Interesting that calling the president names (0.00 / 1)

like “sell out” “corporatist tool” (you get the drift) and seeking to primary him is considered fighting for his agenda.  Gosh, with friends like these, who needs enemies. Instead of taking on the president, why aren’t you guys fighting with the people who are watering down his agenda.  He has to compromise, because he is fighting alone. Where are the letters to the Republicans and Blue Dogs?  And you wonder why he isn’t listening to you!

---

by: Jalenth @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 12:44:21 PM CST

 

His agenda isn't about Barack Obama , the person (4.00 / 2)

Some of you have very little understanding of your own system so these sorts of comments by you are not surprising.

When people speak of his agenda, they mean those of the Democratic Party and more specifically the agenda that got him elected. This included ending destructive tax policies and narratives that have long ranging harmful effects on the American public.

His agenda does not include what happens personally to Barack Obama. He is a man inhabiting an office. The president is the agenda , as defined by the election in which he ran on certain things, that people are fighting for.

Personalizing it, makes one think you think of this – whether know it or not- in a political science sense as a kind of aristocratic. Meaning you see the issue as Obama the person- not Obama as he inhabits  an office or position of state.

Obama the person is betraying Obama’s agenda as president.

---

by: 19bravenewworld84 @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 12:51:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

The problem that I see (4.00 / 2)

is that Obama sees himself as President, but does not seem to recognize that his ability to act in the role of President is largely a function of his support from the Democratic Party. He holds the office of President because of the Democratic Party. His publicly expressed anger at and disdain of the Progressives weakens the party and because of that weakens him as President when he wants to accomplish something.  

---

by: Rick B @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 13:18:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

I disagree. The problem is that he's a Reaganite Republican (4.00 / 5)

a moderate one, but a Reaganite Republican, trying to lead the country in a time in which those ideas have proven about as right as communism. Neoliberalism, whether the president or the rest of the world leaders know it yet, is dead. Its just the zombie that they are trying to keep alive. The problems are inherit in the nature of the policies themselves. No outside revolution is going to be needed to knock down what they are doing. The more they try, the more they just delay what is a bad economic system. Indeed, that’sthe chief problem with the tax policies. If you read the recent NY Times article- its clear the President is either completely or near completely a believer in the tax policy theories of the right. He accepts their narratives as facts. Indeed, I woulda rgue a lot of Democrats do. IN other words, it is not that neo-liberals failed neoliberalism. Its that neoliberalism is a crappy policy approach.

---

by: 19bravenewworld84 @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 13:36:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

At an ideological level I'll agree with you (4.00 / 2)

What I think I see, though, is a guy who is supremely capable intellectually and very good at functioning in politics at the state and local level. He is also very self-confident and proud of his skills, as he should be. Unfortunately, I don’t think he has made the intellectual and emotional jump to the very different national political level. He was only barely elected Senator when he put together his team and started running for President. Where would he have gotten national political experience outside of running for office? Nor do I think he understands the very significant differences between politics and leadership in smaller, local venues and the very different demands on a political leader in a very large organization like the federal government or the alliance of 50 state-level Democratic party organizations and the (large) overhead institutions.

This wouldn’t be so bad if his personal habits were to reach out to a variety of advisers and accept criticism as input. Bill Clinton displayed that skill, even when he was derided for it. But Obama is trapped in the Presidential bubble with a thin skin and no real encouragement to reach out to his critics. As President he can shut off negative input simply by his behavior when given bad news. It’s more likely when he has a very narrow circle of advisers he trusts to tell him bad news, and this is clearly the case with Obama.

One piece of evidence I see that suggests this is the case is his anger when those who he thought were his allies (Progressives) criticized him. I haven’t seen him get that angry at those who are his political enemies. He reserves the chastising for Progressives who are supposed to be his allies. (A weakness in this argument could be that his attacks on his allies may make the news when his attacks on his political enemies are viewed by the media as ho hum and not a story. But the self-damaging aspects of attacking Progressives argues against this. On net, I don’t think this is the case.)

So generally if you take only an ideological position you would appear to be correct. But looked at from the personal and political skills level, which I consider more important than ideological, I rather doubt it. I think Obama feels threatened by the criticism of his allies when he is doing the best he can, he is proud of his abilities and knows no one else could do better, and he does not think he needs to change. He just believes his critics got it wrong so he will ignore him. And there are no social mechanisms he will permit that can break through this blindness because such criticism is personally painful to him.

