the right
they dont want to compromise with us so they will never deal fairly
in the meantime we end up moving right in order to compromise with them and demonstrate good faith
slowly slowly slowly we do move right
i deeply hope you wont end this thinking i was talking about you in
i dont know you and have no way to tell what you believe other than what i read here
i have ALWAYS found your opinion to informative even when i may not agree with you

[gateley]

78. And I apologize for assuming you DID mean me!

I understand your frustration and share it. Maybe I just don't want to face the fact that we ARE moving to the right. I'd best do some critical thinking on that.

:pals:

[SwampG8r]

79. what gets me is

i am a HUGE fan of incrementalist political thinking
you cannot move a mass as big as ours socially too quickly
it always is best to slowly turn a social group so as to allow it a chance to settle into each new position
lately i see a concerted effort by the american right to use an incrementalist mindset to turn us to the right
started probably after goldwater
if we allow the agenda to be driven by those least willing to "compromise" then eventually it becomes their agenda
and in the meantime we spend all our wealth
watch the work of this super comittee and we will see who is going to win out
if they do not come to a compromise and i mean a real one then spending cuts automatically kick in and they start at the defense budget
i recently saw a graph that claimed the defense budget got 58 % of every tax dollar
as democrats we have a responsibility to see that does not happen
to allow it to continue is to me the equal of treason
as democrats we have a responsibility to maintain americas infrastructure
to do less is malfeasance
as democrats we have a responsibility to americas working people we always claim we are in their corner
to do less is to be liars
as democrats we have a responsibility to see that the people have more rights than the companies
to demand less is to countenance corruption
all we have to do really is live up to our responsibilities

[gateley]

84. It's getting the majority of people on board that's problematic,

I think.

Honestly, most people I know are totally unaware of most of the stuff we are, and when you try to enlighten them you get the "I have enough problems of my own without worrying about what the Government is doing."

We've been lulled into thinking it'll all get done, it'll all be taken care of, we're the greatest country in the world, etc.

They're not aware of just what we ARE allowing to happen.

And understandably, many people -- especially now -- are laser focused on taking care of themselves and their families because they're worried they might not be able to do so much longer. They feel (and somewhat rightly so) that we elect these local people to head back to DC in our stead, yet don't realize they're really not listening to us at all and that they have other bosses, the ones with the $$$.

At times I feel, and the more I learn, that we're so deep in the abyss that fix-it measures won't work, that we'll have to fall and begin again.

Even that doesn't bring comfort because we never learn. :(

[ProSense]

4. Here is Krugman's

reaction.

[bbgrunt]

5. well, I guess I'm gonna have to quit auto rec on Krugman.

[BzaDem]

13. Huh? If Krugman disagrees with you, rather than re-evaluating your analysis, you now say he doesn't

know what he's talking about?

Really?

[bbgrunt]

22. well yes. I didn't agree with Krugman about "free trade" in

his earlier career, and now I think he's just putting a happy face on instead of burnishing his credentials as a truthteller. I don't need Krugman to teach me about economics.

[BzaDem]

24. But maybe Krugman is telling the truth, and to the extent you disagree, you are simply wrong?

Perhaps you do know more about economics than Krugman does. But one would suspect that if a progressive economic Nobel Laurete on your "auto-recommend" list disagreed with you, you would least rethink the assumptions that caused you to disagree with him. Obviously no one is always right, but to just assume out of hand that he is wrong because he disagreed with you is a bit much.

I have said in the past that there will always be some (in all political parties and systems) who will always be unsatisfied with anyone their party elects to lead the country. This is a perfect example. For if any appropriately credentialed person who you previously agreed with disagrees with you and says that maybe the President is doing the right thing, you just assume they are wrong (rather than you) and that their assumptions are suspect (rather than yours). This is why I don't think epistemic closure is always limited to the right.

[bbgrunt]

25. yep. that's the beauty of being able to make an informed opinion.

[muffin1]

43. I've seen 'your side', if you will,

shit on Krugman many times (once even saying that Krugman is jealous because Obama is hotter). Not to mention Huffington Post, FDL, Nate Silver, Joan Walsh, Cenk and anyone who dares not fawn over Obama...

[kenny blankenship]

44. You think people should pick celebrity leaders and automatically parrot whatever they say?

That explains a lot.

[gateley]

6. Yeah, I was happy to see Krugman's bit. He holds no punches

when it comes to his views of Obama's economic moves, so if he's somewhat pleasantly surprised, that's encouraging!

But like he said, the R's will never vote for it.

