Disqus - Friends of AMERICAblog

Re: How Senators are deforming health care

synical — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:50:57 -0000

It's becoming increasingly clear we elected a politician and not a leader. There's a distinct difference.

While Obama may be a talented politician he either lacks the political fortitude or desire to truly be a leader.

This is the last time I'm backing a senator for president. The Senate is one place bereft of leadership of any stature these days and this administration (filled to the gills with the spineless wonders) is proving just that.

Re: Wash Post poll, very bad numbers for Obama

synical — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:30:32 -0000

They go to the right, because everyone knows that all Independents are not disaffected Democrats but disaffected conservatives. /snark

They will continue to blow it because it's not about left or right -- it's about the perception of leadership, or lack thereof.

President Obama seems to feel staying above the fray is the end-all be-all. But from the cheap seats it looks like nothing more than weakness. From one day to the next no one really knows where this administration stands on anything except bi-partisanship.

They say one thing, the opposition whines and they back off. They pick a position, someone (other than the left of the left) whines and they back off. It's pathetic. And it's getting harder to ignore--even for those not paying close attention.

Democrats always get slammed for not standing for anything -- this administration is on course to prove that adage because they seem determined to let those out of power and a handful of Blue Dogs direct the course. Polls say a majority want single payer or the public option -- this administration seems to be oblivious to that. Like the deals have been made and now they are clumsily scrambling to keep the deals intact.

Voters weren't voting for the fierce urgency of maintaining the status quo, they weren't voting for someone who determines where they stand based on the whining of the incompetents who spent the last eight years destroying this country. They voted for change. Either this administration provides it or they go down in a blaze of bipartisan failure. Which is exactly what the opposition wants.

The important question most people overlook is a simple one:

Where does President Obama stand? Given that this administration doesn't really seem to know from day to day, people lose faith.

It's about leadership -- this country loves leaders. It doesn't mean being an asshole like Bush, it means taking a firm stand and doing everything in your power to see it done -- negotiations, not capitulations. It means not staying above the fray, but commanding the fray and leading people out of it.

Either Obama will find his inner leader or he won't. The fate of the country lies in the balance of his success or failure in that endeavor. But it's quite obvious what he's doing now -- it's not working.

Re: There's no such thing as ten dimensional chess

synical — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:16:10 -0000

Are all Indies conservatives? Because I'm an ex-Democrat Indie who is a hell of a lot more liberal than the "leadership" of this party.

If I wanted a DLC presidency I'd had voted for Clinton during the primary. Something I regret not doing for one reason -- she wouldn't be fucking around with this ridiculous bipartisanship and would be stomping on anyone who got in the way of her agenda, including the media and especially the rethugs. IOW, Hillary is not inclined to appear weak.

Yeah, it would still be a bunch of triangulating DLC bullshit, but at least the repubs would be shunted off to the basement where they belong instead of licking their chops over the comeback that is being handed to them on a silver platter.

Obama had a couple of things on his side during the primary-- the ability to fire up a crowd, intelligence, a 50 state strategy and a shitload of luck.

If not for the hapless incompetence of Mark Penn and the stupidity of overlooking all those little states (typical of the DLC), Clinton might have crushed everyone as predicted. I was shocked at the rank incompetence of her primary crew. And then Obama goes and hires a bunch of incompetent DLC hacks to run his now hapless administration.

The irony, of course -- the country basically got a Clinton presidency without the Clinton fighting spirit (and drama-admittedly). If I had known then...yeah, regrets, I have a few. Clinton would have fought back. I mistakenly thought Obama would have fought back too.

Re: Losing faith in the president

synical — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:36:23 -0000

Seems to me President Obama is playing to an empty house if he's trying to convince anyone of anything -- that's what usually happens when you cede the narrative to the opposition. It's damn tough to get it back.

So, on Sept 15th, according to you and others the sleeper will awaken. Please tell me when the DADT/DOMA proponent sleeper will awaken, when the anti-rendition sleeper will awaken, when the tough Wall Street regulator sleeper will awaken, when the rule of law sleeper will awaken, when the champion of Main Street sleeper will awaken, and so on and so forth.

It's not up to Obama to pass these things but it is up to him and his administration to make entirely clear what they want from Congress and it's important that they use all the power at their disposal to push Congress in their direction-- something they seem loathed to do.

See the cramdown effort, for example---there was no administration effort beyond a mealy-mouthed, "We support it." (sounds familiar). It went down in defeat and people were prevented from having a means to save their primary residence during bankruptcy proceedings.