This is a pattern that I have observed in corporate CEO’s who have achieved the position of CEO without ever experiencing a major significant failure in their career. When they hit problems that they cannot overcome they do not have the skills to accept personal failure they did not expect and then reach out for help and learn from the failure. (I wondered why some corporate CEO’s who had superb careers consisting of one success after another as they climbed the career ladder, and then for the first time as CEO faced an insurmountable problem, sometimes resorted to criminal fraud to cover up the “failure.” This is a similar pattern.)  

---

by: Rick B @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 15:57:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Well I agree he's thin skinned. That much (4.00 / 1)

became clear even with the Jon Stewart interview in which Stewart asked mostly reasonable questions , but the president appeared to be annoyed by them. Like he was not comfortable answering tough questions. Or to put another way, like he was not surrounded by people challenging his conservative ideological perspective. If that’s the case, it would explain the 2 years. I also agree about the CEO. THe presidency is not the job where you get to fuck up for very long.

---

by: 19bravenewworld84 @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 17:06:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Well, if that's true, then he would qualify as one of the dumbest Presidents evah. (4.00 / 4)

So I have a hard time accepting such a notion, because as much as I think of him as a supremely mediocre machine politician, I find it hard to believe his entire political career was conducted without the knowledge of the Party that has put him in power all this time.

His disdain for the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party (which is more than just “progressives”, as it includes everyone that isn’t a devout corporatist) stems from the fact his agenda runs counter to the collective agendas of the rest of the Party. It’s pretty simple, really.

Right now, he feels comfortable with calling out his own Party activists as a bunch of sanctimonious louts whilst simultaneously expressing his desire to work with Mssrs. Boehner and McConnell, even though he also calls them “hostage takers.” Perhaps one day we’ll finally know why he chose to commit political suicide, but we’ll probably have to wait until he’s out of office for that.

What I do understand is Obama’s faith in The Machine that put him in office is vastly misplaced. A machine only functions as well as it’s ability to put voters in voting booths on election day. In Chicago, they have the means to do that. Nationally, not so much, especially when the White House is busily undermining the economy, trampling on our rights as citizens and otherwise making a huge mess of everything that doesn’t involve simply shoveling money at people who simply don’t need it–he’s truly a master at that one. That’s not the kind of agenda that inspires people to support him, as is evidenced by the fact that 29 million Obama voters simply stayed home this year.

You see, even that coke-addled monstrosity Dubya understood how his party worked and how it kept his voters going to the polls. Obama seems convinced he doesn’t need any of that stuff. To say he’s wrong about that would be the understatement of the year.

“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” — Talleyrand on the Bourbon Restoration

---

by: Emocrat @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 13:39:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

I can't say he is that dumb. Inexperienced perhaps, but not dumb. (4.00 / 1)

I don’t think he is unaware of the party that got him elected as President. I just don’t think he understands how it works at the national level.

I think Obama has all his political experience at state and local levels where the politics is effectively retail. As long as he knew the individuals involved he could deal with them – as individuals – and the “party” was merely a label used primarily to tell who his closest allies were and who this correspondents normally spoke to.

That’s not true at the national level. The national parties are alliances of the various state parties, with an overlay of national party institutions. The skills required to pull dominant alliances together are more institutional than personal. When the national Democratic alliance includes both progressives and blue dogs along with some off-the-wall outliers how do you get them to work together to defeat the conservative Republicans? If nothing else, just the forms of communication that are effective will be very different. So will the skills needed to determine what factors really matter to the majority you are trying to put together. How do you know when to abandon a demanding individual who wants things that will destroy the majority you are trying to assemble? It takes experience, and Obama never had the experience needed to learn those skills before he entered the Presidential bubble where the President never hears those things that anger him?

Also, at the state and local level the public attitudes are a given. At the national level the people have access to the media and are actually able to change the public attitudes. This seems to be an idea that is beyond Obama’s ken. When was the last time you saw him try to influence public opinion politically in his own ideological direction?

