BOLD PROGRESSIVES Ad/Petition: President Obama: FIGHT, don't cave on Bush taxcuts for millionaires!

by: Paul Rosenberg

Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 18:00


We don't have to just roll over. Via email from BoldProgressives.org/Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

Enough of President Obama caving to the Republicans on every issue!

Today, we're launching a powerful new TV ad that uses Obama's own words to push him to fight the Republicans on tax cuts for the rich. The New York Times covered our ad this morning -- and it's sure to keep causing a stir.

President Obama clearly promised during his campaign: "We will also allow the temporary Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire."
Our ad shows that promise -- plus devastating video of House Republican leader John Boehner admitting he would buckle if Obama fought hard for that promise. 

This is a winnable fight for Democrats -- if Obama keeps his promise and fights! 

Help make sure the White House sees this message by chipping in $4 air this new ad in DC.

We'll run this ad as long as regular people keep funding it. So please donate what you can and pass this email to others. (Or, sign our petition here.)

Thanks for being a bold progressive.

-- Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, PCCC co-founders

Paul Rosenberg :: BOLD PROGRESSIVES Ad/Petition: President Obama: FIGHT, don't cave on Bush taxcuts for millionaires!

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

Yes! Obama 2.007 a great primary (4.00 / 2)
Candidate to run against President Obama!

This is great.  Many of us have been advocating--only partly in jest--running Obama 2.007, as a sort of "Max Headroom," against President Obama.

What a great idea!  And I bet we can find more examples without much effort.


Wasting Money (4.00 / 1)
Seems to me asking Obama to keep a promise is a waste of money.  

Now, if you want money to fund a primary challenge, we could talk.  


Sure. (4.00 / 2)
Fly first.  Then crawl.

Brilliant!

"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 ]
Well, the Obama reality grounded many hi flying hopes! (0.00 / 0)
Or what's your point?

[ Parent ]
The point is to organize and act. (0.00 / 0)
Not feel sorry for ourselves and despondant.

The point is to organize and act.

We dont have time to mope.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Ok. Sure. (0.00 / 0)
However, feeling sry and depressed is only natural. We ain't no robots! Not us...

[ Parent ]
Warning danger danger Will Robinson. (0.00 / 0)
we are lost in space...

but we can make it back

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
'I give you the year's supply of good old H2O we used to have.' (0.00 / 0)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3554...

Lost, shmost, we can ALWAYS make it back! Never surrender.


[ Parent ]
And as long as I'm ranting (4.00 / 3)
There is nothing BOLD about begging Obama to do what he isn't going to do.  Gee, was it just yesterday, why yes it was, when his team was trying to get the base to write letters to the editor thanking them for screwing labor on the federal pay freeze.  Thank you for assaulting me, Obama.  Right.


[ Parent ]
It's not begging (4.00 / 6)
It's delegitimizing.  

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 ]
Or even legitimizing (4.00 / 2)
making the case for forcing him to act.
One cannot put pressure on, until one puts pressure on.

Create room and demand to the left, apply as much pressure as we can ORGANIZE.

(I am agreeing with David, btw, putting different words on it.)  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
It's only a start, Aliceann! (4.00 / 2)
And it's right not to go all-in with the first ads in that direction. The public has to be carefully prepared to accept that Obama isn't on their side, but partying with big money interests. To the not-so-well informed, this still comes as a shock, and there's only so much they will tolerate when their worldview is challenged in this way. As I see it, this is a move in the right direction, and I believe this can gain traction. And the WH shouldtake this very seriously, because, even with their obvious leaning to the right, they don't want to be seen as being isolated from their own party. That would harm their ability to build a colation of rethugs, DINO's and BlueDogs, and would delegitimize their policies. So, let's support this new initiative, it really has the chance to FORCE the Obama gang to think twice!

[ Parent ]
The universe, political and otherwise is bigger than Obama (4.00 / 3)
The ad is more a statement than begging the President for anything.

He either listens to himself or he doesn't. His choice.

