White House Communications Team -- WTF?

by: AdamGreen

Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 17:30


Rahm yesterday:

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed. 

“The Republican leadership,” Mr. Emanuel said, “has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.”

Robert Gibbs today:

The White House on Wednesday pushed back against reports suggesting that President Barack Obama is ready to concede that he can’t get Republican votes for health care overhaul legislation, asserting that the administration still believes a bipartisan bill is possible. 

“We continue to be hopeful that we’ll get bipartisan support, and we’ll continue to work with those that are interested in doing that,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. “The president has said countless times he will work with anybody in any party who wants to work constructively on health care reform.” 

Gibbs directly rejected the contention in an article in Wednesday’s New York Times that said administration officials are “increasingly convinced” they will have to focus their effort solely on uniting fractious Democrats.

A contention based on...White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's on-the-record quote.

One could parse, and say Rahm's quote could still include the possibility of bipartisanship, but still: there's something called message discipline. The last four days have seen: statement, backtrack, statement, backtrack.

Jon Stewart Monday:

Mr. President, I can’t tell if you’re a Jedi — 10 steps ahead of everything — or if this whole health-care thing is kickin’ your ass.

Seriously. Can someone describe for me some master plan that might be at play here? If not, White House communications team -- WTF?
AdamGreen :: White House Communications Team -- WTF?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

White House Communications Team -- WTF? | 125 comments
It's Simple: (4.00 / 3)
They are scared of their own shadows.

And the echo of their own voices.

They are, in short, the most incompetent administration since Hebert Hoover.

As long as progressives in Congress remember that, we should be fine, because we have enough votes to stop them cold.

But if progressives in Congress think that all they have to do is stiffen Obama's spine, then this most recently little fibrillation should serve to remind them that Obama doesn't have a spine to stiffen.

He wants everyone to love him.  So the only way to deal with him is to be meaner than the Republicans.  Then and only then will he concede more to you than he does to them.

Sad, but true.  But what else do you do with the most incompetent adminstration since Herbert Hoover?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Careful with the superlatives, Paul! (0.00 / 0)
"the most incompetent administration" - already? I mean, come on, give the guys a chance! They may still turn up to be slightly better than the Carter guys (nothing against Jimmy Carter, I respect him very much. But I respect former German Chancellor Schmidt even more, and he had a quite negative view of the Carter team). And let's not forget that Clinton failed with healthcare, too. And big time!
[ Parent ]
"Overlooking" Carter Was Quite Intenional, I Assure You (0.00 / 0)
He muffed a lot, no mistake.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
OMG, et tu, Paul? (4.00 / 2)
Now you're sounding like me! And I've been willing to cut the man some slack in recent days as I've heard from people whom I still trust, like Dean, that a strategy might be in play in which the house passes a bill with a PO, the senate doesn't, a PO gets put back in during reconciliation, then it passes both houses with a straight majority and gets signed by Obama, with no (or maybe one or two) GOP votes. Now I don't know what to think.

But yeah, he clearly places way too much importance of being loved. Sometimes I wonder if the guy has actually even read The Prince. There are times when it's actually not such bad advice, if your enemies are truly this evil. Then again, as Greenwald speculates, that's all a red herring, and the real faction Obama seeks to please is industry, not the GOP or Blue Dogs.

Now I REALLY don't know what to think!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Funny (4.00 / 2)
Funny how the most incompetent administration since Hover got what it wanted out of 4 of 5 committees and is far further along the path of universal health care than any administration ever.
[ Parent ]
Conrad's co-op nonsense was what the WH wanted? (0.00 / 0)
DTOzone just wrote that the public option was on the WH's wish list instead. Who told Conrad anything about co-op? According to a story by Ezra Kelin recently, conrad came up with this on his own, looking for a compromise that could resonate with the rethuglicans. So, where's evidence the Obama team wanted that?
[ Parent ]
Hoover Got Most Of What He Wanted, Too (4.00 / 2)
So I'm not quite sure how this is relevant, even if I were sure it were true.

(I'm much less certain than you are what Obama wants, aside from being loved by his enemies.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Too bad (0.00 / 0)
Too bad nobody has wanted universal health care since Hoover, then, if this was so easy so far.
[ Parent ]
If getting what you want isn't the criterion (0.00 / 0)
then what has Obama done that can compare with the Bush administration after 9/11?

Looking at Democratic administrations, I don't what Obama's done that can compare with NAFTA.  Only Bill Clinton could've made that happen.  I cannot think of a more destructive policy implemented by a Democratic president since the decision to escalate the conflict in Vietnam.  

Please understand, none of these examples are meant to defend Obama's incompetence in targeting his appeals towards GOP legislators rather than the American people.  I'm just not sure I get your point.    

[ Parent ]
Bacaus (4.00 / 1)
Had Obama got something, literally anything, out of Bacaus' committee we'd all feel much better about Obama's strategy.  Don't get me wrong, Obama did misplay this because he missed one committee and it only takes one to really slow things down and generate the time for the backlash we are seeing.  He really needed 5/5, not 4/5 -- now he has to readjust his strategy.

But he is still further along than anyone before him and still looks to me to be on track for a decent final bill.

[ Parent ]
I'm not saying we're not further along (4.00 / 1)
but I don't share your optimism about the final bill.

Without a way to force the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to lower cost significantly, mandates and subsidies will please the insurance industry, but not American voters.  And the Democrats will pay dearly.  

If you were a Republican, why wouldn't you want the opportunity to reward your corporate peers and patrons while sticking it to the Democrats electorally.  It seems as if the GOP has punked the Obama administration pretty well here.  