Logically Obama should be able to count on those who are on his side in the argument and should only have to deal with his political enemies. Politically, however, he can only deal with his enemies after he has assured himself of the positions of those who are his political allies. I think that Obama is being personally driven by his ego and his conceit in his own abilities to deal with his enemies, while I don’t think he hia the large group leadership experience needed to assure that his Democratic alliance is in place first.

Obama is too much of an academic, and has too little national level political experience to understand when his academic abilities are failing him. (Large group leadership is a very different set of skills.) Unfortunately, he is also in the Presidential bubble where he only gets the information that he wants to hear so he is unlikely to learn new skills.

As you very properly said, “A machine only functions as well as it’s ability to put voters in voting booths on election day. In Chicago, they have the means to do that. Nationally, not so much ….” I don’t see where Obama has the experience needed to adjust to the change from the Chicago political machine to the national Democratic alliance of political parties. Unfortunately he has entered the Presidential bubble where the President himself determines what he is told, and I think he is quite thin-skinned regarding criticism. He also has a very small set of highly trusted advisers and they aren’t going to cross him.

So Obama gets angry when criticism from his allies is transmitted to him. The anger is a personal defense that permits him to not react to the threat that his allies are attempting to inform him of.  

I think the “coke-addled monstrosity Dubya” trusted his party. But they never threatened him, nor did they expect him to respond intelligently to what they wanted. They knew he was under their control. What else was Dick Cheney for? Obama is reacting as though threatened by the Progressive Democrats. And they are threatening him because he refuses to acknowledge their needs. Obama is acting, not to their approval. Dubya simply never acted on his own.

That’s my view, anyway.  

---

by: Rick B @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 16:49:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

That's very reasonable. (0.00 / 0)

One of my biases here is that I try to discount personalization in these matters. In this case, I think you’re raising some good points, even if they are based on a personalized conjecture. It all sounds quite reasonable to me, IOW. So for what it’s worth, I think you’re probably at least partially right in your description of Obama himself.

But an administration is not one person, but thousands of people. It’s a very professional operation. Increasingly, it seems more like a business operation than a governmental one. But in any case, agendas aren’t driven so much by personalities as interests, which is where I tend to focus. So I tend to take an institutional/systems approach.

This is why I would be shocked if his staff weren’t present most of the time to remind him where his administration’s interests lie. You’re correct that this is transactional politics and it certainly doesn’t stop at the State Line. The District is probably the most transactional place on Earth.

Reading comments like yours here today 18 months ago seemed eminently reasonable. A year ago, less so. Today? It’s hard to say really. I’d really like to know why Barack Obama hasn’t managed to learn a damn thing over the last two years. That’s a personal question that I’m genuinely curious about. Because he really does seem to have a learning disability. Of course, it’s also possible he simply can’t think for himself. That would certainly explain a lot!


“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” — Talleyrand on the Bourbon Restoration

---

by: Emocrat @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 17:41:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

In most cases a single person does not control everything (4.00 / 1)

But when you look at an organization, over time it takes on the attitudes of the leader. The Presidency is a special case. He chooses who is in his administration and selects them to be compatible with himself. He walks in with a pre-organized organization tailored to suit him. (Cheney did that for Bush, so that is not a fair comparison.)

In Obama’s case he has a very small personal group that he trusts. No one else is allowed in, and Obama does not accept criticism well. It is well known that people do not give the President news he does not want to hear unless he specifically gives someone permission. I would speculate that Obama has not given anyone outside his small group of insiders permission to give him bad news, and they all learned not to do it before he was inaugurated.

On top of that they have been extremely busy dealing with the alligators attacking both America and the Presidency. Who has had the time to approach a testy chief executive and tell him he is getting something wrong? It’s not been two years yet.

The core of a Presidency is very much personalized to match the personality of the President himself. That’s the nature of the White House.  

---

by: Rick B @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 21:17:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Now you're really honing in. Kudos. (4.00 / 1)

I would speculate that Obama has not given anyone outside his small group of insiders permission to give him bad news, and they all learned not to do it before he was inaugurated.

Indeed, I would make the same speculation. Republican or Democrat, we’re still talking about a circus of Yes Men, aren’t we? Silly courtiers who’s biggest offense would be speaking truth to power. You’ll certainly receive no argument from me on this point.

