Obama Defends Deal, Fumes at “Sanctimonious” Left

In his press conference this afternoon, President Obama didn’t tell us much about his tax cut deal with Republicans that we didn’t already know. But in an impassioned, even testy defense of political compromise, he did reveal his clear frustration with liberal criticism that he’s a pushover and a sellout. And he ultimately positioned himself as the grownup and protector of the public in a room full of squabbling partisans.

On the tax deal’s specifics, Obama affirmed what has become increasingly obvious as Washington chews over the details of the compromise: What Obama managed to get out of the arrangement was, in effect, a second stimulus. “This is not as significant a boost to the economy as the Recovery Act was,” Obama explained, referring to the huge January 2009 spending bill. But, he added, “This will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months.” It will do that by extending unemployment insurance, various targeted tax breaks, cutting the payroll tax, and, to some degree (depending on which economists you listen to), by extending the Bush tax cuts for top-bracket income earners.

Obama said he is well aware that many liberal Democrats hate the deal and would prefer that he fight harder to block the tax cuts for high-earners. Obama said that wasn’t possible given Republican numbers in the Senate, and given that “on the Republican side this is their Holy Grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy.” Obama said that he could have mounted a symbolic fight over the tax cuts anyway. But he likened his dilemma to a hostage standoff, and “in this case the hostage was the American people… I want to make sure the American people aren’t hurt because we’re having a political fight.”

Having positioned himself as the protector of the public from Washington political games, Obama lashed out at his liberal critics with striking pique. He recalled criticism that his health care reform plan amounted to a huge disappointment because it lacked the “public option” cherished by liberals. “If that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it,” Obama said, with his voice rising and acquiring a sharp edge,

we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are, and how tough we are — and in the meantime the American people are still saying to themselves, not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or not being able to pay their bills because unemployment insurance ran out. That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service. That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big diverse country, not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across America. Neither does the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Tough stuff–not just angry but arguably even condescending–and sure to further alienate the “professional left.” That said, it’s not news that the Obama and his aides feel this way. It is striking, however to see Obama say it with such obvious irritation.

But I doubt that Obama regrets showing a little stream. There have been multiple clues of late that the White House plans to make a political comeback for 2012 by winning back disaffected independent voters, not by rallying the Democratic base. Today’s presser was further evidence that Obama’s next two years are likely to be more Clinton and less Truman.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • shepherdwong

    That said, it’s not news that the Obama and his aides feel this way. It is striking, however to see Obama say it with such obvious irritation.
    .
    I wonder if they’re lying to themselves or just you.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Even in March, after months and months of far-right savagery against health insurance reform, a majority of Americans still wanted a public option, which would, of course, have reduced the deficit: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/03/30/usa-today-52-still-want-public-option-in-health-care/
    -
    As for the suggested strategy of pursuing independents… well:

    INDEPENDENTS ARE NOT A “VAST MIDDLE GROUND.” INDEPENDENTS DO NOT COMPRISE MORE THAN “A THIRD OF AMERICANS.” … To repeat: true, honest-to-God independents are about 10% of the American population.

    http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/01/argh_argh_argh_argh_argh.html
    -
    The story isn’t left/right, it’s fact/lie. The reality-based community is unhappy about unpopular, ineffective, budget-busting tax policies.

  • lilaland

    I might not have the education level as Obama.. but I’m not uneducated.. and even more.. I have good instinct, I’m thinking the brother is getting played. If he keeps repeating that he allowed the extensions for the rich to continue because republicans were willing to let middle class America suffer so the rich could be pampered even more for 2 more years.. he might be able to weather this.. but my gut tells me he just handed over his land for some old blankets with cow pox germs all over them.

  • afguy

    Last night I stopped for a few moments on the PBS station and listened to the “Third Way” prick talk about “the world we NOW live in” (and other political realities) as the reason why Obama had to “compromise” (again).
    .
    What was missing from his presentation was WHY he saw such a need BEFORE the elections (and no one brought THAT up). Also, missing was a sign that should have been around his neck that read “I have NO real principles”.
    .
    Only stayed there a few minutes, then total disgust motivated me to change channels

  • shepherdwong

    I have good instinct, I’m thinking the brother is getting played.
    .
    He’s not getting played by Republicans, he’s doing what our plutocrats tell him to do and then blaming it on Republicans. Ignore the Kabuki and keep watching the outcomes. Everything in service to the oligarchy.

  • stuartzechman

    The American Prospects’s Adam Serwer, on Twitter just now:

    @AdamSerwer: I’m comfortable saying that a white liberal primarying Obama is the end of black people as the base of the Democratic Party.

    , then my request for clarification:

    @stuart_zechman: @AdamSerwer Comfortable in what sense? Comfortable in that you believe that’s accurate, or in the sense that you think that’s not f*cked up?

    , and then his helpful reply:

    @AdamSerwer: @stuart_zechman in that it’s accurate

    I think that there’s a set of decent predictions we can make about the next two years, and we should start making them now, and planning for those things to happen.

  • freeinpa

    It’s great theater to watch liberal eat their young!

