For me, the most forgivable offense is to tell the truth when you shouldn’t. So, I’m not mad at press secretary Robert Gibbs for admitting what everyone knows: that the Democrats could conceivably lose control of the House in November. Still, I understand why Nancy Pelosi is livid. It’s a cruel irony that she has delivered on Obama’s agenda, including a health care bill with a public option, an energy bill with a cap and trade provision, and more economic stimulus, but it is her members who are set up to pay the price for the Senate’s failure to do the same.
If the majority ruled in the Senate, we’d have a pretty happy progressive base, a president with a record of keeping his promises second to none, and significantly lower unemployment. Unfortunately, the 41 member Republican caucus in the Senate is in control and making sure that as many people as possible are unhappy. I am pretty sure that the people sent a message in 2008 that they wanted the Republicans to have no say in future policy decisions. That’s not what they got.
The voted for hope and change. A different way of governing that left room for intelligence and honest debate.
Or so I would like to think.
That’s not what they got. That almost entirely the gops fault, but the Congress, in both chambers have created their share of dope sound bites and failed to manage the message well.
Obama I think also, especially w/HCR, kept that dysfunction at arms length as much as possible. It probably hurt him less that way.
By stepping away from it, he made the situation worse, IMHO.
I know you don’t agree with me, but you have laid out my disappointment with the President very clearly here. Pelosi has done her job. Reid has had 59 and even 60 caucus members, and still has gotten very little accomplished while spending vast amounts of time and political coin.
When Reid was shown to be an ineffective leader and the Republicans demonstrated a militant intention to block his agenda, the President needed to step in and scare up – sometimes literally – one or two more votes in the Senate. Obama needed to play hardball – defund the right, purge burrowing Republican hacks, appoint as many hard core Democrats throughout the bureaucracy as possible, horse trade for projects like LBJ, force Republicans to vote on the record against popular measures and then take the hit from a popular President BEFORE the compromising began, as Reagan did – all of those things that make the opposition afraid to f@*k with you – and he just couldn’t bring himself to do it.
And now, it looks like he has caved again, and is leaving the Tom Perriellos and Bill Owens’ – freshmen Dems in conservative districts who took the hard votes to support the President’s agenda – out on the line to dry. I know you think those defeats and half victories were inevitable, but I think a little old fashioned legal but hard leadership would have made a huge difference. Because sooner or later, this missed chance is going to end in a disaster much worse than the current one.
How about you head for Washington? You got some ideas and they seem fresh out of them.
I agree, HoR: so, how much money will you contribute toward his filing fee? Will you be volunteering to run the campaign? help with fundraising?
it takes a lot of money to go to washington, especially if you have to fight a primary (which will be opposed by the party machine, whether you’re a republican or a democrat). Still, like you i believe that unless you intend to run for public office, you have no right to complain about your elected officials.
Perhaps you are misinterpreting my comment. I was not being sarcastic. I felt the ideas were all good. And wished the person who made them could be in Washington.
No, I don’t think everyone who complains should be prepared to run for office. It’s possible to identify both problems and solutions without being candidate material. Successful candidates require a different skill set, including the ability to raise a lot of money.
yeah, I misinterpreted your comment. badly, too.
mea culpa, and my sincere apologies for stampeding straight for the cli– I mean the snark button, like a bull at the gate. the internet can do that to you, especially when, like me you’re “living in an alternative universe of permanent outrage and relentless negativity fostered and fueled by the blogosphere.”
god, i love that line. the gift that keeps giving.
.
Company profits are up with less employees … creating jobs overseas. US imports up again.
Recently an acquaintance at the next table in a Palo Alto, California, restaurant introduced me to his companions: three young venture capitalists from China.
I left the restaurant unsettled. Something didn’t add up. Bay Area unemployment is even higher than the 9.7 percent national average. Clearly, the great Silicon Valley innovation machine hasn’t been creating many jobs of late — unless you are counting Asia, where American technology companies have been adding jobs like mad for years …
U.S. Versus China
Today, manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is about 166,000 — lower than it was before the first personal computer, the MITS Altair 2800, was assembled in 1975. Meanwhile, a very effective computer-manufacturing industry has emerged in Asia, employing about 1.5 million workers — factory employees, engineers and managers.
The largest of these companies is Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., also known as Foxconn. The company has grown at an astounding rate, first in Taiwan and later in China. Its revenue last year was $62 billion, larger than Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Dell Inc. or Intel. Foxconn employs more than 800,000 people, more than the combined worldwide head count of Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard Co., Intel and Sony Corp.