For me, at least, one of the most intractable problems here is the fact that Barack Obama simply does not possess any talent for leadership. He’s powerful and he has his band of merry courtiers who tells him only what he wants to hear, more or less. But that’s not leadership in any genuine sense. He has no vision beyond what his corporate benefactors instill in him. He knows those interests and precious little else. Nor does he care to know anything else. For him, that’s all he really needs to know, since those interests are the ones that are going to make him rich beyond even his dreams. For him, that’s “pragmatism.” For the nation, it’s a fucking disaster.

Historically, people like that tend to fail in the worst ways possible. He’s 49, but he has the mind of a 19 year-old Nero. That’s about it. If the planet weren’t in the midst of an awful series of crises, someone like Obama could sail through, collect his pay and go merrily on his way. Instead, he ran for office at a time when crises mean a lot more than a means to enact a stupid corporate manifesto. He simply does not possess the talent or the intellect to see anything outside of what benefits him personally.

In this sense, he’s a Perfect American–egomaniacal, willfully ignorant, greedy and possessing the intellectual capacity of a small soap dish. Problem is, none of us can stand that kind of “perfection” any longer.

“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” — Talleyrand on the Bourbon Restoration

---

by: Emocrat @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 22:44:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

The problem is that Obama is not fighting. (4.00 / 5)

And that’s the rub. He took the conservative Republican position and molded his response to it. And who cannot see the glee in the faces of Boehner and McConnell?

We expected a FDR or a Truman on the road selling a position that is best for the American people. Instead, we got an acquiesce to whatever the right wing wanted. Of course they are happy.  

---

by: shergald @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 12:55:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

The reason he isn't listening to us is that we're not corporate CEOs. (4.00 / 4)

We don’t have lavish compounds in the Hamptons to invite him to each August. We don’t have the posh estates on The Vineyard. We also can’t promise him tens of millions in illicit gains when he leaves office.

Obama fights for those who will compensate him later.

He’s not going to listen to us and as a result, he will likely be a one-term president. That’s on him and no one else. He refuses to do what’s right for the country. He is not fighting alone. He has the backing of corporations and even the Bradley, Peterson and Olin Foundations behind him. That’s many billions more in resources than anyone else has, which is why he likes them so much.

Letters to Republicans? Blue Dogs? Look, Obama recently described himself as a Blue Dog and prior to that he self-ID’d as a New Dem. So the letters to Republicans and Blue Dogs should be addressed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, yes?!

So no, I no longer support “his agenda.” I no longer want him to “succeed,” because his success will be a disaster for most Americans. I will also say the same thing about his Republican successor. That shouldn’t be so difficult to grasp at this point. After all, wanting Obama to succeed at this point means wanting Social Security destroyed.

Sorry pal, but I’ll never support that.  

“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” — Talleyrand on the Bourbon Restoration

---

by: Emocrat @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 13:19:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Obama listens to those who already have power (0.00 / 0)

He doesn’t listen to those who are hurting. He is a typical politician listening to those who are currently in power.

Unfortunately, he does not seem to understand his own ability as President to change the public opinion and change who actually has power.

The past matters to Obama because it is recognized and measurable. Obama does not seem to comprehend that he is in one of the very few positions a person can hold and actually change who holds power. So he allows the agreement to go forward that gives the 2% of Americans who control 39% of the American wealth to pass that wealth on to their descendants – people with no qualifications for power except being ~born~ to wealth. (See Eric Prince)

America already has a great deal more hereditary aristocracy than modern Europe does. The conservatives want a lot more. Obama should be stopping them from getting it.  

---

by: Rick B @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 17:07:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

90% agree. (0.00 / 0)

Oh, make it 95%.

While it’s pretty clear he’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, I think he’s perfectly capable of understanding the dynamic you so correctly point out. It’s almost impossible for me to believe he doesn’t understand the various interests involved here. He never would have made it past the state legislature if he didn’t understand interests.

He’s right out of the old Sam Cooke song: “Don’t know much about….” But he wouldn’t be where he is today if he didn’t understand powerful interests and what they want from him.

For me, your opening line really says it all. He favors the powerful over the powerless, because that’s where his incentives lie. That much, I’d say, he does understand and that’s probably the only thing he feels any need to understand.

“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” — Talleyrand on the Bourbon Restoration

---

by: Emocrat @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 17:20:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Are you new? (4.00 / 5)

I mean like new? Have you been here before?