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    OK!
    -
    Here’s my prediction: that won’t happen.
    -
    First off, I don’t think that Obama’s going to have a primary challenge, not even Buchanan ’92-level. “Read my lips: no new taxes” was Bush Sr.’s most importantest stand in the ’88 election. Restoring fiscal sanity by allowing the ruinous Bush tax deferments to expire was not the #1 thing for Obama supporters.
    -
    I think that the American people don’t love this decision by Obama, but they realize that it’s temporary, and that showing a bit of willingness to give some policy concessions to the GOP could well strengthen his standing as the grown-up relative to the Tea Party/GOP.
    -
    (I meant that in punditspeak: “the American people” = me, and people who tend to vote like me).

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Prediction #2!
    -
    If some white dude runs against Obama, it won’t be the end of black support for the Democratic Party.
    -
    I mean, seriously, are they going to vote for the party of the Southern Strategy & the Confederacy?

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    I mean, seriously, are they going to vote for the party of the Southern Strategy & the Confederacy?

    You know that was originally the Democrats, right? lol
    ·
    Yeah there was the massive shift in politics where the Republicans became Democrats & Democrats became Republicans, but I don’t think Republicans can be called the party of the Confederacy.

  • pelhamite1

    And if “true” independents are only 10%, so what? There are at least 20 states in which that 10% is more or less decisive, including just about every state in the Midwest and most of the Rocky Mountain states. One of the perpetual frustrations of politics is that in most states, the most well versed voters are precisely those who line up on one side or another early. In any close race, the most important group is also the most malleable, and probably the least well informed. It is a major factor as to why political races so often seem to be a “race to the bottom”, with the victor being the candidate who can generate the most simple minded and emtional appeal. After years of knocking on doors, I continue to be amazed at how ill informed a great swach of Americans continue to be.

    .

    As for your figure of 52% supporting a public option, that is nice, but what the hell does it matter in a voting body in which 600,000 people are accorded the same representation as 35 million? The US Senate, a bit of an abomination when it was created in 1791, has now become one of the most grotesquely skewed institutions in the history of world governance. Again, it is beyond frustrating, but it is the world we have, and we have to figure out a way of prevailing within these bizarre rules.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Ever notice that the Left is the only group Obama ever shows anger toward? We are the real enemy, in his mind. I don’t see him ever losing his temper with moderate or right-wing extremists, just the Left.

    I disagree with his health care analogy. Why isn’t this more like Guantanamo Bay? We also learn that Liberal principles are simply symbols, ideals, the currency of dreamers, purists, extremists.

    OK, Obama, I think we get it, we are the enemy.

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Most of us on the left have noticed. But most of the country hasn’t, in part because he gets positive media coverage for this kind of behavior. I guess, as Mr. Crowley says, the left doesn’t much factor into his 2012 election plans. At this rate, he may well have to do without.

  • http://petermilley.wordpress.com petermilley

    So, did a single member of the press ask Obama at the press conference about Joe Lieberman’s suggestion that the NY Times be charged under the Espionage Act?

    …anyone? I would have thought that might be relevant to your interests, what with you being press and all.

  • shepherdwong

    I guess, as Mr. Crowley says, the left doesn’t much factor into his 2012 election plans.
    .
    There just aren’t enough of us to matter. Meanwhile, there are millions of clueless independents to be won and this is a political winner for Obama. There’s never a cost in The Village for hippie-punching and seldom is there one for bad public policy.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    If this is analogous to the health debate then it is only because the majority, not just the Left, supported the public option. That is just like now, when the majority are opposed to giving billions of dollars to billionaires, with very little in return, other than more debt. But no, Obama wants to blame it solely on the Left.

    At the very least make them pay for it. Ask the Republicans for 400, or 500 billion in cuts, from the wars, from seniors, from Vets, from somewhere, that adds up to 500 billion, so they can give the rich more money for their savings account.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Prediction: he’s going to lose an absurdly greater number of votes for insulting the left than he would have lost if he’d just given away the tax cuts.
    .
    And while I’m at it, may I complain about how Obama, yet again, fails to control the news cycle. The news cycle should be about the deal and he should’ve been selling the great things he got out of the deal and instead, the cycle is going to be about Obama running from his base. *sighs*.
    .
    Sadly, Elizabeth Edwards might save him (RIP).

  • wandmdave
  • freeinpa

    “We also learn that Liberal principles are simply symbols, ideals, the currency of dreamers, purists, extremists.”
    .
    Every now and then Obama lets slip with the truth. Liberalism is based on fantasy and delusions with no set principles

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    The NY Times did not pay someone to find classified documents and disclose them, they did not infiltrate to gather the documents. Instead, they got the documents third hand from a non-US group who you’d also have an incredibly hard time claiming was committing espionage and they did not provide the information directly to an alternate agency with ties to a foreign government but rather released it into the public sphere. Really, at what point did NYT commit espionage?
    .
    And why does it matter on a deal like this?
    .
    And why would anyone be asking Obama (rather than, say, Gibbs) as their one question when everyone knows the answer is “You aren’t going to prosecute an entire media organization for Espionage!” It’s a waste of your one question of the day.