10-to-1 Ratio
Some 250,000 Foxconn employees in southern China produce Apple’s products. Apple, meanwhile, has about 25,000 employees in the U.S. — that means for every Apple worker in the U.S. there are 10 people in China working on iMacs, iPods and iPhones. The same roughly 10-to-1 relationship holds for Dell, disk-drive maker Seagate Technology, and other U.S. tech companies.
Bill Wiseman of McKinsey & Company presented “Waking up to the new normal, the world economy after the great recession” at a recent ITAC GSA Conference. Bill supports my previous semiconductor financial predictions in great and graphical detail.
In the United States: unemployment claims are up, home sales are down without government incentives, and manufacturing growth is stalling. New claims for unemployment benefits recently jumped to 1.3 million people without federal jobless benefits, and that number could grow to 3.3 million by the end of the July due to political infighting. In Europe there is a debt crisis, in China there is an economic bubble …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
(AP/ABC News) – Nearly 528,000 homes were taken over by lenders in the first six months of the year, a rate that is on track to eclipse the more than 900,000 homes repossessed in 2009, according to data released Thursday by RealtyTrac Inc., a foreclosure listing service.
“That would be unprecedented,” said Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac.
By comparison, lenders have historically taken over about 100,000 homes a year, Sharga said.
The surge in home repossessions reflects the dynamic of a foreclosure crisis that has shown signs of leveling off in recent months, but remains a crippling drag on the housing market.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I was arguing with a friend who was convinced that “tyranny” is right around the corner because of Obama has decided to not run the country like a right-wing kook but a centrist, mostly because of GOP obstruction.
I wonder what he thinks of the 2008 voters who voted for change and instead pretty much got a big “f!@# you” from 41 Republican senators.
Is that tyranny? Or just asshattery?
Sigh.
I try not to “what if” this situation too much (as in “what if we hadn’t had to deal with the filibuster”). The filibuster is what it is – it has frustrated progressive change for a long time. To the extent we learn from its abuse during this Congressional session, great. It’s important that we talk about the filibuster, and its effects, so as to spur Senate Dems to really take it on at the beginning of the next session. I realize that’s your aim in continually focusing on it, Booman.
But beyond that, “what if”‘ing the filibuster just leaves me feeling discouraged and depressed. And neither emotion is conducive to hope, or for that matter positive change. I try to avoid these kinds of feelings once I’ve stopped learning from them.
So, I’m not mad at press secretary Robert Gibbs for admitting what everyone knows: that the Democrats could conceivably lose control of the House in November.
You should be pissed, Boo. I think it was Ambinder that made a good point. What signal is that supposed to send big donors? He also said, did Rove ever admit that the Democrats might win the House and Senate in ’06? Never!! Why give aid and comfort to the enemy?
is, to my mind, the key to this post, Booman.
As you point out, the House did its job passing a progressive agenda this session. We could debate endlessly what tactic or rhetoric Obama could have used differently, but in the end, Senate Republicans (and the Ben Nelsons of the chamber) decided they had nothing to fear from Obama—no matter what he did or said—and used their power under the Senate rules to obstruct the majority’s power.
So, how do we focus our anger and frustration on eliminating or weakening the filibuster for the next Senate? Ideas?
Every time I hear someone complain from the left, I ask them how to get 60 votes in the Senate for a certain item. Those are the rules and they suck. I just wish the WH was better at calling out the obstructionists by name but that is not Obama’s style and they seem to be afraid of media freakout. See backing off Fox News as reference. If the left had a 24/7 operation like Fox News and a Republican president, the right would demonize it daily.
is Obama’s cowardice and compromise. The nation thirsts for leadership.
Actually, the nation thirsts for jobs. Unemployment goes down, Obama’s popularity goes up, as do Dems’ chances for winning seats in Congress.
The biggest political obstacle to jobs: the filibuster.
P.S. The other big obstacle: the Federal Reserve—where Obama deserves criticism for taking so long to nominate people to fill vacant seats.
P.S. The other big obstacle: the Federal Reserve
Obama reappointed “B-52” Ben. He had plenty of available, qualified alternatives including a guy named Stiglitz.
The biggest obstacle to job creation is Obama’s inattention to it.
The nation thirsts for leadership.
My question is: Is the Democratic leadership in the Senate, with Obama’s backing, going to be willing to play a little hardball and amend the Filibuster rule, or are they going to cave when the David Broders start howling?