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
The public plan was never the means to enforce these cost measures.  Hell, the public plan isn't even available to the majority of the public that already has health care.

The current bills limit the profit margin insurance companies can make.  (They must pay back some percentage of the price charged.)  The current bills have insurance purchased on the exchange guarantee certain coverage and let the insurers compete for price.

There is a lot of good stuff in there beyond the public plan.  I'm actually a bit worried the public plan will be in the final bill because in negotiation something more important got dropped instead.

Don't get me wrong, I want the public plan and I love the fight going on now with the Left flexing its muscle.  But there is a hell of a lot more going on then just a simple good guy/bad guy dynamic over the public plan that seems to have captured everyone's attention.

[ Parent ]
No. Think deeper. (4.00 / 1)
See http://campaignsilo.firedoglak...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

Paul, this is not incompetence.  See my comment below and read Jane and Glenn.

It's the New K-Street Project.

Some slight reform and defunding Rs.  

It's old politics; not new.    

[ Parent ]
And the echo of their own VICES (4.00 / 1)
There, that's better, I think.
[ Parent ]
Media Spin FAIL (0.00 / 0)
"The Republican leadership," Mr. Emanuel said, "has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."

Rahm attacked the leadership, not the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, but the media, who loves to make stories where there isn't, decided it was the end of bipartisanship...when all it really was was a shot across the bow.

Gibbs also reiterated that the Republican leadership is to blame.

This may be an attempt (a possibly vain one, I'd admit) to try to place a divide between Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Chuck Grassley (should he actually be vulnerable from this) into decideding whether they want to side with Boehner and McConnell...or with the President.

parsing (4.00 / 1)
Right, but that's the parsing I references above.

Chuck Grassley -- ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and the main Republican negotiating this bill, is he really not a leader?

Seems like his comments are the ones who kicked off this Emanuel thing, so seems like the parsing isn't even accurate. Rahm was saying Grassley is interested in partisanship and politics.

[ Parent ]
In political speak, no (0.00 / 0)
Grassley doesn't count as "Republican leadership"

[ Parent ]
btw, this was most likely a direct attack (0.00 / 0)
on Jon Kyl.  
[ Parent ]
you mean indirect attack? (4.00 / 1)
Rahm easily could have said, "It seems like Jon Kyl has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for his political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day. Senators like Chuck Grassley will need to decide whether to stand with partisans like Kyl or he overwhelming majority of Americans who demand reform."

But he didn't.  

[ Parent ]
yeah that's what I meant (0.00 / 0)
indirect attack
[ Parent ]
It's Parsleying! (4.00 / 2)
No sage. No time.  And where's Rosemary Woods when you really need her?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Makes some sense. But this also shows... (0.00 / 0)
that there is no point in investing efforts in incredible smart manipulations, if the media will screw them up anyway. This only shows that you weren't smart enough to take the stupidity of the "journalists" into account. After all, there's a good reason for KISS - Keep it simple, stupid. Too complicated plans simply have too many points of failure.
[ Parent ]
Message discipline (4.00 / 1)
This is the kind of thing that I didn't expect from Obama. He was never my knight in shining armor, but I thought he knew how to run a campaign and stay on message.

This is bizarre.

Maybe they should all just go on vacation and clear brush for a while.

Deliberately Talking from All Sides of Their Mouth (4.00 / 4)
Ever since the ambiguous statements made by Sibelius on the importance of the public option, and Obama's vacillating statement last week-end that included the phrase "with or without a public option", it is clear to me the White House is deliberately conveying different messages to different constituencies.

Since the overall White House strategy on health care reform is based on sheer opportunism, and doing the bidding of the private insurance industry rather than taking a stand on behalf of the public good, the various White House mouth pieces say whatever they feel needs to be said to cajole which ever constituency seems to be most in need of massaging at the moment -- even if the overall message is inconsistent.

This is a deplorable example of how far the White House and Congress have veered from a coherent decision-making process that respects the popular will favoring a single payer system.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.


I disagree with none of this (4.00 / 2)
But I also believe (as I'm sure you do too) that in politics, you make the most of what you currently have, rather than merely point out what's wrong with things as they are today, and that even now, we are developing the means of countering Obama's weakness to Repubs and Blue Dogs and/or selling out to industry, via the progressive caucus in the house and senate. Since Obama is not likely to take charge here and do what's right on his own, we're going to have to do what FDR told his suppoorters to do, and make him do it.

Politics, ultimately, is about getting things done--preferably good things--within the realm of the possible, not about perfection. What we have now is far from perfect. But it's increasingly, I think, manageable, with persistance, smarts and courage.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I'm leaning towards Greenwald's take on this (4.00 / 5)
as he articulated in this posting today. He believes that the Obama administration has been hiding behind the excuse that real reform can't pass without GOP and ConservaDem support--and in any case we're living in post-partisan nirvana and need to all love one another and learn how to compromise--to justify its real motivation for these cave-ins, which is that they're owned by, or at least most deferential towards, the health care and drug industries, and that reform is being tailored to suit their desires, not the public good. Since that's politically unsaleable ("Grandma must in fact die, because Wellpoint must not"), they have to fall back on this phony bipartisanship and "We can't do it without the GOP and Blue Dogs" nonsense.

I'm strongly inclined to believe this. It's what we saw or are seeing with FISA, the stim bill, the bailout, financial reform, cap and trade, even Iraq and Afghanistan policy. In all cases, the administration has taken the position that favors monied interests, not the public good.