[tblue]

30. That's a link to your edited version.

You are so dedicated, ProSense. God bless ya. If I was a politician, I'd want you on my team.

[tgal]

83. Get rid of Chris Christie Prosense

Now.

What are you doing about that?

You are not getting out the vote in New Jersey.

Why is that?

[Whisp]

9. he proposed business tax cuts, not corporate tax cuts.

small business employs more than corporations and that is where the breaks should go.

so feh on the meh. misreading and deliberate twisting, yet again.

[polmaven]

42. You put your finger on it!

twist, twist, twist!

[bertman]

74. Sorry, Whisp, but being a small business owner I don't need cuts in payroll

deductions, I need clients. You are parroting the Republican (and now sadly, Democratic) line that tax breaks help create jobs. Working Americans create jobs through their buying power.

Working Americans create jobs.

One more tax break to add to the how many we have given businesses over the last ten years and our employment picture is WORSE THAN TERRIBLE.

Wake up!!!

P.S. Many small businesses ARE corporations.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Which progressives? I wasn't polled. More from "The Narrators"?

This is a prime example of "The Liberal Disconnect". Never has a piece been more appropriate than this, as it speaks directly to the tripe in the o.p.

"This is an essential liberal disconnect: The narrators are far angrier than the audience"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=765073&mesg_id=765073

Those, who the M$M have dubbed as "liberal voices" only speak for themselves. They obviously do not speak for the rank & file.

"Obama at 81% Among Liberal Democrats"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=765593&mesg_id=765593

But hey, never give up! :hi:

[saras]

46. So the fact that we know more than corporate sheeple makes us wrong - got it.

It's going to be the case as long as corporate media exist that a large portion of the public are simply going to be full of shit. And typically there's a large professional class, filled with media "liberals", who support them while pretending to define and reflect the "mainstream". Like the New York Times' historical role in propping up whatever story the CIA were interested in spreading, for example.

Nothing significant about 9-11, for example, has changed to make people more suspicious of the original story than when it happened. The same media are still reporting the same issues with the same slant. And the vast majority of the information was available from the beginning. Everyone who's "changed their mind" about it was wrong at first. Yep, that's pretty much the whole nation. As usual, Americans as a whole were more wrong than right. This isn't surprising or shocking, it's just the way this country has been for hundreds of years.

Americans were all full of shit about Nixon. Americans were all full of shit about Reagan. They were all full of shit about Bush. The ones who voted in the Tea Party - that's a given. It's a tough set of facts for a small-d democrat, but without the truth you won't do any better than the Tea Party.

It's part of the JOB of political parties to articulate clear sets of values and to educate the public as to the working of these values. Otherwise who needs 'em? They're nothing more than organized mobs of potential rioters at the bottom, and rubber stamps for the policies of the elites at the top.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. How elitist of you. "Sheeple"? Is there any wonder? Well, nevermind....

:eyes:

[woo me with science]

11. "Tonight, President Obama proposed corporate tax cuts paid for with cuts to Medicare benefits."

It will also starve Social Security.

One more step in the war on the poor and the elderly.

[amborin]

15. +1 unconscionable

[chill_wind]

16. SS and Medicare Cuts

are not going to play well for him in swing states, if that's what he's thinking.



QUESTION: If President Obama supported or signed into law any cuts to Medicare and Medicaid benefits, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him, or would it make no difference to you?

Ohio (522 voters, 4.3% MOE) 12% more likely 58% less likely 30% no difference
Missouri (564 voters, 4.1% MOE) 9% more likely 57% less likely 34% no difference
Montana (723 voters, 3.6% MOE) 8% more likely 52% less likely 41% no difference
Minnesota (492 voters, 4.4% MOE) 12% more likely 42% less likely 46% no difference


QUESTION: If President Obama supported or signed into law any cuts to Social Security, or any raise in the retirement age, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him, or would it make no difference to you?

Ohio (478 voters, 4.5% MOE) 11% more likely 53% less likely 36% no difference
Missouri (486 voters, 4.5% MOE) 12% more likely 50% less likely 38% no difference
Montana (712 voters, 3.7% MOE) 12% more likely 55% less likely 34% no difference
Minnesota (508 voters, 4.4% MOE) 11% more likely 45% less likely 44% no difference

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/poll_budget_swingstates/?source=bp

[tblue]

28. If Perry or Romney proposed that, who here would not scream?

That's exactly what he proposed. And he will negotiate it further to the right. If I'm wrong, I'll buy everyone here a beer!