  • shepherdwong

    Liberalism is based on fantasy and delusions with no set principles
    .
    You mean fantasies and delusions about “small government”, “free enterprise”, trickle-down (Voodoo) economics, tax cuts that pay for themselves, global warming denial, “spreadin’ freedom” at the barrel of a gun, and the “principle” that government should force women to bear children against their will?
    .
    You’ve already proved that you’re an unprincipled liar, you don’t get to judge other people’s principles.

  • ohiolibb

    Actually, wandm, it probably is true. The economist poll you cited use self-identification, which has little to do with how people actually vote on election day. Someone can be an independent, and still lean one way or the other. *cough cough*. These people aren’t true independents. We don’t strongly identify with either political party, yet tend to vote one way or the other anyway.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “Liberalism is based on fantasy and delusions with no set principles”
    .
    Delusions like rational thought or empiricism. Just call us fiscal policy socialists.
    .
    Has anyone seen a Tea Partier lately? They must be beside themselves in rage, over the new 800 billion dollar, unpaid for bill. There must be smoke coming out of their ears, or not?

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    The Republicans can’t cut $500 billion from the budget – there aren’t enough Republican programs and no one cuts money from the military during the war. So the Republicans end up going after Democrat bastions and now Obama’s got a real fight on his hands. He can’t win that fight, he can only stonewall. Now we end up in January, the tax cuts expire, Obama’s left holding the bag (because you KNOW the Republicans left it there), and the House reconvenes with a Republican majority, the Senate reconvenes with 47 Republicans, Liberman, Nelson and I’m sure they can find 2 more all in favor of passing a blank full reimplementation of the entire set of cuts, and investors start fleeing the stock market because there isn’t sufficient will in Washington to get something so universally agreed upon as the Bush tax cuts extended. You don’t win that fight.
    .
    If you forget about everything from before November, Obama got a deal way better than I thought was possible. If you don’t forget about it, he should’ve held a filibuster on the issue in September, made the Republicans vote a few times against the middle class in favor of the rich. Then the entire issue would’ve been done in time for December. But no, it never would’ve happened – the Democrats don’t have the spine for it.

  • nflfoghorn

    And now a Special Comment from Guard Duck [8:48pm ET, ms.nbc]:
    .
    SIR!
    Why won’t you speak to the professional left?
    SIR!
    Don’t you know we’re smarter than you?
    SIR!
    I’ve exhausted my diatribes on the former president and now I’m focused on you.
    SIR!
    Why do I speak to you like you’re in the room?
    SIR!
    First it’s your inability to prosecute anyone from the previous administration, leaving them unconvicted criminals, SIR. Then you cave in on health care reform, now taxes for the rich, everything you ever campaigned for….
    SIR.
    You’re a wimp, SIR, a veritable Mendoza at home plate when we need a Mantle.
    SIR!
    I beg you, SIR, to step aside and let a real liberal from the REAL LEFT lead this nation, somebody like your current secretary of state! Somebody with a set of cajones!
    SIR!
    Before it’s too late.
    SIR!

  • Mark

    Really? What about when you had a filibuster-proof majority in the House and the Senate, had the White House, had the approval of the vast majority of Americans, had a clear mandate from the American people, had a solemn campaign promise to fill, had the wind at your back… was it still not possible? Why did you wait? Did you think that magic window of opportunity would last forever? Is it possible to be so politically naive? In this economic environment, with people out of work, the economy still sucking wind, public anger over bailouts and bonuses, our tax dollars going straight to the top percent, if in this environment, if you can’t manage to eliminate a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires that was designed to be temporary and was set to expire, then you’re either fundamentally incompetent, or you’re working for them.

    I’m so glad I supported you and gave you my very hard earned money and knocked on doors for you so you could hit us with this condescending tripe. Thank you sir, may I have another?

    I’m beginning to believe you really are a Manchurian Candidate.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    How about we prosecute Truman for dropping a nuke on Hiroshima? How about Johnson for escalating Vietnam on false pretenses (or Kennedy for getting us into Vietnam)? Do I need to say Nixon? How about Carter for not getting those people home? How about Reagan for using the CIA to run roughshod through Latin America? How about Clinton for bombing Iraq when we know for sure, now, that there were no WMDs?
    .
    It’s the reason why the US is not part of the International Court – because nearly every President could easily be prosecuted for War Crimes. Yes, it was an affront to the concept of America. Yes, it was disgraceful to no end. But if we institutionalize the idea that we can prosecute people for past crimes, we’ll have a criminal court after every administration whether it be because they violated the Geneva convention or got a blow job (oh wait!).

  • nflfoghorn

    I think the pig poked out of the pen on that last one.
    .
    Sir.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    forgottenlord the tax cuts expire, the nation starts paying off it’s debt, everyone knows it was the Republicans who refused to compromise, Obama doesn’t look like a wet noodle who has to strike out emotionally, toward his base, to try and save face.

    .

    I don’t see the downside.

  • acameronw

    Then clean off your opera glasses, because this little dust up with Mr. Obama and the left wing of his party is going to look like a kindergarten spat next to the next bout on the card: Tea Party Vs. Republican Establishment. Although in that case it’ll be more like the young eating the Party.

  • koabd

    Ever notice that the Left is the only group Obama ever shows anger toward?
    .
    Probably because he never expected glowing praise or support from Republicans and feels he’s only received vociferous dissent and insults from the people supposedly on his side of the aisle.

  • http://therealestamerican.wordpress.com therealestamerican

    I guess “Hope & Status Quo!” didn’t look as good on the bumper stickers!

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Actually, no. The scenario favors Republicans in every court of public opinion except those with extensive knowledge of the absurdity of the process (eg: us). Why?
    .
    Republicans: “Give us the tax cuts”
    Obama: “Pay for it”
    Republicans: “Ok, we’ll cut….20 billion from Republican programs, freeze earmarks, and cut 460 billion from Democrat programs. (note: they wouldn’t actually say that, they’d just give the list and the usual culprits would be on there, possibly with some small Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid stuff and no military stuff on it)”
    Obama: “You’re not going to have us give up stuff for your payday.”
    Republicans: (Insert BS arguments here)
    .
    Oh look, Republicans now have Obama fighting for two things – the taxes and the Democrat programs. Republicans call Obama unwilling to compromise, Obama can’t give up either but he can’t not pass the middle class tax cut. Obama would have to come to them with the list first….which would almost certainly include (aside from farm assistance, which they’ll probably use Florida’s current problems due to this cold snap to parade around) significant cuts to military and intelligence. I really don’t need to walk you through the next part of that dance. Worst part, I’m not convinced that Obama, who’s more conservative on national security than any other field, would even be willing to offer a package to Republicans worth $500 billion.
    .
    Here’s the worst part: $500 billion wouldn’t be achievable without cutting at least one of the big 4 – defense, Medicare, medicaid or social security. There’s only a Trillion dollars between the other programs and there’s no way you cut that in half. Obama isn’t yet willing to make notable cuts in defense (if he even could make those cuts politically), and medicare, medicaid and social security would result in greater backlash than this deal would. Scarier, even if all of the cuts expired, Obama would still have had to figure out where the other $700 billion was going to come from and you’re looking at the same board.
    .
    I honestly believe that the budget is incapable of being balanced.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    The majority are already opposed to the “Billions for Billionaires” program. They will know the right will be the real cause of taxes resuming previous levels. In fact, Obama should let them take responsibility for kicking millions off unemployment, while at the same time vigorously pursuing the billionaire tax cut, as their single, highest priority, as well. Let them shut down the government too.

    Give them as much rope as they want.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Senator Franken on extending the tax cuts for the upper end.
    .

  • peteg2

    So I did the rough calculations:

    The top 2% get 163 billion in income and estate tax cuts – works out to $41,000 per year for each average top 2% household

    The bottom 98% get 600 billion in income tax cuts, social security tax cuts, and unemployment insurance – works out to $2600 per year for each average bottom 98% household

    (Does not include business tax credits (estimates forthcoming) which will ultimately go disproportionately to the wealthy.)

    Excellent deal … for the top 2% … who already hold 50% of the nation’s wealth. I’m sure they’ll give their GOP pets a nice treat come next campaign season.

    To oppose this “Deal,” see: http://fairsharetaxes.org/URGENTDEC2010.aspx for letter ideas and Congressional and White House contact information.

    Right now Warren Buffett, a billionaire, pays a total tax rate (combined federal, state, local including corporate corporate) of 11% of his income and investment gains. A typical single person earning a minimum wage pays taxes amounting to 30% of her wages, almost triple Mr. Buffett’s, rate.

    For a fair, economy-saving tax system proposal, see http://fairsharetaxes.org/ProposedReform.aspx

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    You know, thats how I read the entire thing too. From Gibbs going after the “professional left” weeks ago, to Obama lamblasting his liberal base today, I truly do think they see liberals as the enemy.
    .
    As for 2012, I don’t see how any of this week helps Obama get reelected. Come 2012, the republicans are going to be campaigning on once again extending the (now) Bush/Obama tax cuts. We will not be able to afford an extention at that time just like we can’t afford them now.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Obama and the party establishment punch DFHs b/c at the end of the day DFHs continue to vote for them/their policies anyway.

    Why should he respect us? So we don’t say unkind things about him?

  • kevin

    Ever notice that the Left is the only group Obama ever shows anger toward?
    .
    Maybe it’s because the Left is the only group who should be fairly pleased with him — what with the delivering on more liberal legislation than any Democrat since LBJ and all — and yet they constantly get p!ssed off that he’s not doing everything they want.
    .
    I say this as a self-described liberal — there are a bunch of sanctimonious purists on the Left who need to get a f*cking clue about what this president has actually accomplished and stop jerking it to their fantasies of a Grayson-Kucinich landslide win in 2012.
    .
    You wonder why he gets a little angry? I wonder why he doesn’t call out some of these critics by name and tell them to go f*ck themselves.
    .
    I’m so godd@mn sick of the Democratic circular firing squad.

  • waynebernard

    Is the budget released by Ireland today in a last ditch effort to cure its economic issues going to set the standard for what will happen in the United States once investors realize that we are unlikely to ever pay back the debt owed? Here’s a look at how Ireland is handling its debt crisis:



    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2010/12/will-irelands-austerity-plan-become.html

    Will deep cuts to program spending and tax increases have to become a way of life in the United States at some point in the future?

  • Cliff

    I’ve really been enjoying the spoof, but I wanted to say that when you copy textee’s insane lists of media outlets it weakens your schtick.
    .
    The freeinpa/newfreedomblog voice works a lot better.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “From Gibbs going after the “professional left” weeks ago, to Obama lamblasting his liberal base today, I truly do think they see liberals as the enemy.”
    .
    The Left should start viewing him as the enemy from now on as well.

  • kevin

    When did Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
    .
    Technically, the Democrats didn’t have 60 Senators until Al Franken was sworn in, which was June 30, 2009. And by that time, the right-wing campaign against HCR was already underway. The window of opportunity you’re talking about had already almost closed.
    .
    But suppose they got Franken into office and had the magic number of 60. Do you really think Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, with their history, would have voted to secure cloture? Seriously?
    .
    Believe it or not, the president and most of the American people can want something, and it still might not happen. It’s called politics.
    .
    And the manchurian candidate? Jesus, get a grip.

  • Cliff

    Over at Balloon Juice, I’ve seen John Cole and the Angry Black Lady both say how we’d be crazy to try to primary Obama.
    .
    I asked how, if we’re going to take primaries off the table from the start, are we going to apply pressure to politicians.
    Some other commenter said that we need to “make room on the left by challenging misperceptions and having discussions with friends and family and coworkers.”
    .
    So…I’m hearing the coffin nails get pounded in, is what I’m saying.

  • kevin

    The Left should start viewing him as the enemy from now on as well.
    .
    Yeah, that’ll help. Just ask President Ted Kennedy about all that liberals were able to accomplish in this country after his massive victory in the election of 1980.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    kevin some of us would rather maintain our symbolic principles than capitulate to right-wing thugs.
    .
    Sorry.

  • redlotuspetal68

    I am very happy that Sen. Franken is still speaking up for the majority of people in this country who are so tired of being lied to and promised things we never get. Good for him.

  • kevin

    Over at Balloon Juice, I’ve seen John Cole and the Angry Black Lady both say how we’d be crazy to try to primary Obama.
    .
    Closer to home, let me say that you’d be crazy to try to primary Obama.
    .
    Unless, of course, your goal is to get Sarah Palin elected president and bring about the apocalypse. Then, by all means, please proceed.
    .
    Seriously, an incumbent president facing a primary challenger from the direction of his party’s base is dead in the water. Gene McCarthy (and then RFK) came at Johnson (and then Humphrey) from the left in 1968, and we got Nixon. Ted Kennedy came at Carter from the left in 1980, and we got Reagan. On the other side, Pat Buchanan came at GHW Bush from the right in 1992, and they lost to Clinton.
    .
    A strong primary challenge to an incumbent president is a guaranteed way for the opposing party’s candidate to pull out the win. Every. Single. Time.
    .
    Maybe instead of crying into their pillows because they think (wrongly) that the president called them mean names, my fellow liberals could take a look at the record and see that this president has secured more concrete accomplishments on the liberal “to-do” list than any president since the Great Society.
    .
    You remember that, right? All those historic liberal accomplishments that came under the watch of that sellout Johnson? The one who was driven from office for not being pure enough?

  • kevin

    kevin some of us would rather maintain our symbolic principles than capitulate to right-wing thugs. sorry
    .
    Yeah, and my cousin whose unemployment benefits are about to run out would rather be able to feed his children rather than worry about liberals’ getting their feelings hurt. Sorry.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    You can demonize the Left all you want and it won’t make any difference.. In fact, get in line.
    .
    Rational people don’t tie unemployment insurance to total capitulation to the Right. They are separate issues.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Glad you took the time.
    .
    “Where are our values?”
    .
    Indeed.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “So…I’m hearing the coffin nails get pounded in, is what I’m saying.”
    .
    Well, that’s the netroots’ job after all.
    .
    I’m deeply skeptical the left will get up off the mat and make any type of challenge in ’12. If he loses straight up to the GOP candidate, liberals will stagger out of their cubicles with a bad hangover and wander in the wilderness for a while, wondering what’s next.
    .
    And even if there is enough steely-eyed resolve to take the fight to him, there’s always the “Dean Scream” to contend with. If the left wants to take him out and it’s not just blather, then they’d draft a 3rd party candidate that would guarantee his defeat. But I think they’re more interested in sending messages, inspiring some pander points for the summer of 2012…
    .
    What will prove astonishing is if the GOP is dumb enough to nominate a loon–they merely need to find a 2000 version of John McCain and coast to victory. Of course, whether it’s Palin, retro Mac, or Obama, the oligarchs win.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Kevin, you’re channeling some Porkdumpling today bro.
    .
    Listen, you want to call Obama’s record the Great Society redux, fine, that he put FWD significant “Liberal Legislation,” dandy, but don’t expect those of us in the reality-based community to buy into that sh!t. IOW, save the doublethink for your fellow partisans.
    .
    You obviously showed up today, much like Obama, looking to punch a hippie. Feel better? If we were sweeter to him, what do you think he’d have accomlished that he hasn’t already, given that you feel his achievements are so epic? He’s made his choices, and he seems pretty proud. If he and you are so damned confident why worry if we’re clapping loudly or not?

  • kevin

    Where is he “demonizing” the Left? Where?
    .
    Watch the comment again. He simply says that if we — and he repeatedly says “we,” to show that he’s speaking to friends on his side and not enemies on the other — were to insist on maintaining a purist position and refused to ever compromise, nothing would get done and we’d only be able to feel sanctimonious.
    .
    That’s it. People are reacting like he called Howard Dean out by name and said he personally was acting like a sanctimonious sh!t and he’d better knock it off. He didn’t.
    .
    He’s not demonizing the Left. He’s trying to point out — far more patiently than I ever could, were the positions reversed — that he has in fact done a lot that he promised the Left and will try to do more, but he’s not going to be able to secure the perfect dream version of everything right off the bat.
    .
    That’s not demonizing the Left. Not even close.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Obama demonizes the Left when he accuses them of being purists. Tell me Kevin, what is idealistic or purist about not wanting to spend billions on something that will do nothing for the economy? Why is following the dictates of fiscal policy, practiced over decades, the action of extremists? There is no money to do the things that have worked in the past, but there is plenty of money to follow policies that are proven failures. Who is the real pragmatist in this scenario? The Left were called purist when they wanted a cost saving policy added to the health plan. This is nothing new. What compromises have centrists or the right ever made? The only group that has compromised is the Left, so it is infuriating when assh@les suggest they are the inflexible ones.

  • kevin

    Kevin, you’re channeling some Porkdumpling today bro.
    .
    No idea what that means.
    .
    Listen, you want to call Obama’s record the Great Society redux, fine, that he put FWD significant “Liberal Legislation,” dandy, but don’t expect those of us in the reality-based community to buy into that sh!t. IOW, save the doublethink for your fellow partisans.
    .
    Nor much of that either.
    .
    I don’t think it’s the Great Society redux by any means. But it’s certainly the best thing I’ve seen as a liberal since then. I’ll stack Obama’s record of accomplishments up against Clinton, Carter, or any Democratic Congress any day.
    .
    You obviously showed up today, much like Obama, looking to punch a hippie. Feel better?
    .
    No, I didn’t. I showed up today, much like Obama, to wonder why the hell people who should be happy with 80% of what he’s accomplished and working to secure the other 20% are instead declaring that he’s worse than a million Hitlers because he used the word “sanctimonious.”
    .
    If we were sweeter to him, what do you think he’d have accomlished that he hasn’t already, given that you feel his achievements are so epic? He’s made his choices, and he seems pretty proud. If he and you are so damned confident why worry if we’re clapping loudly or not?
    .
    I don’t think you should clap louder. But I think you’re an absolute idiot if you believe withdrawing from the process or waging a primary against him is going to accomplish anything but the inauguration of President Palin.
    .
    There’s a whole lot about this president that gets me p!ssed off — Gitmo and continued warrantless wiretapping for two — but I’m not about to take my ball and go home just because I think the mean old president said something that hurts my fee-fees.

  • kevin

    Obama demonizes the Left when he accuses them of being purists.
    .
    And when did he do that? Because if you take off the special dog-whistle hearing aid and just read the speech, you won’t find that anywhere.
    .
    Tell me Kevin, what is idealistic or purist about not wanting to spend billions on something that will do nothing for the economy? Why is following the dictates of fiscal policy, practiced over decades, the action of extremists?
    .
    What wonderful, wonderful strawmen you’ve constructed there. No, no, you go ahead and knock them down yourself. Pretend I said any of that, and just have at it. It’ll make you feel better.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “Obama demonizes the Left when he accuses them of being purists.
    .
    And when did he do that? Because if you take off the special dog-whistle hearing aid and just read the speech, you won’t find that anywhere.”
    .
    He is quoted in the header of the thread stating;
    .
    “People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people.”
    .
    The rest of your post is not worth responding to. See you later.

  • hippooath

    “Every now and then Obama lets slip with the truth. Liberalism is based on fantasy and delusions with no set principles”
    .
    So now he speaks the truth? What a selective hateful fantasy world you live in. You, a man without integrity and principles preaching about others. Priceless.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Porkdumpling is, I’m fairly certain, the pseudonym Joe Klein, or is it Robert Gibbs, uses when they sign into Swampland to sing the praises of Obama and castigate the unrealistic left.
    .
    You called ACA etc. “liberal legislation” and I call b-s. You can say it’s the best you’ve seen (as a “self-described liberal”) since LBJ, but that doesn’t make what Obama has put FWD for the country liberal [full stop]
    .
    ME: “You obviously showed up today, much like Obama, looking to punch a hippie. Feel better?”
    .
    YOU: “No, I didn’t.”
    .
    YOU (upthread before you got down this far): “… there are a bunch of sanctimonious purists on the Left who need to get a f*cking clue about what this president has actually accomplished and stop jerking it to their fantasies of a Grayson-Kucinich landslide win in 2012.
    .
    You wonder why he gets a little angry? I wonder why he doesn’t call out some of these critics by name and tell them to go f*ck themselves.”
    .
    I’ll let the “idiot” and declarations about my childish fee-fees go, as I began the direct hostility here, but let’s be real clear about the “circular firing squad.” It goes in all directions. The left may be blasting the centrists and vice versa, but don’t put all the uncomfortable disharmony on us. The president and dem party leadership shows us the f@cking money and they’ll get our respect. If they want servile, they should become republicans.
    .
    But hell, I always forget that for dem partisans, the harmonious ether in GOP circles is something to be envied.

  • kevin

    “People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people.”
    .
    A line that (1) comes in a comment about a future hypothetical, (2) is sandwiched between two other sentences in which he repeatedly uses “we” in the place of that “people” and (3) comes in a section hinged on a giant “if.”
    .
    If he’s demonizing the Left there, he’s demonizing a hypothetical Left in the future through the powers of the subjective tense. You’re right, it’s practically like he dug up the corpse of Martin Luther King and had sex with it.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “A line that (1) comes in a comment about a future hypothetical, (2) is sandwiched between two other sentences in which he repeatedly uses “we” in the place of that “people” and (3) comes in a section hinged on a giant “if.”"
    .
    You just stated he never said such a thing so I presented you with the evidence that he did, and you keep on coming.
    .
    F@ck you @sshole. Get lost.

  • kevin

    I guess I just read it completely differently. He’s talking there about a hypothetical world in which people insist on purist principles and refuse to compromise, and says were “we” to do that we would feel sanctimonious but get nothing accomplished. And frankly, I think he’s right.
    .
    But I don’t understand how anyone who actually watched what he said — and not, say, read about it through Michael Scherer’s sensationalist headline about how he was really “fuming against the ‘sanctimonious’ left” of our reality — can take that as some instance of truly demonizing the left.
    .
    But hey, good luck proving that you’re not sanctimonious by getting incredibly sanctimonious. I’m sure that will work out well.

  • Cliff

    It’s always good times when porkdumpling shows up.
    .
    Anyway, yeah, Obama has done many good and necessary things (bailing out GM, Lilly Ledbetter Act, etc.).
    And I think that defeating him in the primaries would lead to a GOP victory in 2012.
    And I think his hands get tied by a cowardly and inept Senate.
    .
    But how am I supposed to take it when he announces a wage freeze for federal employees, for effectively no reason? What political purpose does it serve, to kick your biggest supporters in the face like that?
    How am I supposed to be happy with the new pat downs and scans at the airports?
    How am I supposed to take news like this:
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation
    .
    And now the Bush tax cuts.
    That’s not a little thing. That’s going to add trillions to the debt. They didn’t do anything for us for the first ten years they were in place, and the only reason we’re keeping them is because the GOP wants an oligarchy.
    .
    So how else do I register my dismay, except through a primary?

  • liberalmeltdown

    Sanctimonious left? Where would he get that idea? Maybe he replayed his campaign speeches.
    .
    Crybaby president cries about his snot nose base.

  • allthingsinaname

    “There just aren’t enough of us to matter.”
    .
    Well I do not know, I have opposed Derek, stuart and the bunch on a number of issues, I consider myself liberal, but not rabid so. More opposed to the GOP then wedded to the far left. But I am mad as hell at this.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “He’s talking there about a hypothetical world in which people insist on purist principles and refuse to compromise, and says were “we” to do that we would feel sanctimonious but get nothing accomplished.”
    .
    Really, it seems to be working really well for the Republicans.
    .
    Welcome to the dark side Allthings.

  • newfreedomblog

    The funny part of this all, I agree with almost everything little kevie has said. Finally someone admits that Obama has been the most progressive, liberal to sit in the Oval Office in the past 40+ years.
    .
    That “80% of the liberal agenda” has been achieved over the past 2 years.
    .
    That Obama is a progressive no matter how many times stuart et al attempt to classify him as a so-called “centrist” which is nothing short of the biggest joke this side of a Jon Stewart comedy skit.
    .
    Obama and the rest of the libtards know that their days are numbered. The vast majority of Americans, which calculates to be 70%, rejected Obama/libtard policies based on what was done over the past 2 years in November. You had center stage, you failed. America has spoken and again your policies have been re-soundly rejected.
    .
    Despite how you hope and pray that you hold some kind of mythical majority in this country, the fact remains the US of A is a center-right country. Period. If anything, the Tea Party is pushing it more to the right, and less of center-right.
    .
    Have you been to your local church lately? I would seek it out and pray if I were you.

  • hippooath

    Unlike the wise and mature right who cries about the deficit but turn around and nuke a hole in it by arguing for the extension of tax cuts that’ll add trillions. And from the fiscal conservatives that crie crocodile tears about one billion spent on anything…not a peep. The silence is deafening.
    .
    The big difference of course is that the snot nosed base want to fix the issue before the rot sets in, gramps on the other side of the isle wants to screw the carcass.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “The vast majority of Americans, which calculates to be 70%, rejected Obama/libtard policies based on what was done over the past 2 years in November”
    .
    Interesting. This is all i could find-
    .
    “In 2010, with all but a handful of districts and precincts reporting, the total vote cast for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives was 35,377,756 to 41,128,504 for the Republicans, for a Republican margin of about 5.7 million votes, less than the Democratic margin in 2006 and less than half the margin of 2008″
    .
    You seem pretty sure about the 70% figure, would you be so kind as to provide your source?

  • newfreedomblog

    Perhaps a picture, a map of gains by Republicans versus those of Democrats will show you better. There are no specific polls or studies, but a conservative tsunami occurred in November. A COMPLETE rejection of what liberals were attempting to do over the past 2 years.
    .
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/that_uneven_gop_wave
    .
    Perhaps I sell the shift from left to right short by even giving a percentage at all. It is at least 70%.

  • kathy

    It’s rather late for us to be complaining about what Obama isn’t doing. The campaign slogan was “yes, we can,” not “elect Obama, he’s going to do it for you.”

    We’ve taken a great deal of solace and sometimes delight from how the Republican right is tearing apart the party. Let’s not do it to ours.

    It’s pretty damned hard to see how this deal improves if it gets refused. In January the Republicans will manage to get the Bush tax cuts reinstated without any of the other things we want. See “victory, pyrrhic”

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    There are two problems. First, by failing top make clear that the tax-cut expirations were a creation of the Republicans in the first place most of the debate has circulated around the wrong questions.
    Secondly, the narrative that has emerged is Obama ceded the Republicans budget-busting millionaire tax cuts in exchange for the Democrats budget-busting stimulus tax cuts.

    At no point is ANYONE actually demonstrating actual concern over the budget. It’s absolutely pathetic!

  • Paul-no not that one

    Gotcha-from thin air.
    .
    Thanks for the response.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Move along lefties, no manchurian candidate to be seen here. He’s still the far left radical that you voted for. I know stewie has gone to great lengths to paint him otherwise, but a skunk can’t change it’s stripe.
    .
    Keep in mind that this is the same guy who said we shouldn’t actually be reaching for the brass ring, and that there should be a limit to how much a person should be allowed to make. No way in hell that his thinking has suddenly changed on that. He would like nothing more than to tax the rich into oblivion, knowing full well that that put us all in oblivion, and oh think of the power he would possess. That’s what it’s all about folks, power. He thought he had put together a team that could give that to him, but he underestimated the will of the people. He sold the hopey changey thing and got himself into office, but his clothing very quickly fell off.
    .
    He’s still one of you but YOU are few. We will always reject you. He’s fighting for his political life, you are the last thing on his mind right now. Hence the cave.

  • pintortwo

    I wholeheartedly disagree with the President (and Kevin). Not when candidate Obama promised the end the wars, provide a Public Option, allow Bush-cuts to expire, cut defense, use modernization of our electrical grid as a jobs program, reform banking policy, respect and negotiate in good faith with Iran, and to reform election finance– and all of them were either not achieved, or compromised in a way that renders them near ineffective.
    .
    Most, if not all, of these objectives could have reached either unilaterally (bring Iran to the table [as opposed to a "pathway to negotiations", I'm surprised Cheney has not sued for trademark infringement]; simply allowing Bush-cuts to expire) or via other methods (public option by reconciliation). He did not fight; he did not make opponents fight for top-earner tax cuts, against unemployment benefits, against modernizing the grid- and put them on the defensive. I question if he wanted these things in the first place.
    .
    Also, the damage Obama has done to the liberal agenda cannot be understated. Comments like the one above by Newfree: “Obama has been the most progressive, liberal to sit in the Oval Office in the past 40+ years”, are becoming the popular public narrative. While it may be true that he is the most liberal in the past 40 years, he is clearly not liberal nor progressive in the traditional sense of those words. Newfree’s statement should serve to highlight DC’s the radical move to the right over that time-period, not a referendum on liberalism.
    .
    He has slightly altered our nation’s right-ward trajectory. The results are twofold:
    .
    1- We get policies that are confused, unsatisfying and enact no real change.
    .
    2- Liberalism has been blamed for problems that are clearly the result of corporate servitude.
    .
    The elites, no doubt, could not be happier.

  • earljr1

    Poor liberals, they simply cannot catch a break. Conservatives have often commented on the sanctimonious harping of liberals, but now getting blasted from the very guy you elected? Oh, despair, despair!! Could it be your destiny? Johan Von Schiller once wrote….”There is no such thing as chance, what seems to be accidental, springs from the deepest source of destiny” You elected the guy, NOW live with the consequences. 2012 will soon put you out of your misery.

  • shepherdwong

    You elected the guy, NOW live with the consequences. 2012 will soon put you out of your misery.
    .
    Corporatist “conservatives” are our misery – the whole world’s actually – Obama is just weak medicine.

  • lupercal5

    anyone thinks obama will fight the tax cuts next time around raise your hand :) lol haha dude’s a joke.
    .
    i understand his logic abt regular folks getting caught in the middle by the republicans, i just dnt understand his newfound ability to condemn. dude wouldnt even point out the dangers of kyl playing politics with natl security by holding START. he never condemns republicans 4 the holds they have on STILL unfilled lower and mid cabinet levels. but he LOVES slamming the left.

blog comments powered by Disqus