Greenwald does end on a hopeful note, saying that progressives are up in arms are prepared to block any bill w/o a strong public option. That should be interesting. Then again, we heard the same thing on FISA and so many other bills, so I'll believe it when I see it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Riiiight (0.00 / 0)
Which is why he put public option in his initial plan in the first place!  That tricky Obama and his 11 dimensional chess!
[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 5)
He HAD no "initial plan". It was all a set of suggested guidelines and wished-for elements that he passed onto congress for it to work out a plan from. There WAS no "initial plan". He intentionally left his "plans" vague and infinitely malleable, so that no matter what emerged, he could bless it and say "Yeah, that's about what I wanted".

At the end of this whole process, not only on health care reform but his entire administration, Obama will most likely turn out to have been either as brilliant as some of his supporters claim that he is, or else a dishonest punk who stands for nothing but being popular and successful (but who hopefully can be played not only by the right and industry, but by the left as well).

Jury's still out on that. But the evidence is strongly in the latter direction.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Plan (0.00 / 0)
He had the public option on his initial list of what he would like to see in the final bill.

I'm not sure why people have such a problem with the word "plan".  As Mike said in another thread, Clinton's "plan" was 1100 pages long piece of legislation.  Most would call that a "bill".

[ Parent ]
Obama's "plan" was in no way comparable (4.00 / 4)
to the Clinton plan, in terms of being a plan. A short list of infinitely flexible guidelines is not the same thing as a substantive 1000+ page piece of proposed legislation with very detailed specifics.

I want free ice cream for all. Is that a plan, or a wish list?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
Why did you just make the same point I made while making it sound like you disagree?

So far, Obama's technique of producing high level goals and outlines instead of full fledged bills seems to be working fairly well, messiness and all.

BTW, "infinitely flexible" is meaningless.  If one wants a number rational number between 5 and 6 your choice is infinitely flexible.  That doesn't change the fact your choice is also well constrained.

[ Parent ]
Working fairly well? In what sense? (4.00 / 2)
Not only are we not going to get a true single payer system, which he conveniently dropped during the campaign, but now there's a very good chance that we won't even get a strong public option, or one at all. So unless you truly do believe in this 11D chess silliness or don't believe that a strong public option is essential to a good bill, he has NOT been persuing a strong approach, or "producing high level goals", whatever that means.

Name ONE such "goal" that he's achieved on this issue.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Public option (0.00 / 0)
or don't believe that a strong public option is essential to a good bill

Check.  I just said that, didn't I?

[ Parent ]
You don't ACHIEVE a goal by stating it! (4.00 / 1)
What on earth are you talking about? And he has NEVER said that the public option was a FIRM goal. And a non-firm goal is just a wish list, not a true goal. This is what he does, sets loose guidelines so that whatever he accomplishes, it's what he wanted to accomplish. I think he learned his lesson from FISA (the wrong lesson, unfortunately), that you shouldn't firmly commit to something that you know you might end up backing out of. Instead, use terms of art to make it SEEM like you're committing to something, when in fact you're not.

Obama has a serious character issue. Not necessarily a tragic or fatal (politically speaking!) one, for progressives at least, but certainly a potentially tragic one for him (again, politically speaking only!). Namely, he doesn't appear to actually firmly believe in anything, or be willing to fight for anything. It's rather all about general goals and wish lists, that if they can be achieved without too much sweat, risk-taking or confrontation, then great, but if they require these things, then forget about it, that's not his bag. He's a lover not a fighter, etc. He's a punk. He talks a mean game, but doesn't have the followthrough. Something about him keeps him from going all the way, or even intending to go all the way (yes, even during the election, when he coasted so many times when he should have been out there kicking ass, and which he won, I believe, as much due to luck as due to a good strategy and hard work).

However, I'm no longer quite as despondent as I once was. Obama is what he is, and will likely never change. But he could be made an instrument for progressive change, with enough tough and smart pressure from progressives, in congress and elsewhere. The makings for that are already in place, and it's just a matter of honing the process and gaining experience and confidence on the left to make this all happen. If he won't do it naturally, he needs to be "made to do it".

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
It was all a set of suggested guidelines and wished-for elements that he passed onto congress

This is a plan, now Congress works a bill from it. That's how it's supposed to work.

But for Greenwald's theory to be correct, it would mean that Obama suddenly became enamored by corporations out of nowhere in the past few months.

I always see the "corporations and lobbyists" strawman on the left just like the "media" strawman on the right...an excuse thought up by those who can't accept their point of view isn't winning supporters. The right blames the "liberal media" the left blames "corporate lobbyists"

The irony is the right's failure is because of corporate lobbyists (who many Congressman avoid like the plague), while the left's failure is because of the media (who pretend to be on their side long enough to pull the football away)

[ Parent ]
His and top Dems' biggest donors (4.00 / 4)
have been powerful corporations, in telcom, finance and health care. And who's gotten some pretty sweatheart deals from them, or are on the verge of getting them? Hmm, let's see...telcom, finance and health care! Nah, no connection there at all. They just took their money to be nice and not hurt their feelings, no quid pro pro whatsoever.

And I'm a pony named Sally.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Who says it's necessarily Obama? (0.00 / 0)
It may be Emanuel. Would make a lot of sense. Rahmbo always loved to pull strings behind the screens. He's a cynical bastard who doesn't really have much ethics. And he's at the right place to successfully conduct such manipulations. He should be the prime supsect.
[ Parent ]
I guess you missed this story -- (4.00 / 2)
http://www.harpers.org/archive...

three years ago is not a few months.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Greenwald is wrong (4.00 / 1)
nice guy, completely out to lunch on this, the true reason politicians are concerned about the industries is not because they're paid off by them...political bribery is not as widespread as you'd think...rather these industries employ constituents who could be rendered unemployed if they are not protected...and constituents, not being very swift, are going to blame their politicians for not doing everything possible, even giving away the store to their industries, to save their jobs.