[Roselma]

18. Sorry I ever contributed to PCCC, because of crap

like this. Obama didn't propose corporate tax cuts, except for small businesses. He didn't propose cuts to Medicare benefits. He didn't force people to choose between jobs and Medicare.

Additionally PCCC's Adam Green is a scam artist (in my opinion) and pulls this type of stunt: http://www.angryblacklady.com/2011/07/21/adam-green-and-progressive-change-campaign-committee-pccc-rip-off-stephen-colbert/

Also, Aaron Schwartz has been indicted. Details: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/07/19/progressive-change-campaign-committee-pccc-co-founder-aaron-swartz-indicted-for-mail-fraud/

Plus, there's this bit of lying: http://www.angryblacklady.com/2011/07/15/adam-greens-dishonest-attack-and-appeal-for-cash/

Most important, they're a big scam and don't give money to candidates' campaigns so much as they pay themselves nice salaries: http://theobamadiary.com/2011/07/15/here-we-go-again-2/

I won't be burned again by those lying creeps. Sorry...I don't like my trust abused.

[Emit]

26. Wow, thanks, Roselma, for the info - you really did your homework!

We need more of that here at DU these days. :hi:

[tblue]

32. I guess you could call it that.

Anyway, you can shoot the messenger (PCCC) but can you refute what they said?

Must "reform Medicare" and extend Social Sec "payroll tax holiday." That's in the speech, and NO DEMOCRAT worth his salt should ever, ever go there.

[Bluebear]

33. +++

[EFerrari]

57. PCCC gets attacked because they are effective. n/t

[Roselma]

67. Yes...I can refute - sort of.

Because the PCCC reads between the lines (unspoken words of the president), doesn't mean they are correct. When PCCC says that they conclude that Obama said this or that, I don't trust them. They have suckers like me send them money so that they can pay themselves. They try to create dissent amongst those who wish to have a more ideologically-pure liberal politician in the White House and those who are realistic enough to know that THERE IS NO IDEOLOGICALLY-PURE, viable candidate who has the following to defeat Obama in the primaries yet win in the general election. I have come to conclude that their goal is to defeat Obama and to pad their own pockets in the process.

[JoeyT]

35. Yeah, we need more people that can fire a shotgun blast of blue links

at anything they can't refute. We could use some more baseless well poisoning too.

That will show us.

[Emit]

61. Uh, Yeah, well following some of those links leads to Progressive Change Campaign Cmte Expenditures

From OpenSecrets.org

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00458000&cycle=2010

Looks to me like their total contributions to candidates in 2010 was abysmal (35.2K), which is odd considering that "getting more progressive elected" is what Adam Green really talked up big in 2009 when he left Moveon to start PCCC. Looks like they spend an awful lot on media however (855.7K). Even their campaign expenses totaled only 198.8K, a small chunk of their pie.

I learned something here ... and I don't mind educating myself by following some links that people with differing opinons have on these matters.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[2banon]

29. Never heard of the PCCC before now, and so I followed....

the balloon juice link to see what the indictment was all about as a starting point.

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion regarding the "indictment" MIT doesn't appear to be pressing charges, apparently because downloading the 17th century material is no longer copywrite protected as it is public domain, and the documents he was downloading, was actually archived for the expressed purpose of sharing.. so the "indictment" is likely to be one of those oops, our bad kinds of situations.. fairly soon I would expect.

Just following that link consumed more time than I should have allowed on this matter, so i'm leaving the thread with a sort of agnostic pov, feeling as though I've not learned much on the subject.

[tblue]

31. So much for the blue links then! Lol! Ain't nothin' there!!!

Welcome to DU, 2banon! :hi: Hold on to your horses. There are some strong personalities here.

[2banon]

71. thanks for the welcome! Just trying to figure it all out, ya know,,, ??

I've gone down so many rabbit holes only to come up with twisted and mangled things that look like might have been carrots if they only germenated & sprouted properly! (sorry for the terrible metaphor) :hi:

[SidDithers]

41. ++++....nt

Sid

[Number23]

69. Glad to see some deciding to reject this disgusting, cynical idiocy

That Obamadiary link alone should have put an end to Hamsher and this group. But by sheer force of stupid..., er stubbornness, many refuse to believe that their "saviors" are only there for themselves and the almighty $$$.

[Inuca]

34. "corporate tax cuts paid for with cuts to Medicare benefits" is a LIE n/t

[JTFrog]

37. I guess Bernie Sanders is no progressive then.

He seemed rather supportive of Obama's plan on Ed's show.

