I have three quotes from Harry S. Truman for your consideration:
“Republicans approve of the American farmer,
but they are willing to help him go broke.
They stand four-square for the American home–
but not for housing. They are strong for labor–
but they are stronger for restricting labor’s
rights. They favor minimum wage–the smaller the
minimum wage the better. They endorse educational
opportunity for all–but they won’t spend
money for teachers or for schools. They think
modern medical care and hospitals are fine–
for people who can afford them. They consider
electrical power a great blessing–but only when
the private power companies get their rake-off.
They think American standard of living is a fine
thing–so long as it doesn’t spread to all the
people. And they admire of Government of the
United States so much that they would like to
buy it.”
“The Republicans believe that the power of
government should be used first of all to
help the rich and the privileged in the
country. With them, property, wealth, comes
first. The Democrats believe that the power
of government should be used to give the
common man more protection and a chance to
make a living. With us the people come first.”
“I don’t like bipartisans. Whenever a fellow tells
me he’s bipartisan, I know that he’s going to
vote against me.”
You know what else Harry Truman can tell you? Don’t start land wars in Asia. So, everything you really need to know about how to proceed can be learned from Truman. Here’s a bonus quote:
“Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don’t ever apologize for
anything.” -Advice to Hubert Humphrey, NY Times, Sep 20, 1964
You want another one?
“Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society
stands still. Progress occurs when courageous,
skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change
things for the better.”
Take this for advice or inspiration, or whatever. But take it.
agreed 100%, but man:
this is funny coming from you.
How so?
your previous unabashed support for President Bi-partisanship.
I’m getting tired of listening to that bullshit, brendan.
And that’s what it is. Pure bullshit.
Last time, I took the time to point out to you how full of shit you are with this line of criticism, but you’re right back at it.
I’d like you to point out where I recommended that Obama pursue bipartisanship for its own sake, or had one good thing to say about the jackass pundits or the idiotic centrist Democrats who call for it.
He can’t.
Some people are incapable of understanding nuance in one’s position. It’s all or nothing.
I couldn’t quite figure out where the “BooMan advocates bipartisanship above all else” rip came from, either. Although his posts just about always discuss the issues from the perspective of reality and the “art of the possible,” I would have never once suggested that bipartisanship was ever an implication. I’m guessing, based on the response, that the intended target of the criticism feels the same way. Just a guess, though…
but you sure as hell have been lauding Obama for walking down the middle of the road.
That would need backing up if you’re trying to say something honest and not just whining. Show us the quote. Just one.
Booman has been backing Obama’s compromise friendly, confrontation averse style for the last year. When people suggest here that Obama should stand up and act like a leader Booman says they don’t understand how things get done in “the real world”. How’s that real world working out for ya?
Obama’s approach has been a failure. If Booman and you are waking up to that now I welcome you. Just don’t say you’ve been there all along.
He’s calling Obama “President Bi-Partisanship”. Just some more of this obsession to call Obama names and rage that not everybody’s interested. You know, one of the memes that helped replace Kennedy with a teabagger bimbo. Nice work.
that’s funny, because I’m getting tired of reading the bullshit you’ve been writing for months, which has been fucking WRONG.
calvin jones makes a good point below: for months this blog has been primarily about giving the benefit of the doubt, often with you being the only person (including most mainstream news sources, not opinion but NEWS) stating the exact opposite on so many topics we’ve clashed on, starting with that no-strings attached bailout. and yes, i know there are exceptions, but as stated earlier, i regularly come away from your blog wondering what planet it’s written on.
and now that the benefit of the doubt has hit the wall, it’s all “get out there and lead, take a hard line, do something!”
gimme. a. fucking. break. no wait, i’ll give myself a fucking break: see ya.
no, one last thing: brave sir Robin ran away, bravely ran away away, oh brave sir robin!
funny, because I believe I’ve been proven right about the bailout beyond any reasonable doubt.
And I’ve been right about health care. You characterize this as a ‘benefit of the doubt.’ It wasn’t a benefit of the doubt. It was the only way to pass health care with 60 votes, and the only way to get a public option. I can’t anticipate losing the 60th votes in a Massachusetts special election between the Senate and the House bill passing. Give me a break, indeed.
Well, from the viewpoint of the committed Obama haters, it was the benefit of the doubt: you didn’t assume that Obama’s approach or bad tactical bets were proof that he’s a corporate shill, a secret Republican, a mindless zombie controlled by the almighty Rahm. When you’re jihad-certain of your rightness, anything less than absolute comes to look like benefit of the doubt. And all discussion sinks to the level of a teabagger sign collage.
Lets see the bank fee passed first … then I’ll believe .. show me Obama’s signature on the bill
I can’t speak for Brendan, but I can tell you my opinion. It’s interesting to see people like you(and Oliver Willis and K-Thug) since Coakley lost. All three of you gave him the benefit of the doubt on pretty much everything until Tuesday. Now, all of you are saying he had to lead, be out front and start taking it to the Republicans. It’s what a lot of us(including that hated Jane Hamsher) have been saying all along.