Same reason for the bank and auto bailouts...corporations own the country because they employ large numbers of people and can take their jobs away without it doing much harm to them. That's now how capitalism is supposed to work.

Anyway, even without the public option, insurance companies still oppose healthcare reform, so that completely blows that theory out of the water.

[ Parent ]
Say that to the CEO's .. (4.00 / 3)
when they consolidate companies .. or when one is acquired by another .. they sure don't give a shit about jobs then
[ Parent ]
You're right, they don't (0.00 / 0)
CEO's don't care about employees, why should they? It's not like their jobs rely on them...whereas politicians do not want to piss off corporate employees.

Now if we allowed our employees to ELECT their CEO's, different story altogether...that of course, would be Communism.

Right now, the best argument the GOP can make is "job killer"
It's what has killed cap & trade. We can argue the importance of the earth all day, but we can't argue that the legislation won't, in the short run, cost jobs...and Americans are more concerned with keeping their jobs than polar bears.

[ Parent ]
Allowing employees to elect CEOs - (4.00 / 1)
not that it would ever happen - bears no necessary relation whatsoever to a comprehensible definition of communism.  
[ Parent ]
I was being facetious (0.00 / 0)
jeez...I was saying people would think it's Communist.  
[ Parent ]
How much do they pay you to do this? (4.00 / 3)
I hope it's enough to keep you housed and well-fed. But you're not actually under the impression that most everyone here doesn't realize that you're a planted concern troll shill, are you? I'd like to think that they're getting their money's worth out of you.

But do keep coming up with this lies and straw men. They're so entertaining!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I was shouted down by someone whose opinions I tend to respect (4.00 / 2)
when I pointed this out, but it seems obvious to me that you're right.

He claims to be a former employee of the MSM, and therefore able to give us an "insiders view" of how it works:  as if we couldn't tell from looking at the pablum they purvey.  

[ Parent ]
And he said he knows what's on the wish list Obama sent to Congress. (0.00 / 0)
Can't remember the MSM reported about that. Did they? Where did he get it?
[ Parent ]
Interesting (4.00 / 1)
Who's a better collective planted concern troll shill for corporate American, the GOP and corrupt Dems than the MSM (I prefer the term establishment media, myself), after all. So if you're going to hire people to do this on teh intertubz, might as well hire a "pro".

Last night I had a pretty nasty argument with someone that I know who's in the insurance biz, having held some pretty high exec positions in various firms. He claimed to be for fundamental reform and ideally single payer, and I believe him. But when I went into some detail with him to see what he meant, it turned out that his idea of single payer was a privately run system in which everyone's enrolled and the government collects the premium. I.e. Medicare Advantage For All.

I asked him why, and he said that privately-run insurance was more efficient than publically-run insurance. I've known him for years, and he's not someone I view as a bad person. But I think that, having working in the biz for so long, he's drunk the Kool Aid and is literally incapable of thinking outside that box. The cognitive dissonance would be too great were he to genuinely question the fundamental purpose of private insurance. I imagine that this is true for many if not most insurance execs (there are, clearly, some seriously bad people in it).

Hell, having worked in the corporate world in various capacities for over 20 years, I know how pervasive the "cult" mentality is in them, in the sense that after working for them for a while and having your career and money invested in that world, you start to drink that Kool Aid and believe that what your company is doing is fine. It's no different, I'm sure, from working in politics, or in the media (or, for that matter, being a Fox viewer or hard-right Republican). After a while, groupthink takes over, you buy fully into the "ethos", and it becomes impossible to see things from an outsider's perspective.

All of which is by way of saying that our real "enemy" in trying to implement real health care reform isn't necessarily the relatively few genuinely bad players in the GOP, Democratic party, and industry who are out for themselves in persuit of power and money, but the much larger set of people and forces that are entrenched within the status quo and fighting tooth and nail to resist real change, be they industry insiders, politicians, people in the media, or just everyday people who are used to the way things are and terrified of change.

And this guy, whether he's planted or self-appointed, is a perfect example of it. Every one of his comments is an attempt to convince people that change isn't possible, or good, or necessary, and why don't we all stop chasing rainbows and unicorns and accept the way things are. I really pity him more than I despise him, so lost is he.

Hell, he's lost even if he is a plant, because that's about the lowest form of life on the internet, and one has to be at a really low point in life to be such a thing.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Actually I am under that impression (0.00 / 0)
but whatever makes you people feel like you're relevant. It makes you feel better to claim I'm some planted troll, because then you'd never have to wake up from your fantasyland where everyone agrees with you and the whole thing is fixed to be against you.

Like right wingers to blame the media for everything, it's all corporations and lobbyists paying off our Congressmen because really there's a huge progressive majority in this country...just look at this poll! "Googles frantically to find an applicable poll to prove point* See, See! People WANT a public option! PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY!

Wake Up.  

[ Parent ]
"that of course, would be Communism" Don't call us Krauts communist! (0.00 / 0)
Because actually our Betriebsverfassungsgesetz guarantees that in corporations there has to be a representative of the employees (usually a union member, of course) on the board that elects the CEO, among other things. You call that communism? Better reread the definition of communism!
[ Parent ]
But he's an academic so he must know (4.00 / 1)
haven't you heard about his double major as an undergrad?  Took him 5 whole years....
[ Parent ]
Yup, but I was too lazy too look up "double major" and "undergrad" (4.00 / 1)
Don't forget, I'm German, and while my vocabulary is quite good, I think, there are big holes in it on issues I don't know much about. US Education is one of them Initially, I would have thought a double major is a colonel...

But I don't think that guy spend as much time as a student as me. Not that I really studied during all those years, but still...