:shrug:

[TBF]

53. Did you watch it?

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/media/view/?id=213892d5-549c-4c52-b4ca-a28e48600366

Please watch it all the way through. Talks about devil being in the details, depends upon what Obama does with Social Security/Medicare. No mention of cutting wars. Lots of tax breaks, Sanders favors direct employment.

[SidDithers]

39. Well of course...

Should we expect anything less from the buffoons at PCCC?

Sid

[dionysus]

40. me to OP: 'Meh' nt

[Greybnk48]

60. Agreed. to OP, 'meh.'

[SidDithers]

45. The CPC has a different take...

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison today released the following statement on the president’s jobs speech:

“The President has delivered a good start for putting Americans back to work that includes elements we as progressives have been calling for. Our country will finally make essential repairs to America’s roads and bridges. Wall Street and multi-millionaires will start to pay their fair share and support the country that has helped them prosper. The long-term unemployed, who have been hit hardest by the recession, will have the support they need while they find jobs.

For eight months, the Republicans have successfully paralyzed the national conversation by holding the people’s business hostage. They have shown no interest in putting the livelihoods of millions of working families ahead of their own narrow political goals. They have refused to take job creation seriously. As a result, we have seen record numbers of laid-off teachers, returning veterans struggling to find work, and firefighters and first respondershurting for funding.

The crisis is so severe that we must do morethan the president has proposed. That’s why next week the Congressional Progressive Caucus will unveil our Framework to Rebuild the American Dream. It offers a bold, comprehensive progressive vision for America based on what we can do, not the Tea Party vision of what America can’t do. As we showed with the People’s Budget, we can create millions of jobs and eliminate the deficit within ten yearsif we choose the right priorities and make good decisions.

We join the President in calling on Congressional Republicans to put the national interest ahead of partisan stonewalling. We stand ready to move forward and put American families back to work.”

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=61&parentid=5§iontree=5,61&itemid=402


Perhaps real progressives are more in tune with the CPC than with the money-grubbing hacks at PCCC.

Sid

[JTFrog]

55. +1

[EFerrari]

56. The money grubbing hacks who raised 100K for Elizabeth Warren's kick off.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/25/progressives_raise_over_100000_for_warren.html

[SidDithers]

63. So they finally gave some of fundraising to the actual candidate?...

good for them. That hasn't been their history.

Edit: their opensecrets page here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2012&strID=C00458000

Edit 2: are you sure they gave her the money? Or are they going to use it to run their own "Draft Warren" ads?

Sid

[Emit]

65. EFerrari, that's encouraging

Thanks for posting - here's the link showing who is supporting PCCC thru ActBlue

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BJAwo6EGjc8J:www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/21594+pccc+elizabeth+warren+act+blue&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Maybe this year they'll funnel more $$ toward progressive candidates. I wasn't impressed with their numbers from last year.

[chill_wind]

66. I guess they do, if they're coming out with their own plan next week.

Probably aren't going to be pushing any Columbia FT deals for Republicans in it, among other things. It's a nice letter, though.

[TBF]

51. Recommended. nt

[slay]

62. Pretty much my thoughts too

i have no idea why some people were posting threads here like "Homerun!" after another big giveaway speech to the republicans (and they'll probably get even more out of it before all is said and done). then i looked at who posted that thread and what forum it came from, and all made sense. :eyes:

[Skittles]

81. because those are stupid fucking idiots who think Obama can do no wrong

all CONSTANT evidence to the contrary

[Laelth]

68. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[southernyankeebelle]

70. Until we get corporation out of government no one wins. The president is bought & pd for by corp.

[chill_wind]

72. Reich's more than a little 'meh'

on actual substance and strategy. He gives him high marks on style and words, though.

"So two cheers — for both the President’s style and his words. And one jeer: He failed on substance and strategy."

See

Two cheers and one jeer for the American Jobs Act

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2011/0909/Two-cheers-and-one-jeer-for-the-American-Jobs-Act

[ProSense]

73. More reaction to the President's proposal:

Dean Baker: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue

CBPP President Robert Greenstein discussed the President’s jobs proposal...

Chairman Cleaver’s Statement on President Obama’s Address to Congress on Job Creation

Congressional Progressive Caucus statement on the President's jobs proposal

Trumka: In Speech, Obama ‘Goes to the Mat’ to Create New Jobs

Teamsters Urge Support for Jobs Plan

Fire Fighters Say President’s Investment in Public Safety Will Create Jobs and Boost National Security

Economists: Obama’s plan would work (if it passes)

American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment

[Skittles]

80. LOL

it is all so predictable now