Seems to me Obama doesn’t really care whether the Senate rules or not, e.g., 59/60 votes, with the House in line, theoretically. He squandered that control, who knows why.
So, control over congress is not the issue. The issue is who controls Obama and the congress that is the issue.
Booman blames it on Reublicans, but no, it is not the Republicans (although they are psychopaths) in control.
The system itself is psychopathic, and Obama et al simply play along with this mental illness.
I dig Booman’s analysis to a point; but in the end, one supports the policies, not the person or party.
Either Obama and the Democrats whip it, and whip it good, or they fail, and outcomes remain just as if the psychopaths had been in control all along.
Outcomes. Period.
And so far, good luck in November, Democratic pseudo-psychos, Obama included. You’ve left your base behind, and cannot articulate a future. Failure writ large, a truly pathetic kind of “hope and change.”
The bottom line is that Democrats, including what’s his name (Obama), are totally owned by the true ruling class.
Fugeddaboutit.
Stick with Democrats, and stick with the same ‘ol, “We’re rapidly turning into Republicans,” whereas stick with Republicans and prepare to die very soon.
That’s not a real choice, is it? especially if one has or plans on having offspring.
By all means, let whoever is in power destroy the social fabric.
Compound F, frustration I understand. Anger too. Even moments of despair.
But please, take a breath, go for a walk around the block, and then come back.
Destroying the social fabric—to the extent we have any say in the matter—is not something to let whoever is in power accomplish.
I know a nun who went to work in a parish in Bushwick (a neighborhood in Brooklyn) in the 1970s. She was visiting a parish leader and said, “I see you have your suitcase packed. Are you going somewhere this weekend?”
“Oh no, sister. That’s for when the fire comes.”
Not if. When.
Much of working-class NYC was destroyed in the 1970s by massive arson-for-profit (and, in some cases, arson for arson’s sake).
To the extent we can, if not for ourselves, then at least for those who have less power than we do, we have (in my view) a moral obligation NOT to let whoever is in power destroy the social fabric.
They already did.
The question is now that they’ve done it, who is going to lend a hand in rebuilding that social fabric and who is just going to fuggeddaboutit.
We’ve had poor choices over the past 42 years because a bunch of people said fuggedaboutit and walked away from electoral politics. Or refused to choose from the choices that could actually do something, choosing instead to posture and “make a statement”.
Deigned apathy is no longer cute.
Feigned apathy.
I read Gibbs’s statement as a way to try to scare some enthusiasm into the base. I fear it might have a dampening effect.
Never been impressed with Goober Gibbs or the entire WH Press Office. When the only one who delivers a strong, consistent, believable message is the President…
you have a White House with problems on their hands.
and yes, I do blame the WH for not having folks, that, when they do on television, are halfway convincing.
Shrub’s folks sold lies better than this group has ever sold accomplishments.
And members of congress like Anthony Weiner didn’t contribute to the Democrat’s poor messaging by pissing on the President and the legislation every single day during the health care debate? They spent more time trashing the President and questioning his motives and integrity then selling the bill and attacking Republican lies.
Here are the consequences of letting this upcoming election result in substantial Republican wins. Poppy Bush’s team is back:
The Bush Revival: How Jeb, Rove, Gillespie Are Leading The GOP Again
The Bush dynasty is angling for a monarchy.
Reagan was Poppy Bush’s front man. The most powerful politician of the last third of the twentieth century and first decade of the twenty-first was George H. W. Bush. Do not underrate him again. Even if Ralph Nader tells you there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties.
Since the White House is not going to change the narrative, it’s up to Democratic voters to change the narrative.
It is now more essential than ever that the Republicans lose this November. That takes priority over everything else. Yeah, we’ve got more Democrats, even more Blue Dog Democrats, but the narrative changes and so does the politics.
I’m no fan of Robert Gibbs, but I’m not mad at him for not going on tv and doing his best “Baghdad Bob” routine. Yes, Speaker Pelosi has done her job, but members of her caucus have spent the better part of two years pissing on their own work. When you have the likes of Anthony Weiner going on Morning Joe of all places WEEKLY bitching and moaning about the leader of your party–still the most popular person in your party–what did you think would happen? Did they think Obama supporters first/Democrats second, which account for a very large percentage of Democrats, were going to become more enthusiastic about voting for Democrats in the mid-term? Shiiiiit, Democrats will be lucky not to lose half of the African American vote after Obama leaves office after two years of their traitorous bull shit.