Best I can recall, bipartisanship is a tactic not a principle. Tactics are free not to be consistent but to adapt as the situation changes.
Boo:
Wake me up when Obama starts going after Republicans like Truman does in those quotes. He just caved to “Demented” DeMint yesterday. He’s got a CoS who loves himself some Republicans and bashes liberals. Have you been reading Sully the last 2 days?
I never read Sullivan.
Any reason? He makes for an interesting read, especially for a guy who’s essentially part of Versailles.
he’s an uninteresting dick.
LOL. I tend to agree.
Asked today if health care was on the back burner, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “The president believes it is the exact right thing to do by giving this some time, by letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward.”
He said the administration wants to give Congress time to figure out their next move.
“The President thinks the speaker and the majority leader are doing the right thing in giving this some time and figuring out the best way forward,” he said.
Whee.
It’s only on the back burner if the public lets it be on the back burner. So call you Congresscritters and tell them to let it simmer a little more but keep in on one of the burners. And keep it hot.
Jobs are on the front burner.
And the SOTU address better be a barn burner.
He also regretted giving the CIA free reign and thought it should have been an intelligence arm only, not an operations arm, of the government.
Yup:
Btw – the CIA lied (and Sam Halpern repeated it) by saying that Truman never wrote that in the WaPo, and that he didn’t agree with it. But I know that’s not true because I have handwritten correspondence from Truman showing that’s exactly how he felt.
While I appreciate Truman’s appropriately caustic remarks about the CIA, I much would have preferred that he had held firm against creating the separate spy agency in the first place.
Especially since by 1947 the US already had one American Gestapo — J. Edgar’s FBI — and Truman was well aware of how unaccountable Edgar and his boys were.
It’s long past time to revisit the Cold War national security architecture that was put in place in 1947.
When it lost its reason for being with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it should have been rethought from top to bottom.
Unfortunately, that structure has jobs in every Congressional District in the country. And paid cheerleaders in Congress.
If Obama wants to do a historic deed in ending deficits and paying off debt, he will deal with the entitlement called National Defense. And that includes all of the functions institutionalized in 1947 — from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the consolidation of the services to the creation of a central (now not so central) intelligence agency with operational power outside of Congressional (or executive apparently) control. It would also have the benefit of cleaning up US foreign policy.
To say nothing of the useless military bases still “protecting” us from the Soviet Union all around the world, but doing nothing except serving as targets and provocations for today’s foes.
Concur, TDem, but, unfortunately, the Nat’l Security Boys are the biggest sacred cows in existence and are used to dictating terms, not having their wings clipped. And if Obama couldn’t handle the Big Insurance and Pharma interests in health care reform, he would stand no chance against the much stronger Nat’l Security apparatus.
Republicans the 1940s model are much the same as Republicans the 2010 model. Don’t they ever come out with an updated version?
Why should they? They have figured out a way to consistently pound the Democrats into the dust without having to make any effort to offer constructive alternatives. And there are no negative consequences for them at all. None.
They have found a way to win the narrative and the political battles almost every day despite their opponents having a 50% greater number of players on their team in the Senate, a huge disadvantage in the House of Representatives, and a Democrat in the White House.
Update??? Change??? Why in the hell would they ever want to do something like that?
meaning, they have the “Effective opposition” thing down cold.
To the point that the Dems have gone back into the ‘Dem Cringe’ they were in for the past 8 years…
And nothing has changed in 60 years.
Not 60 years. Nothing has changed since Ulysses Simpson Grant. One wonders how Lincoln got to be a candidate.
He had the backing of the railroads. The biggest corporations of their day.
Lincoln was a corporatist through and through. He won one of the most important cases for corporations up to that time;
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1995/ihy950247.html
I consider Lincoln and the railroads backing him (and why they did) to be the most successful conspiracy in the history of the US. It has been completely erased from history.
nalbar
“Dear President Obama”.
He’s the one who needs to stand up and start fighting. The rest of the Democrats will follow that lead.
People are worried about jobs, food the electric bill all that stuff. Time to get back to basics. A Jobs bill. We need to focus on immediate help to the unemployed. One big jobs bill to get money back into peoples hands who will spend it.
I suspect our president is more interested in emulating Lincoln than Truman. He told us so with every staged event and that quote on election night: “We are not enemies, but friends … Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”
Things might have been different had he not read and loved Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals.”
He was the most ineffective Democratic President of the 20th century.
“Dear Progressives” or “Dear Democratic Socialists” would be much more appropriate if you insist on using a LABEL.
the problem with your diary is you’re telling me what’s wrong with the repuglicans… but here and elsewhere I see nothing about the democrats, what they stand for and how are they doing selling it to the people?
an example of this problem was readily demonstrated yesterday on a progressive radio show when the host posed this very question to a caller, the response was a Beavis-like “uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, heh heh”.
bloggers do very well telling us all about how bad the repugs are, but aren’t skilled/compelling at telling us why/how the democrats are soooooooo much better.
there’s a reason for that.