You havent heard Mike support the President through thick and thin?

Are you new?

This is the last gasp support from a strong supporter.

I imagine this hurt, and not because Mike hasn’t been disappointed before, but because he was shit on from great height by the person he has been defending for well two years now.

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

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 13:56:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

I mostly lurk and read, but do not comment much. (0.00 / 0)

It’s hard to stay engaged here because I don’t subscribe to the typical feelings of most of the people who blog and comment on this site.  But I’m disgusted at the level of criticism from the progressives blogs sites that I frequent.  So I decided to commented with my take for a change.

---

by: Jalenth @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 16:05:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

One more thing. I'm quite aware (0.00 / 0)

of Mike’s support for President Obama, which is why I didn’t criticize him specifically, but instead gave an overall popular opinion of most of the people who are interacting over here.

---

by: Jalenth @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 16:08:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Well, I disagree with the thrust of your comment (4.00 / 1)

…but I’m glad you waded in and started commenting!

---

by: doubledown @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 16:24:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

yes, double down is on the mark there (0.00 / 0)

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

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 16:34:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

ok I hear that (0.00 / 0)

but the strength of progressive activism now is growing in direct response and opposition to repeated disappointment, in for the most direct and telling way, in getting the response that was predicted in every warning, in every chunk of advice, and in every well reasoned path forward.

Mike isn’t even joining in the castigation of the President, but describing in detail what it feels like to have been attacked for his support only to be dismissed by the one he supports.

He is describing what it means to give advice that is so clear, so deeply tied to our parties history, so researched, so well thought out with compatriots in the streets and committee rooms, and so well heard from the crumpling people in the foreclosed homes and hard streets of unemployed America, only to see the predictions come true, as those who relied on our efforts despair and retreat, only to see our enemies triumphant again, and only to hear that our, his, advice is paltry and sanctimonious.

There is blame to be shared in our predicament, but Mike Lux’s possibly too unflagging loyalty to the President is not questionable.

So your apparent lumping of Lux with those who would oppose any Democrat anytime is misplaced, and very badly timed.

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

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 16:33:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

You didn't respond to anyone except those who claimed loyalty to the president (0.00 / 0)

Sums up the value of your comment perfectly. I don’t find your criticism valuable because its not what motivates people here.

---

by: 19bravenewworld84 @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 17:18:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

it's quite an outrage, isn't it? (0.00 / 0)

maybe you should try Balloon Juice instead, they fucking love Obama

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 19:09:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Excellent letter, Mike. (4.00 / 2)

I really think that Obama seems himself a leader of America in his role as President, but not as leader of the Democratic Party. He is leaving the leadership of the Democrats (in all their diversity and contentiousness) to others and ignoring the issue. Since he does not consider himself to be acting as the leader of the Democratic Party, he feels free to attack a major segment of the party when they disagree with him – the Progressives.

One very important rule of leadership is that you do not attack your own troops unless you are involved in a civil war against those you attack. That may be how he sees himself, but since his Presidency is dependent on being the leader of the Democratic Party it is Presidential suicide for him to be attacking the Progressives. So you are completely correct to call on him to rally his troops and not to publicly accent the divisions.

The reason why the Progressives are going public in opposition to the President is because they do not think they are being listened to privately and in fact they feel – the word you used is excellent – disdained by him. If there were effective two way private communication between the President and the Progressives, there would not be the kind of significant public opposition. Fostering that communication and making the Progressives feel listened to is the responsibility of the President. That’s an executive function.

From what I know of Obama’s history, his experience in leadership has entirely been in small groups. He may not have made the mental shift to the different practices required of the leader of really large groups. Unfortunately, when he is called on his “tin ear” he gets offended and angry, and fails to control his public image properly. Since he now exists inside the Presidential bubble where he controls everything that is communicated to him, or more important, everything not communicated to him, he will have a hard time learning he is making a mistake if he gets angry when told he is doing so.

One result of that behavior and his lack of apparent public effort as the leader of the Democratic Party is going to be to allow or even cause some Congressional Democrats to stray off the reservation. I’ve seen discussions saying that the problem with the national Democrats is as much in Congress as it is in Obama, but from what I can see the straying Congressional Democrats see little downside in going against Obama. The problem in my opinion again goes back to Obama’s lack of demonstrated party leadership.