Either way, I know what I'd like him to do and the ad expresses (at least and inkling) of it.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
A so-far small but enthusiastic group at FireDogLake.com is working to get a Primary Obama / Dump Obama movement off the ground (0.00 / 0)
See diaries by themalcontent and jeffroby. If you have $$ to invest in the cause, don't be shy.

As for the so-called bold progressives, while they did themselves proud, ever so briefly, their final performance during the healthcare debacle made me lose any hope for anything great from them. Unfortunately, I now see them as a time, energy and money sink for more aggressive, genuinely bold progressives who don't know where to better invest their assets.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
re: pccc (4.00 / 1)
As for the so-called bold progressives, while they did themselves proud, ever so briefly, their final performance during the healthcare debacle made me lose any hope for anything great from them.

yeah, after all these years it's time to bail on them

I mean they were formed in 1909, what the heck did they do all this time?


[ Parent ]
You meant 2009, right? (0.00 / 0)


The MSM has tagged Independents the party of swing-voting 'centrism.' If Democrats no longer represent your liberal values, show America there is still a Left by registering for another left-aligned party.

[ Parent ]
no, I meant 1909 (0.00 / 0)
I'm not saying it is correct though!

[ Parent ]
Not enough, and that's the point (0.00 / 0)
Let's say that you want to continue supporting PCCC, but only if they become more aggressive. How would you accomplish that?

I asked pointed questions of Adam Green a few times, on blogs he posted here at OpenLeft, and he ducked them all except for one where I made a factual error. Ducking and "bold" don't go together, now, do they?

Can you tell me how you would displace Adam Green, in favor of somebody more aggressive (and not afraid to answer simple questions that question PCCC's level of aggression and strategy)?

I nowadays think of the PCCC as members of the Veal Pen. By all means, please show me why I'm wrong about that.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Sorry, Dude! (4.00 / 2)
One consequence of continually defending rightwingers (Tea Party racists, global warming deniers) is that no one takes your version of events seriously anymore.

You may think that you're "asking tough questions" that other people "duck".  But you're really just posturing for the mirror.

You instantly attack any group at all that has any real power, any real record of accomplishment because it's not pure enough.

And then you try to tar me with the accusation that I'm devisive, because I won't join your crusade to attack anyone and everyone who doesn't follow your lead.

Classic!

"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 ]
Unfortunately for you (0.00 / 0)
My words can easily be found by anybody who has the desire to find them.

If you say, "Ah, but so what - it was you , metamars, who asked these questions." then hopefully somebody will show me where some politically correct, dues-paying lefty asked essentially the same questions, and got a straight answer.

I'm not holding my breath.

You instantly attack any group at all that has any real power, any real record of accomplishment because it's not pure enough.

I don't know what you're talking about. Well, then again, I have my doubts that you know what you're talking about, either...  I suppose you're suggesting that PCCC has "real power". I suppose they have some power, but by failing to be seriously bold throughout the healthcare fiasco, they disempowered themselves, and I lost respect for them. Maybe they didn't disempower themselves completely, but so what?

And then you try to tar me with the accusation that I'm devisive, because I won't join your crusade to attack anyone and everyone who doesn't follow your lead.

So I'm on a crusade, am I? One that I want you to join? I get the feeling you're suffering from massive projection, with one delusion layered upon another.

I am an activist, and if I was able to afford it, I might well go on a "crusade", though not one that you'd expect (or understand). I'm more into fixing broken systems that would empower citizens, for better and for worse, and for causes that I agree with, as well as ones I find objectionable.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
I think Obama will happily cave and take great pleasure that he punched (0.00 / 0)
hippies. Maybe we should try pushing for the opposite of what we want him to do?  

Opposite? (0.00 / 0)
He appears to already be doing that, at least in 2010.

I think he could primary himself as mullsinco suggests. Hell, maybe he should run as a third party write-in candidate, too. Or pick up a long-arm, wave the stars and bars, and talk about taking his country back (just to impress metamars, if nothing else).


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
The definition of insanity (4.00 / 4)
is expecting Obama to give a damn about what we think.  We need another candidate and we need to break the Democratic Party.  It's a lost cause.