It's called leadership and sometimes you have to piss people off. LBJ and FDR understood that. While this administration has no problem whatsoever pissing off progressives they seem to bend over backwards when it comes to catering to repubs and corporations. And how many are firmly on the side of repubs and corporations? Not many.

Interesting how this administration threatened the reps from liberal districts with pulling support if they didn't vote for the war supplemental while coddling Blue Dogs on health care.

Sometimes, things are exactly as they appear. At this point if the president fights for candidate Obama's agenda, it will be because he was pushed to do so by all these "whiners", not because it was part of some grand plan. If it was part of a plan, it was an insanely bad plan. A plan that tarnishes your brand is a damn stupid plan.

I sincerely doubt FDR & LBJ had quite the same problem of people not understanding exactly where they and their administration stood on an issue -- they were leaders. They took a stand, negotiated when pressed and didn't cede when they didn't have to. President Obama's problem, whether it's a lack of administration discipline, a muddled message, or a lack of passion and will, is that it appears he couldn't be bothered to do the right thing. That's what is damaging his brand -- voters need more than faith that their leaders will fight for their agenda -- they need proof. It's not just on health care. If it was one issue I'd buy all this dimensional chess crap.

What Rahm and his other advisers don't get--voters didn't put Obama and the Democrats in office to insure that they get another shot at the political gold ring in 2-4 years; they put them in office to get the job done in the time they were given. If they can do that job in 2-4 years they have a good shot at continuing, if they can't, they don't. And no amount of deal making (pharama and insurance promising to not back repubs during midterms, etc) is going to make a demoralized base, much less a group of voters who think they've been punked by this administration, to show up.

Re: White House reportedly put health care in Grassley's, gang of six's, hands

synical — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:53:11 -0000

What came first? Democrats buying into the talking points they are ineffective and weak? Or Democrats living up to the talking points that they are ineffective and weak? Honestly, it's getting hard to tell.

Re: White House reportedly put health care in Grassley's, gang of six's, hands

synical — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:03:25 -0000

If McCain followed the exact same script and Clinton played up the miserable economy, Clinton would have won.

Few people remember that Obama got very lucky several times, not only in the primary but in the general ("the fundamentals of the economy are strong followed by the crash a week later was an extraordinary stroke of political luck when the polls were closing in).

However, down ticket Dems would have probably suffered and McCain probably wouldn't have been McGrumpy during the debates (although who knows). Clinton could be very impressive during debates and McCain...sucked.

Clinton had a better shot than most people give her credit for. Too bad she hired the multiple Stooges to run her campaign. I just doubt she would have had the Congressional numbers that Obama has.

Re: Losing faith in the president

synical — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:13:18 -0000

Whhops. I thought I edited it, will try to do better to make sure edits stick.

Re: Losing faith in the president

synical — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:19:38 -0000

Yep. If nothing else Obama has become tediously predictable. He tends to triple down if the pressure is coming from the left. If it's coming from everywhere I suspect he'll just double down.

Re: Losing faith in the president

synical — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:38:19 -0000

If the Dow hits 10K that will be great...for the Wall Street fatcats. Unemployment is not getting better, economists do not see it getting better. Most jobs are not coming back. Foreclosures are still sky high. Credit defaults are sky high. Credit card reform is mainly a joke. The consumer is not getting into the game because of all the above.

10K in the stock market means that despite candidate Obama's promises to Main Street he came through for Wall Street and he did it at Main Street's expense. Of course, he might have bought into all that trickle-down peddled crap Reagan was pushing and Bush/Clinton cemented and if so, he's a fool. But, hey, the media only measures recovery based on those Dow numbers-- everything else is just noise.

This is why it is crucial to get health care reform right. It's why the freaking out has commenced.

Re: McCain says Obama has to drop public option

synical — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:41:41 -0000

Cue the White House: "John McCain is working hard towards a bipartisan bill and we really do appreciate his support."

Re: Obama should take Plouffe's warning to heart

synical — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:12:23 -0000

One of the major turning points in the election when handwringing was at a peak: McCain publicly spouting that the fundamentals of the economy were strong less than a week before the stock market crash. Without that the outcome might have been very different.

Other outcome changers: If McCain picked someone truly moderate with half a brain for VP and he hadn't tapped into his Angry Old Man vibe for the debates.

It's all well and good to pretend it was your brilliance that won the day instead of a mixture of skill, a lot of political luck and the rank incompetence of the opposition, but it's a massive mistake to buy into it. Angry old man McCain during the debates probably did as much to kill his candidacy as Gore's eyerolls, condescension, and sighs killed his.