[ Parent ]
Then explain NAFTA (4.00 / 2)
and it seems that insurance companies are actually very much in favor of reform that includes mandates and penalties as a precondition for universal coverage so long as it does not include a mechanism to regulate cost.  
[ Parent ]
Pointless to even ask (4.00 / 3)
So many holes in his logic, it's hardly worth the effort to refute. Dems aren't owned by corporations like star athletes aren't owned by the corporations that sponsor them. Uhuh. And corporate employees are just like sports fans, of course. Woudn't want to let them down.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Hey, but "that's capitalism" (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
That's Capitalism with a capital "C" (4.00 / 2)
which rhymes with T and that stands for tool...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I'm confused (0.00 / 0)
(I know, it happens to me all the time.)

Everyone at this site tends to believe corporations are behind the Deathers and protests at health care town halls.

But everyone also seems to believe this bill is being written by the same corporations.

Why are they so against their own bill?

[ Parent ]
Its not inconceivable that you would try to influence outcomes (4.00 / 1)
at every conceivable level is it?
[ Parent ]
Not inconceivable at all (0.00 / 0)
I agree with this completely.  Of course they try to influence outcomes at every level.

But that also shows they are not in full control.  They don't actually like this bill, but there are parts of it they can live with.  If they could make this bill go away, they would.  But they cannot (I think) so they fight for every thing they can get.

You claimed they were "very much in favor of reform", but they are not.

[ Parent ]
What he actually wrote was that insurers are (4.00 / 1)
very much in favor of reform that includes mandates and penalties as a precondition for universal coverage so long as it does not include a mechanism to regulate cost

I.e. they're for "reform", not reform. The quotation marks were implied. He clearly meant that they wanted a "reform" bill that was industry-friendly, not consumer and taxpayer-friendly. They two are mutually exclusive, as is blindlingly clear by now.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Yes, I know (0.00 / 0)
But they are not in favor of any bill currently on the table.  If you don't believe me, check the number of Republican votes the final bill gets.
[ Parent ]
GOP votes aren't the test (0.00 / 0)
Republicans will be content to let the Dems pass a bad bill, let them take a big political hit, and still have more than satisfied their peers and contributors in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries without voting for something that they find agreeable.

Dictating the parameters of "reform" will be sufficient; they won't actually have to support it.    

[ Parent ]
Oh come on (0.00 / 0)
There is no one "bill" as of yet, let alone an industry version that's about to be voted on. The final bill is still somewhere in the distance. Meantime, the deathers are there to pressure Blue Dogs and ConservaDems to oppose a public option and any other meaningful reform that would hurt industry. At the same time, massive pressure is being applied by industry lobbyists to the same Dems--and the WH--to pass a "reform" bill with no public option, no negotiated rates, but federal mandates and other industry-friendly provisions.

Have you never heard of a two-pronged attack?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
And being <i>behind</i> something (0.00 / 0)
doesn't mean controlling it literally.  
[ Parent ]
IS THERE ANY WAY TO ENABLE HTML FOR HEADLINES? (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
I don't believe so (4.00 / 1)
You will be banned for even trying.

;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Corporations behind the townhallers? Who said that? (0.00 / 0)
I only recall that it has been pointed out that rethuglican operatives are behind that. I guess you are simply confused.
[ Parent ]
The point of the deathers (4.00 / 2)
is to intimidate Obama, remind him who's in charge in case he gets cold feet.

Only the ones who own the dogs have the power to call them off.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I don't know (0.00 / 0)
Obama has the Secret Service. I think the point is to intimidate us.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
But he fears (0.00 / 0)
being embarrassed. Being made to look foolish. This is not the kumbayah paradise he thought he was destined for.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
DT, I think it's about time you explain your political stance (0.00 / 0)
I mean, you've joined us about a month ago, and since then have often sparked controversies here. Do you consider yourself to be a centrist, liberal, or a progressive? What's your point in stomping for CEOs? And why those constant excuses for politicians? If you think everything is A-OK with US politics, what are you doing here? You won't find many here, if anybody at all, who share that view...
[ Parent ]
I guess I thought I was a progressive (0.00 / 0)
but now I'm beginning to realize, not so much.  
[ Parent ]
Maybe more on the liberal side (0.00 / 0)
However, I frequently was accused to be too centrist, too. Nobody's perfect.

Btw, I just found your blog at the MotleyMoose:
http://motleymoose.com/user/DT...
Interesting!

[ Parent ]
DT, you sure will understand I'm a bit sceptical... (4.00 / 1)
..about someone blogging at a site where you can find comments like these "I have long been of the opinion that Chris Bowers is more dangerous to the Democratic Party than most Republicans." I mean, hmmm.

And the "about" page at the Moose hurts my eyes a bit, too:
"Motley Moose is a community blog focused primarily on American politics.  The site began as a joint effort by 25 active political bloggers (a healthy mix of long-time Obama supporters, 'Clintonistas', centrists, and Republicans) who had become tired of the trolling and flame wars found on many political sites. They were joined by several writers from right-wing sites RedState and LittleGreenFootballs, dissatisfied with the perceived partisan tone and broad censorship engaged in by those sites, and together formed The Motley Moose. The idea was to build a post-partisan site that could move forward instead of looking back."
Wait a moment, RedState and LittleGreenFootballs? A post-partisan side including such haterz? Great concept, really.

Oh, and btw, I hated the Bullshit Moose, that damn centrist sellout. I hope this makes my stance a bit more understandable.