If you want to break the Democratic Party (4.00 / 1)
Attack Obama in a way that brings racial politics to the foreground.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
The White House should be renamed The White Cave (4.00 / 1)
He's gonna cave. It's a foregone conclusion. At this point all efforts should be directed towards embarrasing him. Begging is embarrassing. It's time for some arm-twisting. Eventually his entire "base" will consist of crazy or deluded worshippers and center-right corporatists.

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

I disagree (0.00 / 0)
It's way past time to embarass Obama for his lies and his marshmellow level of commitment to fighting for us little people. If so-called progressive leaders had jumped on Obama when they found out he had stabbed us in the back wrt healthcare, we might have had a much better bill. Instead, the lesson to Obama was "Sure, go ahead and play us for fools."

While it's true that it's better late than never, IMO there should now be at least equal emphasis on primarying Obama. Whether or not that has a prayer of actually succeeding*. The part this would play in a bigger strategy of building up progressive political muscle has been well described by jeffroby and malcontent, at FDL. (jeffroby has also posted a lot on this at OpenLeft).

Oh, and let's not forget my favorite analogy, which has proven to be so popular here, at OpenLeft. :-) The Jordan Rules were designed to defeat Michael Jordan's team, by limiting Michael Jordan's offensive opportunities. There was no way to stop Jordan from scoring, at all, or even stop him from being the leading scorer for the Chicago Bulls.

Similarly, the main point of Primary Obama / Dump Obama isn't to remove Obama, but rather to ultimately defeat his corrupt corporatist 'team'.

* I personally think that, it does have more than a prayer of forcing Obama not to run for re-election, but that may be a minority view, even for Primary Obama / Dump Obama enthusiasts.  

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
But this strategy was employed by OTHER teams, not the Bulls (4.00 / 3)
So this analogy doesn't apply. Primarying Obama will only hand the presidency to the GOP without the faintest possibility of it either replacing Obama with a more progressive Dem or making him more progressive. It's a complete and utter waste of time that could only hurt the left. It's either Obama or a Repub in '12 (or, perhaps, a Bloomberg-like "centrist").

Instead, we should pressure Obama in other ways, such as humiliation, while working to elect progressives to congress and state and local offices. We put way too much emphasis on "get powerful quick" schemes that focus exclusively on the presidency. Movements are built and succeed from the bottom up. Always.

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


[ Parent ]
Ah, yeah (0.00 / 0)
In this analogy, progressives are the Detroit Pistons, and Obama is Jordan. The only sense that I can make out of your complaint is that Chicago usually prevailed, anyway.

Obviously, that's part of the analogy we hope doesn't carry through.  :-)

We put way too much emphasis on "get powerful quick" schemes that focus exclusively on the presidency.

"Quick" is relative. I don't think anybody supporting Primary Obama / Dump Obama at FDL is expecting a quick miracle.

Movements are built and succeed from the bottom up.

Then the Primary Obama / Dump Obama supporters at FDL are not excluded, that's for sure.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Primarying Obama is idiotic (0.00 / 0)
No less so than believing in him blindly. Because like and believe it or not, we ARE on the same team as him, for now. Unless and until you have a viable third party, this is all just hot air coming off a big pile of dog shit. 1968 & 1980. Oh, right, but this is "different"!

Except that it isn't.

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


[ Parent ]
'Tis NOT (0.00 / 0)
though the proof will be in the pudding.

BTW, I've called many times for progressives to hire competent political game theorists, like Bueno de Mesquita, who regularly out-performs the CIA's own analysts. Do you share my interest in approaching political strategizing as rationally as possible, or are you such a non-idiot that you have no need of such experts?

I've noticed precious little interest, in progressive blogs, in guys like Bueno de Mesquita. FDL is the only exception that I know of

Hmmmm, could this possibly tell us anything as to which progressive blogs have a higher concentration of rational posters?