I don't remember how many times I thought, "Dayum, that is one lucky crew", during the primary *and* the general election. Lady Luck smiled on them often. Their opponents screwed up...fantastically and often. Somehow I don't think Lady Luck is going to have as much influence in directing legislation as she does in campaigning.

Re: Burton: Obama to be even more bipartisan

synical — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:50:07 -0000

Even more bi-partisan? Is Obama really that interested in becoming a lame duck president less than a year in? Isn't that what lame ducks do? Compromise from a point of weakness just to get some shit passed in their name?

I suspect he'll brush a couple of base-pleasing crumbs off his corporate bought table around election time. Thanks, but I believe I'll be busy sorting my sock drawer and I'll need to finish writing that eulogy for the middle class.

We needed a leader and we got another weak-kneed corporate sell-out. If the American people wanted Republican ideas for fixing this mess, they would have fucking voted for Republicans. What part of that does this administration not get, besides apparently all of it?

Fuck bipartisanship. It's just an excuse not to deliver the goods promised during the campaigns.

Re: How do you think Obama is handling health care reform?

synical — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:34:15 -0000

Failures:

-Obama failed in keeping the promise that everyone would have a seat at the table when he shut out the single payer and liberal advocates. Whether single payer had a chance or not, you don't say you will listen to all opinions and than say, "Well, I didn't mean to include *those* people."
-Grossly failed at transparency on the issue.
-Failed at his money/no pushback deal with the pharmaceutical industry. Apparently, that one is gonna cost taxpayers (thanks ever so much, Mr. President).
-Failed at negotiating from a position of strength (with public backing).
-Failed at clear concise messaging.
-Failed to lead.

In fact, if anyone can point out one area where this administration succeeded on the issue of health care in favor of the people and not the industry, please point it out.

This month should tell the tale on whether he can turn some of these failures around or not. Or, is he really some powerless figurehead that some of his most loyal supporters insist he is (although I'm sure that's not their intention).

Re: Obama to unveil his own health care plan next week

synical — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:59:12 -0000

Well then, what he needs to do is roll it out (and it better be damned good), ram it through Congress (that means smacking the insurance-fattened Blue Dogs on the nose with a rolled-up liberal newspaper and commanding them, "Down! Roll over!") while steamrolling over any conservative criticism on his way to presidential greatness.

Assuming he does that, all those nth dimensional chess proponents can carp about being right for the next 6 months about the political chess master...at least in regards to healthcare legislation. I'm not quite holding my breath in anticipation about that happening. We'll see.

Re: Obama to unveil his own health care plan next week

synical — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:14:21 -0000

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

Oh never mind, you are apparently just another bitter and clueless repub who can't say a single word without shouting. Overcompensating for something or another would be my guess.

From here it looks like the only people who said NO were a bunch of Limbaugh/Beck/Fox zombies. IOW, people without a single coherent or original thought in their heads. Zombies add nothing of worth to the discourse and are therefore mostly irrelevant.

Change. That's what the voters said they wanted in November 2008. Apparently you didn't hear them. Not surprising since I suppose most of the shouters are stone cold deaf after the mind numbing McCain/Palin spectacles during the primaries. Get a hearing aid, or at the very least, a clue. Your party lost the last election-deal with it.

Re: Obama won't push for public option, administration officials want Obama to Sista Souljah Dems in Congress & liberal base

synical — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:56:16 -0000

This is hysterical-- a fiscal conservative? Where? Never Never Land?

St. Ronnie brought in record deficits and your party turned your backs on Bush 1 when he had to raise taxes to pay for some of St. Ronnie's mess. Then you guys brings in the fiscal disaster that was Bush II after Clinton finally got the deficit down. IOW, Clinton continued the work of St. Ronnie and opened up the regulatory-free market resulting in the 2008 Great Recession, selling out his base in the process. Essentially giving this country 28 years of conservative rule. Clinton handed your party their fiscal ideology on a freaking silver platter and your party despised him for it.

As far as I can tell the party you think is going to fix things is full of a bunch of "spend and put it on the tab for other generations to pay for" greedy incompetents who have done nothing but spend, spend, spend taxpayer's money every freaking time they get into power. The bill is due whether they raise your taxes or those of your grandchildren.

Why you conservatives are bitching and moaning is beyond me -- it's quite obvious that Obama wants to be the Democratic version of St. Ronnie and in doing so he's selling out his base in just the same way Clinton did. Not a surprise given all the Clinton hacks infesting the administration. Maybe Greenspan will anoint him the second best Republican President after anointing Clinton the best.