[ Parent ]
No misunderstanding, pls, I like your blog posts... (0.00 / 0)
..it's just the strange company there at the Moose that irritates me. But then, I stopped commenting at The Moderate Voice because all those right wingers pissed me off. Same difference.
[ Parent ]
My guess is that it's yet another lame attempt (4.00 / 1)
by the right to pose as moderates and infiltrate progressive blogs in order to disrupt discussions there. Textbook definition of trolling, concern variety, on a group scale. Plus, the "moose" is a dead giveaway to their conservative/Republican leanings, an obvious reference to TR's Bull Moose party. Whatever one thinks of TR (I have a generally favorable impression of him, and he was about as progressive a Republican as one could find at the time), his latter-day would-be ideological heirs tend to be right-leaning, status quo-worshipping, and in no way progressive. Think Joe Scarborough or Tweety.

Even if they're not intentionally trying to be disruptive and genuinely want to have serious discussions about policy and politics, they end up doing so anyway, and there's a reason that they're asked to not try to push conservative ideas on many progressive blogs, because these blogs are not about discussion the conservative perspective, but the progressive one. Not that cross-ideological discussions aren't useful sometimes, but these are venues for such discussions and progressive blogs are not them.

Me, I have no use for such discussions. I've had enough of them and know enough about the modern (as opposed to traditional, which is quite different) conservative mindset, and find it to be laughably wanting. It is an ideology for third-rate minds and hypocrites in needs of a front to cover for their selfishness. Traditional  conservatives like Burke, Hobbes, Hamilton, Adams, I can respect and admire, even if I don't always agree with them. Faux modern conservatives even of the not totally insane and hateful kind like like Goldberg, Scarborough, Lowry and Hayes, I find to be blithering idiots and outright liars, the kind I tore to shreds in high school and college history and poly sci classes.

And don't get me started about radical libertarians. They ARE crazy.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
However, DT has been there for only a month or so... (0.00 / 0)
..., being at MYDD before, and signing in at the Moose because he was looking for a community where he can have good discussions. At least he says so in one of his blog posts, which are quite good, btw. Well, I commented for some time at TMV and Balloon Juice, too, because I thought I could raise more understanding about liberal issues. But I soon understood that this is totally useless, and that the regular discussion battles with stubborn ideological right wingers served no purpose at all. And I hope you won't accuse me to be a right wing mole, Kovie!
[ Parent ]
Hey, if it quacks like a mole... (0.00 / 0)
My advice is don't quack, and you'll be ok.

;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
But what if it quacks like a mole sometimes, and nickers like the donkey... (0.00 / 0)
..at other times? Imho that's the point here. Even good progressives can have a different opinion on certain issues, just remember my arguing against "buy american"! And we shouldn't drive good liberals unfairly away from this site, imho. Wouldn't it be better to give DT the benefit of the doubt, some time to adjust, while keeping an eye on him?

Apart from that, only Chris, Mike and the crew have the power to kick a user, so it's not us to make that call anyway.

[ Parent ]
I never called for him to be banned (0.00 / 0)
I just said that if he keep trying to promote RW memes and acting like a concern troll, he may well be banned by those with the power to do that. This site isn't for cross-pollinating ideas across the progressive-conservative divide. There are sites for that and this isn't one of them. This site is for discussing progressive policies from a progressive perspective. And as you say, there are certainly differences of opinion on this on the progressive side.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Btw, no misunderstanding, pls,... (0.00 / 0)
..when I wrote "I hated the Bullshit Moose" i referred to the blogger formerly called "Bull Moose", that DLC staffer whose name I have forgotten (actually, he was a former rethuglican who changed sides. Go figure). The Bull Moose party is a different issue, of course. Imho Ted Roosevelt was one of the most likable conservatives, an independent thinker whose views where ahead of this time. If the Dems would have to deal with such thoughful, reasonable opponents now, US politiucs would be totally different. So, nothing against good ole Teddie, but to hell with those centrist DINO sellouts!
[ Parent ]
I understand that (4.00 / 1)
I used to occasionally read that blog some years ago, until I wearied of HIS concern trolling about how the best way for Dems to win was to be more like Repubs. I think his name was Will Marshall. But his blog's name, of course, came from the Bull Moose party, the idea being that his ideal politician would be a progressive conservative or conservative progressive.

No such thing.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Exactly! Will Marshall! (0.00 / 0)
Damn, my memory really needs an upgrade...
[ Parent ]
If he's truly sincere in his beliefs, he shouldn't be told to leave (0.00 / 0)
because of what he thinks.  
[ Parent ]
I just asked because his not typical progressive stance confuses me (0.00 / 0)
And some other things he said don't make much sense to me yet. Maybe just the problem of getting to know a new commenter here, dunno. However, I certainly didn't tell DT to leave. I just wondered why he became so active here, when he disagrees so much with the others. Imho it should be allowed to ask that.
[ Parent ]
You don't need to defend yourself to me (0.00 / 0)
I can't see any logical consistency in what he says either.

I guess I read something into your statement that wasn't there.  Sorry.  

[ Parent ]
Depends (4.00 / 1)
Progressive sites like this and DailyKos have pretty firm policies on participation by non-progressives. Basically, you're welcome to take part in discussions, but don't try to push conservative ideas, because that's not what such sites are about. Keep doing it, and you will be banned. No one wants people trying to discuss football on a baseball blog. Or pushing Christianity at a mosque. At best, it's socially dense and rude. At worst, it's outright trolling.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Where I come from (4.00 / 1)
three points define a plane . . .

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I'm not understanding this comment (0.00 / 0)


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Geometry (0.00 / 0)
In 2 dimensions, 2 points define a line.

In 3 dimensions, 3 points define a plane.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I get that part (0.00 / 0)
I don't get what it has to do with my comment or this discussion. Been a long day.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I guess it is another way of saying "if it quakes like a duck",... (0.00 / 0)
...an argument that something should be considered settled in the light of numerous evidence, but I'm not sure, either.
Sadie?
[ Parent ]
The thread got too long! (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't referring to your comment but to Obama's pattern of behavior, which was the topic about 2 or 3 column feet ago.

Yes, quacks like a duck, etc.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Don't get too excited about these stories (4.00 / 2)
I would have thought we'd be immune to stories of Obama "finally" getting it and stories of Obama still seeking bipartisanship.  Apparently not.

Let's be clear.  They will always want bipartisan support and they will always be willing to do what it takes to get something passed, with or without it.

Try not to get too excited when a story promotes one side or the other of this dynamic.  It isn't good for your heart.

(Yep, just repeating what I said in QHs.)

That's silly. (4.00 / 6)
Activism needs to revolve around the political environment. If Obama weighs in on behalf of a strong Democratic bill, and gets off the idea of a weak Republican-written bill, that fundamentally changes the next activism steps and the pressure points.

That's why we need to be able to take the White House at their word when they say something. Enough statement, backtrack, statement, backtrack.

[ Parent ]
Your heart (0.00 / 0)
Both sides are both logically consistent.  I want but don't need X.  We all do it every day of our lives.  I'm sure you can come up with something you want but don't need, right?  I bet sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you don't, correct?  I think someone wrote a song about that, once.

From the point of view of pressure, yeah I actually agree.  But actually buying into it isn't good for the heart.  You will be in for a very long rollercoaster ride.

[ Parent ]
Adam, two posts that explain it all. (4.00 / 7)
http://campaignsilo.firedoglak...

The White House never cared about getting Republican votes -- it cared about keeping the Republicans from peeling off the dollars of stakeholders like PhRMA.  Giving in to "Republican" demands was cover for writing shitty things into the bill that would keep the stakeholders happy.  They didn't need Republican votes, they never did, and they never truly cared.  As long as the money stayed out of their campaign coffers, it was all good.

If a public plan gets into a final health care bill, it's going to be because of public pressure, because people who put Obama in office demand one.  Because in the grand scheme of White House priorities, it was something that could acceptably be dealt away in pursuit of a higher political objective by the guy who was calling the plays:  Rahm Emanuel.

And:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

The Obama White House isn't sitting impotently by while Democratic Senators shove a bad bill down its throat.  This is the bill because this is the bill which Democratic leaders are happy to have.  It's the bill they believe in.  As important, by giving the insurance and pharmaceutical industries most everything they want, it ensures that the GOP doesn't become the repository for the largesse of those industries (and, converesly, that the Democratic Party retains that status).

This is how things always work.  The industry interests which own and control our government always get their way.  When is the last time they didn't?  The "public option" was something that was designed to excite and placate progressives (who gave up from the start on a single-payer approach) -- and the vast, vast majority of progressives (all but the most loyal Obama supporters) who are invested in this issue have been emphatic about how central a public option is to their support for health care reform.  

snip

That's why this debate has now taken on such importance -- regardless of whether you think a public option is important or even if you think it's a good idea.  Thanks in large part to the months-long efforts of Jane Hamsher and her FDL team -- who spent enormous amounts of time and resources getting large numbers of progressive House members to emphatically commit on video to opposing any health care bill that lacks a robust public option -- there's actually a chance this time that the outcome could be different.  If those progressive House members actually adhere to their pledge, they can and will block any health care bill that lacks a public option.  They can actually thwart industry demands and the dictate of Beltway leaders; can empower a new faction in Washington (themselves) beholden to different interests (ordinary citizens); and can vest some actual significance in the outcome of the 2006 and 2008 election.


Here's what I think he's doing (0.00 / 0)
I think there are two things honestly motivating Obama.  I think he means it when he says he wants to stop partisan bickering and get things done.  I also think he wants a public option (even single-payer) for health care reform.

My feeling is that he is playing things close to the vest and not showing his hand while he scopes the room.  He floated a trial balloon about dropping the public option in order to pique progressives and get us to shout so Democrats would understand how dangerous it is to oppose the public option.  This gave him cover to hint that he could switch to a "go it alone" strategy.  

What he's telling Republicans and DINO's is that they can either accept a Public Option that they get to negotiate...or one that they don't.  He's holding the hammer of forcing a filibuster or doing health care in budget reconciliation over their heads.  Either way they lose...it's just a matter of how much.  

If I'm right...this is a good strategy.  Hard to follow, yes.  But a good strategy.  

Hmm, never heard that one before (4.00 / 1)
It's almost like he's playing, what's it called, I read about it on the intertubz once...oh yeah, 11th dimensional chess!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
No no (0.00 / 0)
this is the jedi mind control theory! They are closely related.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately the alternative is too ugly (0.00 / 0)
I just don't think it's as complicated as people think.  Progressives have made their position very clear.  Their reactions are pretty predictable at this point.  Republicans as well.  I just think the administration is subtle enough to shape the narrative based on fairly predictable reactions by the players involved.

The alternative is that they are not only just as bumbling and foolish as it appears...but they are completely unaware of where their base is on this issue.  Obama has said he's willing to die on this hill.  He knows how important it is.  I just don't think you can honestly contend he's that unaware that his base is behind him on this.

[ Parent ]
The problem is (4.00 / 2)
you are assume you are his base.