If you want to interpret the above sentence as:

"Hmmmm, could this possibly tell us anything as to which progressive blogs have a higher concentration of idiotic posters?"

well, I wouldn't fight you on it.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
You can game this out any way you like (0.00 / 0)
and attack people who disagree with you as much as you want, but none of it will change the fact that primarying (or third partying) Obama will be an idiotic and self-defeating exercize in futility that will hand the presidency to the GOP, as it effectively did in 2000.

But I'm open to changing my mind as soon as you can provide historical examples proving me wrong.

Hey, is that a bull moose I see? Nah, it's green, so it can't be. I guess I know nothing, being too obsessed with independance and reform.

"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 open to changing my mind that a black man can never be elected president (0.00 / 0)
but only if you provide me with historical evidence.

Oh, wait! A black man was elected president, in 2008!

So, since 2008, it's been possible, but not before. I mean, historically speaking.

Ah, but that begs the question of how it became possible for the first time, in 2008.

This is really no conundrum, at all, provided one is willing to abandon the intellectual straight-jacket of making simple extrapolations from history.

I hear rumors, BTW, that Obama used the internet to raise funds in 2008! Even thought FDR didn't, in the 1930's!!!

Mind-blowing, isn't it?

Well, enjoy your mental straight-jackets. I consider mental straight-jackets confining, but I suppose others consider them comforting.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Obama has already made his decision on this (0.00 / 0)
and it ain't gonna be making good on his campaign promise.

Even the AP knows it. They put quote marks around Obama's "line in the sand."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_...

President Barack Obama's main goal is to prevent a middle-class tax increase. Obama's "other line in the sand" is that he won't support a permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, Gibbs said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Oh, allright, they were quoting Gibbs. But Obama said weeks ago that he wouldn't support a permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy.

I realize I'm repeating myself. But really!!! I understand the view that the PCCC is making a statement with this ad.

Sure, does anyone really think the American public will get it? The electorate sees an ad that says Loser - all the way around: Obama's a loser, Progressives are losers.

Also, check this out from the same AP article:

Obama said Wednesday he is confident Democrats and Republicans will be able to resolve their differences over tax cuts, though he said there would be some "lingering politics" that have to be dealt with.

Forty-two Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., saying they intend to block action on all Democratic-backed legislation until the Senate votes on extending the Bush tax cuts, as well as a budget bill needed to keep funding the government into next year.

The strategy would further doom already dismal prospects for Democratic attempts to end the Pentagon's practice of discharging openly gay members of the military service and give legal status to young illegal immigrants who join the military or attend college.

Emphasis added...The GOP is blackmailing the Democrats, and the Democrats (Obama) think there's a compromise in the offing.

Blackmail!!! Is this normal for the GOP? normal for Congress?  I've only been following Congress (somewhat)closely since Obama got elected.  


No its not normal, the GOP has become the party of the far right. The party of the plutocracy. (4.00 / 2)
It is closer to the military industrial complex that Republican president Eisenhower warned America was coming.

The party platform for the republicans once included supprt for many of the things passed in FDR's new deal, and moderate support for the ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, a new Amendment to the constitution to ban discrimination against women, for example. The modern GOP has become the party of the plutocracy, they literally want democracy to end, to become a pretend democracy, with millions not allowed to vote, with citizenship removed from millions more, with corporations allowed to spend any amount necessary to control whatever elections, with whatever voters are allowed.

The corporations have near complete control of the globe, through their financial power, only democracies are a check, a small check, with elected officials being corrupted as a continuing process.

That is why any effort to risk complete control of the American democracy to the RepubliCorp is near treason to democracy.

That is why we must organize, every day.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
I want to be clear, they want democracy to end. This is not hyrbole, or rant. (4.00 / 2)
Here is the Tea Party National President demanding that everyone who lost their property in the mortgage fiasco, that all renters, that every citizen who has more debt than land, LOSE THEIR VOTE:
PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/...
They are not kidding, democracy is the only threat to complete tyranny, they want it removed.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Digby has a good piece on this today: (4.00 / 6)
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com...