You want a fiscal conservative? Start a third party, because your party has corrupted the fiscal conservative ideology to the point where it's unrecognizable.

Re: Oh yeah, about that gay rights promise... never mind

synical — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:57:01 -0000

You know, I'd really like some proof that things would be any different with Clinton, who has done nothing to make me think she wouldn't also pull back on the old reliable ports of political triangulation and expediency when the political waters got rough.

I will concede she'd jettison this ridiculous bipartisan fetish Obama embraces and it's likely she'd have better control over messaging. But if she hired the same incompetents who ran her campaign into the ground and brought in the same retreads Obama has tapped I can't see where there'd be all that much difference.

Re: Oh yeah, about that gay rights promise... never mind

synical — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:02:00 -0000

Pretty much correct. Obama and Clinton always struck me as two sides of the same coin in many ways.

Re: Oh yeah, about that gay rights promise... never mind

synical — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0000

Why start from the bottom up with a third party? Systematically primary the bastards and put true advocates in their place. Hit 'em where it hurts-right in the pocketbook. And promise to keep hitting them where it hurts until they start delivering results. They lose, you win. If they win the primary but lose the general because the primary weakened them, in essence you still win because they and the party loses and you've made your point known.

The last thing an incumbent wants is a primary challenge so give it to them. Clean the party from the inside out. Find primary challengers and jettison the deadweight, or at the very least make their cushy incumbent lives a living hell.

Only because CT didn't have a sore loser law and the Democratic leadership are idiots did Lieberman's career survive. He lost his primary and it scared the shit out of leadership the same way progressives getting behind Sestak is scarring the shit out of them now. Wield the power of the primary and scare the hell out of them. Sometimes you have to be ruthless to burst their bubble.

Re: “High-minded fecklessness” – “gutless wonder”

synical — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:02:45 -0000

I loved that guy! Whatever happened to him?

Re: TPM: White House staffers warn groups not to spend money pushing public option

synical — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:00:54 -0000

I wonder if this should be called the "Orahma Administration" or the "Rahmbama" Administration?

I know! For the hours they are for the public option and "Make me do it." it will be "Orahma". For the hours they are not for the public option and are shouting, "Shut the fuck up, you stupid liberals, you are ruining *everything*, it will be "Rahmbama".

Funny, but I don't remember donating to or voting for a guy named "Rahm" back in November. You'd think I'd remember something like that. Hmmm.

Re: Oh yeah, about that gay rights promise... never mind

synical — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:15:33 -0000

True. I think on some things she would incrementally better and on others incrementally worse. So it's a wash for me.

Honestly, I was more concerned about downticket races but I now see having more Democrats in Congress is pretty much meaningless when it comes to getting anything of real worth passed.

Re: WSJ: Obama reached out to Tom Coburn for advice on health care reform

synical — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:07:08 -0000

Look at the upside, at least he didn't take that advice.

Oh wait, it was actually logical and good advice.

I think not taking good advice, regardless of where it comes from, is a bigger problem than talking to hard right conservatives -- because he sure isn't taking any good advice from the left either.

Re: WSJ: Obama reached out to Tom Coburn for advice on health care reform

synical — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:35:34 -0000

I agree, but he's over-correcting for Clinton's mistakes instead of taking a more measured tact. When Congress starts dropping hints you should be more hands on the plan isn't working. They were hinting well before the August recess.

The history is that Clinton breezed in from out of town, foisted his wife on Congress to head the panel (who then apparently tossed out most of the work that had been done) and then capped it all off with a veto threat if the bill lacked certain items. That Congress would be insulted and balk at this perceived lack of respect from a new president was a no brainer.

Obama didn't have that baggage and approached it as if he had (thanks to advice of Clinton retreads?). So he made a mess of it on the opposite side of the spectrum instead of approaching it from the middle.

Re: Gee, I guess the left of the left does matter

synical — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:05:48 -0000

Nope. He appears to be firmly ensconced in the Beltway Bubble while Rahm does the dirty work he was hired to do. Until I see any honest overtures (not the condescending tripe usually dished out) to progressives this is what I'd rather believe.

The flip side is he knows and he doesn't give a shit because he buys into the "where are they gonna go?" bullshit They should really check the expiration date on that CW, they may find it at the end of its shelf life.

Combine the repub/media's desire to render Democrats impotent and the Democratic leadership's uncanny ability to play right into it--along with continued marginalizing/snubbing of the active base, and the phrase "potential electoral massacre ala 1994" comes to mind.

The sooner the WH gets that most of the base is not a bunch of easily bamboozled sycophantic dumb rubes, the better.