I really hope that your excellent letter gets a hearing among Obama’s close staffers and perhaps even with the President himself.  

---

by: Rick B @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 13:11:44 PM CST

 

<s>Stalin</s> Dem insiders: "The <s>Pope</s> Progressives! How many divisions have they got?" (4.00 / 3)

Much less angry than I would have written, but a good letter, Mike.

I have my suspicions that many party insiders – and perhaps Obama himself – stopped reading after, “people like me will support you in the general election against Sarah Palin or whatever far right extremist the Republicans put up against you.”

The point of my headline on this comment is that I have mostly concluded that there is only a certain very narrow range of power expressions that they might respect.

I’m pretty firm in my feelings now that at least a primary challenge is needed, and we need to primary him as true believers that our alternative candidate can win.

I hate, hate, hate the idea of voting 3rd party in the general, but for the first time in my life I’m fantasizing about it.

---

by: doubledown @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 13:50:15 PM CST

 

Please submit the letter through inside channels, Mike (4.00 / 2)

Since you’ve been an insider, there is a much better chance that Obama would actually see and read your letter.  Whether he pays attention to it is anybody’s guess.  But, thanks for putting yourself on the line for us.

---

by: mullsinco @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 13:54:21 PM CST

 

re: vote (4.00 / 2)

And this much is true: people like me will support you in the general election against Sarah Palin or whatever far right extremist the Republicans put up against you.

count me out. I’m not voting for someone that will destroy social security

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 14:54:40 PM CST

 

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

I used to consider myself a single issue voter. Anything to achieve universal health care in America. But I was assuming that Social Security was secure. Now I include protection of Social Security from either destruction or from being raided to hand off the taxes of the working people to the wealthy oligarchs to my set of priorities.

That would still lead me to vote for Obama over McCain or Palin or anyone else the Republican Party has suggested might be in the race for their Presidential nomination in 2012. The Republican leadership no longer seems to include any sane individual who is not a severely crooked opportunist.

I’m not sure what I would do if both parties were to nominate individuals who threatened Social Security. It is extremely disturbing to be in a situation where that possibility seems to be noticeably possible.  

---

by: Rick B @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 15:14:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Words ripped from the heart Mike (0.00 / 0)

Great stuff! Now will someone in the halls of the White House please LISTEN.

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 16:58:56 PM CST

 

I'll vote for the guy in 2012 (0.00 / 0)

because the alternative will be worse.

But I’ll WORK for local Dems who can form the bench of a resuscitated party with principles, if I can find any. The thinness of the Democratic bench (for god’s sake, we just recycled Jerry Brown out here in CA) is part of the reason we are in this fix.

I put the question to people here: who is any good and worth promoting?

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 17:08:27 PM CST

 

the alternatives will be worse? (0.00 / 0)

explain how

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 19:10:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Half the potential Republican candidates on on FOX payroll now (0.00 / 0)

Add to them Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry (TX), Tim Pawlenty and perhaps a few others. Rand Paul maybe? Jim DeMint? Name one that has a shot at the Republican nomination who is NOT worse that Obama could possibly be.

The Republicans do not have a sane potential candidate for the nomination. If there are any sane broadly acceptable Republicans then they are not in position to run for the Presidential nomination. Why do you think they settled on McCain in 2008? They had no one else who could get the nomination.  

---

by: Rick B @ Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 21:29:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

right they might give millionaires tax cuts, slash the estate tax (4.00 / 2)

defund public schools
perpetuate 2 endless occupations of foreign nations
prosecute whistleblowers
force citizens to buy a product from a for-profit industry
form committees to slash “entitlements” while proposing upper class tax cuts
defund social security
allow for more offshore drilling
refuse to prosecute war criminals
refuse to prosecute negligent polluters
bully businesses into shutting out people who haven’t been convicted or accused of a crime
ignore an illegal coup in Honduras
ignore war crimes in Sri Lanka
give large sums of money to banks in a public giveaway
loan large sums of money to banks and corporations at zero interest with no collateral in private
continue prosecuting the war pointless war on drugs
bully and deride liberals
refuse to participate in several international treaties
take their financial advise from Jamie Dimon and Pete Peterson
etc etc etc

glad we’ll dodge that bullet with Obama

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:14:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]