She's arguing that the Republicans have evolve into a parliamentary party (strong cohesion, acting like a shadow government when out of power)  while Democrats are still stuck in a presidential one.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Yes, that is an important article (4.00 / 2)
Perhaps Paul can explore the idea further, or reprint the original Jack Balkin post Digby linked that discussed parliamentary politics. Progressives are devoting a great deal of energy to trying to take back the party, but what about the important effort to change the way the party conducts politics?

Their were some standout observations in the comment thread on that Digby post too:

...the GOP isn't a parliamentary-style party in contrast to the article's premise.  The GOP is a REVOLUTIONARY party.  In it's current form the purpose of the GOP is to remake the entire U.S. government in it's image.  

I can't understand why so many otherwise intelligent folks refuse to see that a party that would impeach the president of the United States for no good reason, would force their presidential candidate into office despite the fact his victory was questionable to say the least and would take action to directly impede the economic recovery for political reasons is not working within our country's historical political framework or parliamentary traditions by any stretch of the imagination.  

Republcans are radicals.

and

Making democracy unworkable does not discredit Republicans, it discredits democracy. That is only a good strategy if you are trying to destroy democracy. Republicans in the 111th Congress are not a parliamentary party, they are a fascist party. Their solidarity in opposing necessary and workable solutions, even Republican ones like Romneycare/Obamacare, is not like the British Conservatives in Parliament, it is like the Nazis in the Weimar Reichstag: working inside democratic institutions to destroy democratic institutions.


The MSM has tagged Independents the party of swing-voting 'centrism.' If Democrats no longer represent your liberal values, show America there is still a Left by registering for another left-aligned party.

[ Parent ]
Yes & No (4.00 / 3)
Yes, the GOP is operating like a European parliamentary party. This was Newt's idea way back in 1995.  And much of what Balkin says about it is true, including how dysfunctional it is in a presidential system.

But it's only one part of a much larger picture.  Basically, it's my old theme of hegemonic warfare.  Remember that Gramsci's concept of a culture war is that its objective is to control the insitutions that define the culture: churches, schools, fraternal societies, whatever.  And certainly political parties are part of the mix.  But the point isn't simply to control these institutions, it's to control how these institutions define the world--not just "This is what our dogma is," but "This is what dogma is.  And by the way, we don't call it 'dogma'.  We call it the truth.  No quote marks, please."

So re-creating what a political party means is just part of this larger project.  And beyond that, of course, is to redefine what democracy means.  I'm sure that the Soviet model would be quite appealing to them: Instead of two major parties competing, there's just one.  And you get to vote for or against.  If someone were ever to be defeated, then they'd either just put someone else up instead, or else blame their defeat on "hooligans" and declare the election null and void.

"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 ]
I agree with the "Yes & No" on Balkin's piece (0.00 / 0)
As Paul points out, the GOP alone is the Parliamentary Party - united by ideology. The Democrats are not of one mind. The Dems are all over the place - liberals, moderate liberals, fiscal conservatives and a few progressives.

Balkin writes:

In a presidential system, members of different parties are expected to regularly cross party lines to form coalitions on particular questions (rather than on the formation of a government as a whole).

But the Dems are the only ones crossing party lines.
Thus, as Paul points out, the GOP has established hegemony, dominance over and against the Dems.

Besides an interesting analysis of the situation in Congress, I think Balkin offers some good advice for Dems:

If the Democrats want to achieve anything legislatively in the next few years, they must create strategic problems for individual Republicans, causing them to break ranks despite the best efforts of the Republican leadership. The only way to ensure compromise when parties are polarized as they are is to make the failure to compromise politically costly to individual members of the minority party so.

Emphasis added....Obama and the Dems have passed by many opportunities to play hardball, though I can't take the time right now to develop that.  


[ Parent ]
re: temperament (0.00 / 0)
I actually think there is every reason to believe the Democrats will not adopt many of the tactics Republicans have perfected because they are just not temperamentally equipped to do it.

I don't think it's the temperament. It's the corruption from the corporate money, that at the moment is stronger than the pressure from the Democratic voters. That makes me think it would be better if we focus on issue-based movement building.


[ Parent ]
the quote is from digby's post (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox