The president made a proposal. That’s great. Except David Sirota says the proposal is just another example of Obama looking out for the Big Guy, and John Cole says it won’t even merit a debate. You want to know what the problem is? No one on the left is fighting for the president’s agenda. Half the progressives are spending all their time bitching and the other half are spending all their time in utter despondency.
“Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true,” [President Obama] told a crowd largely consisting of union members.
Hell, everyone is talking about him like a dog. All told, the president today proposed $150 billion in new stimulus money (although, sssh, don’t call it stimulus). That’s almost 20% as big as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’s $787 billion price tag. Taken together, the Recovery Act and the new proposals would be approaching a “paltry” trillion dollars in spending. But Sirota is upset because the proposal would be two-thirds tax cuts for research and development, and Cole is upset because:
Mitch McConnell just needs to go on David Gregory, purse his lips delicately, dismiss it, and the debate will essentially be over. There will be no discussion of the benefits of the added rail miles. No discussion of the ease of air travel with these improvements. The idea will simply be dismissed, and Republicans will pay no price whatsoever for killing yet another jobs bill.
To which I respond, “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!” Or something. We really need a pep talk. Above all, we need some realism. Put yourself in the president’s shoes for two seconds before you mouth off. He’s not a dictator and Cole’s right about McConnell’s inclinations, as well as his power, as well as the vacuous, unhelpful media. You want the president to create some jobs? You have to support his efforts and stop nitpicking. As it is, Congress is unlikely to pass anything beneficial. But when no one has the president’s back and everyone wants to treat him like a dog?
It’s far past time for people to wake up.
I hope you are reading John Cole right. He’s not despairing because of Obama, he’s in a state of despair because our political discourse is so screwed. Hell, I just wish Obama would stop worrying about the deficit right now. Can he go six months with out saying it once? Can he propose one bill with out worrying about whether it is deficit neutral? He’s never gonna get credit for it anyway. And is really making it deficit neutral right now a good idea?
Thank you, Booman!
Bloggers helped get Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008. But for as much as they like to point to their efficacy in those years, they have been just as aimless and ineffective going towards 2010. They like to bitch and moan about how the Obama administration isn’t doing this, that, and the other correctly (and they are correct on some counts), but they are as inept in their political usefulness as the political messaging machine in the White House.
Winning elections is hard work, but things don’t just govern themselves if you wish hard enough for it. And simply put, the blogosphere has sucked massive wind in putting their tools to work in the name of good governance.
AMEN!
Many of us weren’t expecting Obama to be so weak or focused on looking out for vested interests.
Is he weak or looking out for vested interests? or looking out for vested interests weakly? or being weak by looking out for vested interests?
what vested interests would those be? uninsured? consumers? students? Americans?
…when his minions are bashing progressives 🙂
Seriously, he has governed by buying or subsidizing vested interests (e.g., TARP, healthcare). Arguably, he had to do that to get things done (although I don’t see things that way).
He has also continued most of W’s policies in areas where he could change things by fiat (e.g, DADT, wire tapping, etc.)
He really comes off as weak when he keeps trying to build a consensus with an opposition that has a stated strategy of trying to prevent him from passing anything.
What this means is that I, like many progressives, will vote for the Dems in the fall, but without much enthusiasm.
Sigh. A few points:
TARP was signed and executed by GW Bush, not Obama. In any event, it was (a) necessary, and (b) voted on in a bipartisan way – both republicans and democrats. What Obama did on taking office was to implement more control over the TARP money (restricting executive pay via Ken Feinburg, for example). In fact most of the TARP money has been repaid with interest. And finally, TARP had the effect of keeping the American financial system afloat, minimising any runs on banks and generally keeping people’s savings etc safe.
On healthcare, yes he did deals with stake holders but I would recommend you read J Alter’s book The Promise as to the rationale behind that – and the ultimate consequences of the deal – i.e. that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies didn’t and weren’t able to derail reform. Please don’t go into the whole Public Option whinge because I will bet you that you never even heard the term until the middle of the healthcare debate. Do you know that J Hacker – the inventor of the public option – supported the healthcare bill? Did you know that liberal champion Howard Dean didn’t have one in his healthcare plan in 2004?
DADT wasn’t W’s policy but Bill Clinton’s. It was an act of congress so can only be repealed by an act of congress. Yes Obama could issue stop loss orders etc, but one thing I never understood about this is that wouldn’t this action be then termed ‘half a loaf’ because DADT wasn’t itself repealed? Wouldn’t you be the first one to say that by doing it by executive fiat this was worse than nothing at all because the policy is still in place and everyone would just consider it solved and there would be no motivation to re-look at this matter. In point of fact, DADT is likely to be repealed either in December or early next year.
I will grant you some disappointment on civil liberties although even in this area, the whole complaint seems to me to be overblown. Unlike Bush, Obama has been careful to do things within the rule of law and proper congressional authority.
As for the reaching consensus with people who are trying to destroy him, you say weak I say it’s a sign of motherfucking leadership. It’s a sign of strength. In any event, for all the talk about consensus building Obama has managed to get through more of his agenda than other Presidents largely on Democratic only votes.
As for enthusiasm, I despair of people who crow about being unenthusiastic despite (deep breath): healthcare, stimulus, wall street reform, student loan reform, addressing mandatory minimums, letting regulators off the leash, allowing the EPA to regulate carbon, imposing mileage standards on US auto companies, saving the US auto industry, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, putting two women on the Court without all the usual culture wars, managing two wars including withdrawing 100,000 troops from Iraq, strengthening the VA, new START treaty with Russia, stronger Iranian sanctions than anyone expected, getting China to move on currency rates, hosting an international nuclear disarmament conference, joining the UN Human Rights Council, outreach to the Islamic world, release of torture memos, starting to get rid of wasteful Pentagon spending. Oh yeah and he got a dog too!
I don’t.
That explains our different points of view.
I would have voted for Hillary had I known what Obama would govern like. She also would have triangulated constantly, but she would have been tough as nails too. I don’t think he is.
You haven’t explained WHY you don’t generally like his policies. All your complaint really boils down to is his style of governing. Do you really – hand on heart – think that Hillary Clinton would have (a) achieved better more progressive policies than Obama has, and (b) been tougher than Obama? Do you think she was tough when she supported the Iraq war?
Not that I think it’s relevant but Obama’s plenty tough but I can’t be bothered to set you straight on this since you’ve already made up your mind.
BABE: How do you tell? How do you know for sure? How do you ever really know?
JOE: They didn’t ask questions like that back in 1776! No, they didn’t have time back in 1776! Back in 1776, boy, they were too busy singing songs like…
EDDIE [Singing]:
“Yankee Doodle came to terms,
Writing Martin Buber.
Stuck a Fuhrer in our back,
And called it Shicklegruber!”
http://webspace.ringling.edu/~ccjones/curricula/03-04/satire/readings/sixties/firesign.html
Yes, I am more than tired of defeatism. Thanks again Booman for calling a spade a spade. For the sake of the future, the nit picking has got to stop and GOTV must get in gear.
Why hasn’t this been the message every single day since January 25? Is it ever going to be more than just this one day? Is it going to be echoed by the administration subordinates? Or are people like Geithner and Summers going to stab us in the back again and again? The president lost my trust in stages, you can look through my posts and see that, and now he’s got to earn it back.
The first comment. The FIRST COMMENT starts the Whine Train. The obligatory “Bu, bu, but whey didn’t he do this earlier?”
Pathetic.
You are a tool and an exemplification of precisely what BooMan is talking about. If you can’t understand why a new President coming into office in the midst of some of the most challenging circumstances a President has faced, a new President who was elected in an outpouring of goodwill because he gave people something to vote for instead of vote against, a new President who emphasised finding consensus with people (I’m not going to refer to it as bipartistanship because that’s not really what he was saying), a new President with an approval rating near the 70’s, could not say something like he said on Labor day, I’m afraid you just don’t get it.
Nonetheless, around the middle of 2009, months after inauguration, there was plenty of rhetoric about the Republicans being the “party of no” – did you miss that?
Those circumstances you described?
That’s the IDEAL to say something like. All that goodwill, all that support, grab it and turn it directly against your opponents. I can allow him not saying it the day he was sworn in, but the GOP behavior was clear to everyone from the earliest moments of the stimulus. In the end, it was Obama that didn’t get it.
feel the ignorance! You didn’t want him to do that on the day of inauguration but five days later (January 25th according to your post).
Did you hear any of the stimulus arguments? Can I point you to this linke http://digg.com/news/politics/Obama_Slams_GOP_In_Stimulus_Speech dated the fucking 5th February 2009 (i.e. 15 days after inauguration) where the headline was Obama slams GOP in stimulus speech and commentators at the beloved Huff Po were saying “Finally, he said it” as if it was an unbearable wait of 15 days….
good illustration of what Booman’s post is about
Poor you. Stay home. The next guy will be better.
Waking up on Labor Day would be just about perfect timing. Although the best that can be said about satisfying the ‘progressive’ Left is that there is no point trying, I suppose.
Well said, thanks for the diary.
the best that can be said about satisfying the ‘progressive’ Left is that there is no point trying, I suppose.
Enough with defeatism! We want meta-defeatism!
‘When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.’ The meaning escapes me. Even more elusive is Obama’s off-the-cuff statement about being treated like a dog. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him or something?
You never saw Animal House?
No, I haven’t had a television for twenty years!
That must be a movie instead. Obviously I’m not familiar with it.
The movie is 33 years old.
That’s a good one!
Quentin, check out a video clip of “they talk about me like a dog”. Obama doesn’t look like he’s feeling sorry for himself. He uses the line to reinforce his larger point that “the special interests” (like Wall St.) had gotten used to having things their way in Washington, and that he (Obama) has put int tough new laws and regulations, and that’s why Wall St. is attacking him.
Well, in print it comes over like a dud. Yes, I’ve now seen the video clip. You’re right.
Thanks for checking. I think this is a good example of one of Obama’s favorite rhetorical devices—using humor, both in his words and in the way he delivers them. It allows him to demonstrate his anger at his opponents and their views without coming across as being angry himself.
BooMan quoting Animal House?
see, yet another reason why I enjoy coming here.
Booman, I entirely agree that we progressives need to stop with the defeatism and get out there and fight (though I think John Cole’s post was a criticism of the media, not of President Obama’s proposal). We have a long string of progressive victories under President Obama that have provided real benefits to the American people that we can and should be trumpeting. On the other side, the Republicans offer little more than warmed over Bush Administration policies that drove our economy into a ditch. We can and must, however, get this message out to the American people.
If you are interested in helping out, join me at Winning Progressive
Sigh…
You’re right.
Of course.
But…if it’s “well past time” for this to happen, then …
Why the fuck has it not happened?
Answer?
Sure.
Hypnomedia.
Duh.
The enforcement arm of modern culture.
What to do about it?
Hmmmm….
l;emme see…
Complain on webstes that .0000000000001% of the populatiion reads?
Duh.
Or…
But….
NOOOOOoooooooo….
Duh.
Y’all deserve whatever you get.
To the victors go the spoils.
And to the spoiled goes the shitty end of the schtick.
Wake the fuck iup!!!
Station WTFU once again signing off.
FUCK y’all!!!
Later..,.
AG
truly, we are so ungratful.
brendan, I think it’s not a matter of being “ungrateful”, as much as it is a matter of recognizing the situation we’re in.
The radical right has very quickly (since 2004) gone from controlling all three branches of government amid expectations of a “permanent Republican majority” to:
Add to that the fact that every year for the next decade 4 million citizens will reach voting age. Those young people are not only demographically different from the existing electorate, it looks like they’ll vote Democratic by a cumulative 2-4 million votes by 2020.
Add to that 10% unemployment and you can see why Booman and others view the radical right as a quite dangerous wounded beast (perhaps more dangerous for being wounded) as we approach this fall’s elections.
To extend the metaphor, nobody’s asking us to be grateful that the beast is wounded and has lost power. We’ve got to recognize that the beast is still dangerous, that it still has a fair amount of power, and that if we’re not disciplined about our actions it could regain some of its power.
oh, i appreciate the fact that the right is a dangerous animal.
but look, anything i write in response is going to be answered with “stop whining”. Like the whole privatizing social security thing you bring up: don’t shove that in my face when I know the democrats are up to the same thing, OK? it doesn’t fucking pass muster with me. You don’t get to say “look how horrible the GOP is” when the democrats want to do the same thing.
Why should i give a fuck what the ethniticity and gender of the house speaker is? Seriously: does being Italian american somehow make Pelosi super-awesome? I can name plenty of Italian American women who are fucking douchebags. Same with the black president and the female court justices. I care what they DO, not what they look like.
STOP pretending that “health insurance reform” is the same as “health care reform”. They are not the same thing, at all.
I don’t know enough about financial regulatory reform to feel comfortable commenting except to note two things: 1) if it’s like everything else, it’s probably not enough and probably has some pretty egregious loopholes that will be exploited; 2) considering that the democrats were as responsible as the republicans for a lot of the problems we’ve had (glass-steagal wasn’t torn down by one side; the bankruptcy reforms of 2005 were strongly supported by democrats), I’m reluctant to give them credit for half-way fixing what they helped to break. It’s like giving a kid a merit badge for breaking a window after he broke it on purpose.
never mind the fact that I’m going to vote for these jokers, if unenthusiastically. as i’ve said repeatedly, you have to give people a reason to WANT to vote. comments like “fuck the UAW”, health insurance reforms that look to cost average americans quite a lot of money, and secretive commissions to cut social security don’t help.
that should be “It’s like giving a kid a merit badge for repairing a window after he broke it on purpose.”
I liked it as written originally. It showed a sufficient degree of ungratefulness. Suggesting that anything has been repaired is not consistent with your mantra.
oh blow it out your ass. i give credit where credit is due. the banking reforms, like the health insurance reforms, are better than nothing. and it is always good to see the kid who broke the window fix it, even if the fix was half-ass.
speaking of health insurance reform, a female friend of mine is panicking because when her COBRA runs out, she can’t get traditional insurance because she has a pre-existing condition. But she’s reluctant to enter the high risk pool, because she wants the freedom to choose an abortion. luckily she’s 24 and can stay on her parents health insurance, even though they can’t really afford the extra expense that she represents. But, it is better than nothing, although most parents i know are not especially excited at continuing to pay for their adult children’s insurance when the kid’s almost 30. that’s the kind of “solution” rich people come up with (for the record, I am grateful for Canada’s health care system, because if I had to put Sam on my insurance, I couldn’t afford to buy groceries or pay the mortgage).
and of course, ‘it’s better than nothing’ is not a particularly exciting campaign slogan.
i understand your point of view though: it is important enough to keep the GOP out of power that you’re willing to ignore the failings of the democrats in an effort to keep them in power, with the hope that more progressive democrats can be elected later. And hey, good luck with that, it could happen.
It’s better than nothing. Now stop your whining, you ungrateful crackheads!
Vote Democrat!
Touch a nerve?
I don’t want to sound dismissive of the abortion issue because it is a very important flaw with the recently-passed health care reforms.
So, this is just a comment about your friend. She should get the best health care available, which will probably only be possible if she gets the subsidies she needs. And those subsidies far exceed the cost of an abortion many times over. If she finds herself needing an abortion, she’ll have to scrape together the money for one, but in the larger picture she (and her parents) will be thousands of dollars ahead of the game.
no, you didn’t touch a nerve (although I think i did).
re: my friend. Bob casey’s office just told me that if my friend needs to use the federal subsidies to afford insurance in the exchanges, she can’t use that insurance to cover abortion.
dude, face it: that “flaw” is NEVER going to be fixed in our lifetime, and you know it.
come to think of it, i don’t know ANY parents that were all “oh yay, i get to keep my kid on my insurance til they’re 26.” Most of them are all “wtf, why can’t the adults i raised get their own affordable insurance?”
maybe that’s one of the reasosn the democrats are running away from their bill (as i predicted they would).
I don’t know why you needed Bob Casey’s office to tell you that. I thought that was your point in the first place.
My point is that, although that provision of the law is terrible, your friend should not shy away from subsidies worth thousands a year because she fears she may have to pay for a procedure that costs hundreds of dollars once.
It’s just financial advice, not a political argument.
i wanted to double check to make sure.
and also: my friend is a liberal democrat. You know how angry she is about being thrown under the bus like that? go ahead, ask.
Yeah, I know.
At least Stupak is gone come January.
that doesn’t help anyone and doesn’t change anything.
I just called up his office and asked what i should tell my friend. they promised to pass along my comment.
“it’s not a comment, it’s a question” i said. again, “we’ll pass along your comment.”
so i said if it’s a comment you want, let me give you one to pass along since you’re unwilling or unable to answer my question. tell Stupak he may have cost the democrats the female vote in 2011, and may well have helped lose the house for his party.
every woman i know, booman, is furious about this, and they are not blaming the republicans.
So, what do you want me to do about it? Maybe I should call everyone I know and make sure they know about this so that they can be appropriately ungrateful and demoralized. But, wait! That would be a poor use of my time and it would help lead to the opposite of what is the best future available for women’s health right now.
So, rather that knocking on doors and telling people how pissed they should be that there’s a rump of Bart Stupak dickheads ruining women’s health in the Democratic Party, I think I’ll focus on those thousands of dollars in subsidies that will soon become available.
i agree, that’s what you should do. but i don’t think i can do that. i’m actually considering doing a phonebank.. but i’m honestly not sure how to address this topic, which I KNOW is going to come up.
Again, not to be glib, but you’re asking for a quick answer to tell someone on the telephone…
“Barack Obama has done more for women’s health than any president in history.
[Go into spiel, for example:]
[or, whatever you want to focus on].
The reforms disproportionately help women, (pdf) which is fine since women use more health care than men.
You can also point out what I pointed out, which is that it used to be the case that 15 million women lacked any health care at all and had to pay for an abortion out of their own pocket. Now those 15 million women will receive subsidies to help them buy insurance that will give them access to a full spectrum of health care (worth thousands of dollars every year) and they will still have to pay for their own abortions.
That’s not to ignore the injustice, stigma, and double standard involved here, but obviously, we didn’t have the votes to avoid that problem. Tell them that, too. It was a small rump of conservative Democrats who joined with nearly all Republicans to create this problem. Electing Republicans certainly isn’t going to improve things, nor will staying home.
I’m an Italian-American and I agree with you. It’s nice, but a major thing.
I asked, “Where has the White House communications staff been hiding this guy since January 2009?”
Folks are getting failure fatigue with the continual excuse that you can’t get it through Congress. They think that this is just more show and that Obama and the Congressional Democrats will not go to the mat to get even $50 in infrastructure through. The way to deal with that is not to attack the “professional left” but to actually go to the mat loudly and publicly to get the legislation through.
And the report of the DCCC doing “triage” on House races did not help the mood. The cynical view is that folks in tight races who supported the President’s agenda will not be supported because they “cannot win”. And folks who blatantly opposed his agenda will be supported because “they’re in tight races in tough districts”. Which means Perriello’s out, Shuler’s in. We’ll see. Like I said, that’s the cyncial view.
And most analysts are saying that tax credits don’t get into the economy fast enough to make a difference. So the main part of this proposal is the $50 billion in infrastructure investment (which will create a little over a million new jobs after the multiplier effect through the supply and demand chains). But there are at least 14 million unemployed. So this brings the unemployment rate from 9% down to 8%. In 1968, the unemployment rate was 3.7% and folks thought the US had an unemployment problem, just for comparison.
If unemployment rates stay high, the new normal will not be people starving although that might happen. The new normal will be increased black market and criminal activity and greater corruption and demands for “tips”. And a larger informal economy. All of those are definitions of “third world nation” although there are a lot of “third world nations” now moving beyond this into more formal markets.
Sirota and Cole (and Uyghur and …) say what they do because they have an audience that expects that point of view that doesn’t cut Democrats any slack at all. The problem is that it has become a view that cuts Republicans a lot of slack because they are acting like right-wing Republicans. That is, Democrats are held to a higher standard. And the practical result is people looking for third parties to vote for in November. And arguing philosophically instead of strategically–with an exaggerated sense of ethics. And too much willingness not to actually do anything to stop the Republican takeover of government again. And some live in the illusion that making things worse will hasten a backlash that snaps people into a progressive political state.
Unlike most progressive Democrats, Republicans know that politics is about persuasion and that only. That’s why they have played so many dishonest games. That’s why they have driven their friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers nutty with expressions of their conservative views. That’s why they have worked to create the illusion that most Americans are conservatives. And the silence and politeness of their friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers has been seen as affirmation of that view.
One gets the sense that folks like Sirota and Cole and their audience don’t have conservatives in their personal networks who they have been trying to persuade to support rational and practical policies. Consequently, they don’t understand the real limits to political speech in the country outside of the northeast and northwest.
Democrats’ problems are not the result of Sirota and Cole reaching their small audiences however. (It is easy to get an inflated opinion of the effectiveness for good or ill of the blogosphere.) Democratic politicians are in trouble because they have not engaged their constituents in discussions over policy and they have cowered at local Republican attacks and stared blankfaced at August town hall meetings at what they should have known was coming. Democrats’ problems are slinking away every time the “tax and spend Democrat” smear is launched and not pointing out to voters that Republicans have not been interested in frugal government but have been the party since Ronald Reagan of “borrow and squander” primarily on military pipe dreams and imperial adventures.
But for Democrats to deal with the “tax and spend” label effectively, they have to stop acting like punished puppies every time Republicans charge them with being soft on national security.
The defeatism is coming from the members of Congress, who lack the the capacity to go big. Who are frightened of what they think their constituents believe. Who run away from the support of the President, reinforcing the idea that he is an extreme liberal, an idea that comes back to defeat them.
In the scheme of things related to November’s election, Sirota and Cole — as we as well — are irrelevant except as we influence our personal networks.
Sincerely, this brought a tear to my eye and I queued up Whitney Houston singing The Star-Spangled Banner. Your post did more to help the dialogue than a millions posts lecturing from on High “Be grateful! Be grateful! Be grateful!” and calling us whiny drug addicts.
Sirota lives in Colorado. Neither the northeast or northwest. Cole lives in WEST FUCKING VIRGINIA. The other day he told a story about how going for a barbershop he lost it. He could no longer take the other old people in there going on about Obama’s perfidy and he exploded at them.
Sirota should show us how it’s done–on his home turf–instead of expecting Obama and DC Democrats to do his heavy lifting.
Does Cole live in the real West Virginia or the part that is essentially a bedroom suburb of DC? And what took him as long to go off on the folks at the barber shop as it took for Obama to go off on his critics for treating him “like a dog”. Another case of needing to show us how it’s done in West Virginia.
If the public is not backing up the member of Congress, that member of Congress is not likely to back up the President or demand he do more. In fact, that Congresscritter is likely to curl into a fetal position and duck and cover.
Every part of West Virginia is real.
As it happens I don’t know where Cole lives but it’s a town that is so small he has to walk to the post office to get his mail. He lives in the boondocks of W. Virginia from what I know.
No: ‘Unlike most progressive Democrats, Republicans know that politics is about persuasion and that only.’
N: unlike most Democrats, period! Republicans also know that after you get your hands dirty you can always wash them clean. We have today at our disposal the most marvelous cleaning fluids in the history of mankind and the Republicans make use of all of them to great effect.
I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when Rahm Emmanuel was named chief of staff, and since then, to keep up my spirits, I tell myself over and over again how much worse a McCain administration would be.
Thanks to somebody—I blame Rahm, of course—the whole Obama election machine, which was magnificent, was unwound. Howard Dean was dismissed as DNC chair, and the 50-state strategy was dropped. We used to have a DNC coordinator in my red zone who kept all willing hands busy doorknocking (with great doorhangers for people who weren’t home) to check on registered Democrats, staffing voter registration tables, being supportive crowds for Democratic speakers, phoning, providing whatever labor was needed wherever. Now, nothing. Just a monthly phone call from the DNC, asking for money. (I used to contribute all I could.)
The political work I’ve been doing for the past year has been in support of Joe Sestak, and that has unfortunately required working against Obama, Rendell, the DNC, and all the other Democratic powers that be. I’ll continue working for Joe and for my local candidates, but it’s hard to care about the Beltway Democrats when they certainly don’t seem to care about me, my opinions, or even my labor, just my credit card.
How did you fall so far out of the loop?
Go to OFA Pennsylvania, link up with your local network, and get to work. You lost the grid, man, it didn’t lose you. You can find every organizer in your zip code, meet up with them, download the iPhone app (if you have an iPhone) and hit the streets. We’re organized behind Howard Dean’s wildest dreams, and you looking for a DNC coordinator. Shit. You’ve got one. He or she works for OFA.
To find your local organizer, email: ofapennsylvania@dnc.org
Just one example (I don’t know what county you’re in) from the Philly burbs:
Yes, The President made a proposal, more jobs through more business tax cuts. More supply-side trickle down crap. After thirty years of it I’m less than enthused. Wouldn’t McCain have made the same proposal? Except bigger tax cuts?
Or yeah, and more road construction. Here in the Chicago area they are cutting up last year’s stimulus asphalt and pouring new useless asphalt instead of making permanent concrete repairs. Road contractors have no recession, but then they know just how to slip envelopes to Ray LaHood, they’ve been doing it for years. Meanwhile, more small builders give up the ghost and more homeowners are put in the street.
Here’s what my Alma Mater has to say.
And here’s what the White House has to say about working men and women.
I’ll remember both in November ESPECIALLY THE WHITE HOUSE VIEW OF ME AND MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS!
Cole isn’t bitching about Obama, you retard. He’s bitching about the media, and probably also about “true progressives”, who have been whining about Obama just as much as republicans have.
Retard? I critiqued Cole for his defeatism, not his analysis, which I affirmed for the most part.
Hell yea! Enough with this crap. Time to pick a side. You’re either with us or with hem.
Thanks, Booman.