You assume Obama really wants the same things you do, and is just manipulating the Blue Cross Dogs, corporate sponsors and Republicans. They believe the opposite. Only one of us is right and it's not looking good.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Give me a break (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans in no way shape or form think Obama is one of them.  That is obvious.  At least keep it reasonable.  
[ Parent ]
Sadie didn't say this. Imho that's a misinterpretation by you, Mark (4.00 / 1)
I guess you are a bit confused.
[ Parent ]
ehh... ok; I'll take it back (0.00 / 0)
Sadie Recommended your post, so I'll take it back.  The word "opposite" is doing a lot of lifting in Sadie's post, but perhaps not as much as I was thinking.

I read the opposite of:

You assume Obama really wants the same things you do, and is just manipulating the Blue Cross Dogs, corporate sponsors and Republicans.

to be:

The Blue Cross Dogs, corporate sponsors and Republicans assume Obama really wants the same things they do, and is just manipulating you.

BTW, I don't think Obama is manipulating anyone, just bargaining.  He is just trying to get what he believes is the best deal and best bill he can get.

[ Parent ]
Apologies Gray (0.00 / 0)
but what Mark says is exactly what I meant.

Where others see "brilliant strategies" I see cold manipulation. The only unknown is who is being manipulated and to what end?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Rick Warren does. (0.00 / 0)
And the beneficiaries of the Wall Street bailout. And the telecoms who avoided prosecution fro illegal wiretapping, for that matter even the torturers, and the mercenaries.

They all think he's a freaking jedi genius for keeping us DFHs on a leash as long as he has.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
What I wouldn't give (4.00 / 1)
to hang out with some DFHs right now.  
[ Parent ]
uh, what? (0.00 / 0)
Yes, the messaging on this has been beyond awful, but "the most incompetent adminstration since Herbert Hoover"?  Really?

Seems like he's got a ways to go before he beats out W on that count...

I hate to pull out the Harpers (0.00 / 0)
twice in one thread, but Obama is not holding up very well to Hoover:

http://www.harpers.org/archive...

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
It is clear (0.00 / 0)
that Obama wants to be perceived as willing to reach across the aisle.  But, seriously, at this point, is there ANYBODY short of a raving wingnut who thinks that Obama is too partisan?

Please.  Obama needs to stop worrying about being perceived as  bipartisan and only worry about setting the conditions for bipartisan dialogue.  Grassley's nutjob embrace of the "death panel" meme was the perfect (but blown) opportunity for Obama to stop playing Charlie Brown to the GOP's Lucy: "We'll continue to work with those that are interested in doing that BUT we will not work with those who deliberately distort the facts for their own political ends.  If Senator Grassley wants to prove that he is part of the solution and not part of the problem, the President may consider reviving discussions with his office.  In the meantime, we are moving forward."

Yes (4.00 / 1)
But, seriously, at this point, is there ANYBODY short of a raving wingnut who thinks that Obama is too partisan?

Yes.  

[ Parent ]
Who? (4.00 / 1)
Partisan Republicans may think he's too partisan.  Those ared the raving wingnuts mentioned above.
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, DTO is right... (0.00 / 0)
Too many people don't understand that the Republican party has no desire to govern whatsoever...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Maybe it's because the White House and Baucus (4.00 / 2)
keep telling people that Republicans are negotiating in good faith.  This, of course, is easily remedied, if they care to.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Oh yeah, thats it (0.00 / 0)
They don't believe anything else Baucus or the White House says, but THAT they believe?

sure.

[ Parent ]
Read more carefully (4.00 / 1)
I'm talking about independents and Democrats (and possibly moderate Republicans).  So they probably believe the occasional thing the White House says. (You can tell that this is why I meant because I and Mike used the word "people.")

By the way, yes, that's how public opinion works. When the establishment of both parties agree on something, the media tends to report it as true, and public opinion is more likely to reflect it.  If the Democrats stop agreeing with Republicans about something - or rather start actively disagreeing (not just objecting to their talking points), that can affect both media coverage (which is more likely to report two sides to an issue) and public opinion.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
BTW, Comparisons to Hoover are meaningless (0.00 / 0)
It is silly to compare Obama to Hoover because Obama is proving to be a fairly representative early-21st-Century Democratic politician.  What we have gotten from the Obama administration over the past 8 months is what I expect to get from 70-80% of elected Democratic officials at this point:  Lip service to middle-class, environmental, and energy issues; handouts to corporate interests; and capitulation to the GOP bullies.

A legitimate and interesting question is whether the Democratic Party in 2009 is worse than the GOP was in 1929.  But singling out Obama for direct comparison to Hoover strikes me as rather silly.

Well, no. (0.00 / 0)
Don't suppose you read that Harper's piece?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Not meaningless (4.00 / 1)
Hoover shares with Obama his belief in technocratic solutions to all problems, if one just gets beyond ideologies....Like Hoover, he fails to recognize that even technocrats can be trapped by conventional wisdom, and that ideological fights have a useful role in shaking up and realigning the conventional wisdom.....
[ Parent ]
Hoover got lot of things right. (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately he got the biggest thing wrong, and that is what he will be remembered for forever.

Did you read the article? The parallels are downright eery.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Read the article (0.00 / 0)
Interesting the engineers make such unsuccessful Presidents.  FDR understood that running a country as big and disparate as the US is a messy business.  I doubt Obama will ever get that.
[ Parent ]
i guess (4.00 / 2)
obama and his cronies are just satisfied that they are comfortable with their station and the rest of america that worked dawn to dusk and donated to get him elected will just have to wait until 2012 to get more hollow promises to energize us into re-electing obama and his lazy admin, the way the health care agenda is going i wouldn't count on that support or result, enjoy the wh pres it just might be one term.  
The madia (0.00 / 1)
Rahm attacked the leadership, not the Republicans but as mentioned before the media love to do unnecessary scene.
solitaire
White House Communications Team -- WTF? | 125 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox