Homer pundits fall for the Republican strategy

[Radical Activist]

[Radical Activist]

1. And yes "Ken"

is a reference to Ken Mehlman since Mr. Smithers is another closeted gay man who serves corporate power.

[NJmaverick]

2. Doh! K&R!

[Scurrilous]

3. Excellent!

:thumbsup:

[jaxx]

4. OMG that says it all.

K&R for the truth.

[progressoid]

5. One glaring error.

Conservative Democrats aren't only in the Senate.

[Radical Activist]

8. Yes, there are some in the House.

But at least the House will pass the progressive legislation Obama introduces, while the Senate blocks it or waters it down.

[progressoid]

9. Snort. But there are none in the White House?

[NJmaverick]

11. No there isn't a conservative Dem in the White House

A fact that no emoticon, no matter how big, can change.

[progressoid]

24. How's this (without the enormous emoticon)

I'm guessing you thought I was referring to the President. I should have been more specific.

All of the blame can't be laid just at the feet of the conservadems in the Senate and House. Conservadems exist in ALL branches of the govt. Many at the invitation of the President (Geithner, Emanuel, Duncan, etc.). Then there are the the actual Republicans working for Obama (Ray LaHood, McHugh, Robert Gates, etc.)

[Radical Activist]

17. The White House has the most liberal President in at least 40 years.

Call him not liberal enough if you want but calling him conservative is ridiculous.

[progressoid]

23. Well, yeah maybe.

But I never said the President was a conservative. I was pointing out that there are conservative Democrats in the White House. Many in places of power.

[Radical Activist]

36. Beep, Beep, Beep

All the same, it hasn't stopped Obama from pushing Congress left.

[Smarmie Doofus]

34. Score. nt

[MineralMan]

6. Mmmm....donuts....

[janx]

7. But Obama should MAKE them do it for me!"

:rofl:

[ThomWV]

30. How hard would you laugh if the phrase 'apply a little pressure' was used

rather than say something like the Health Care debate, where Obama gave away the farm before the negotiations began. Or how about the Bush policies on war, torture, and domestic spying - you good with the President's stance on those too? Or how about all those criminals from the last 8 years that are in front of a Judge right now ... Oh, there aren't any. Now why is that, were there no crimes committed worth the time of our President and his Attorney General?

[Radical Activist]

31. The Justice Department investigation into torture is ongoing.

Obama already reversed Bush torture guidelines. It sounds like you're repeating a misinformed narrative recycled by bloggers.

Obama spent months pushing for health care even after the pundits declared it dead. Claiming he didn't apply a little pressure suggests a case of amnesia.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. This is insulting to Homer.

Homer's a decent honest guy, just dumb as a stump.

These people are as dumb as hell, but they also lie like hell.

[Radical Activist]

14. lol

True. Any exaggeration or lie is quickly believed if it fits the pre-packaged narrative.

[DireStrike]

12. "Shouldn't you be blaming... conservative democrats?"

repost of my reply in another thread:


And where do conservative democrats come from?

The party's endless machinations against further-left candidates. Obama himself has thrown his support to the more conservative, pro-corporate candidate in primaries several times now. THIS is what really gets my sheep.

So if we can't get progressive legislation because we don't have the votes... and we can't even support progressives in primaries - which would give us house and senate votes - because we don't have the votes... what the hell are you guys proposing we do? Sit down and enjoy the ride?

[flamingdem]

13. Don't do anything! Obama should fix it! nt

[DireStrike]

15. Well if the problem is "not enough conservadems"... then yeah.

[Radical Activist]

16. ummm...

Obama is going to support incumbent Senators whose votes he needs. I don't like it but it's obvious why he's doing it since he needs every last Democrat on board to get 60 votes in the Senate.

You ask:
"and we can't even support progressives in primaries - which would give us house and senate votes - what the hell are you guys proposing we do? Sit down and enjoy the ride?"

Sorry but I'm a little confused. You seem to be suggesting that we have to do whatever Obama does. I don't have that authoritarian mindset. I didn't care that Obama gave token support to Blance Lincoln. I did what I could from a distance to support Halter. Obama does what he has to do and we do what we have to do. At some point you have to be an adult about accepting the political realities as they are and then take appropriate action beyond sitting around whining about dear leader.

[DireStrike]

18. My point is it doesnt make any sense for Obama to do these things.

The "we" in that sentence was for the democratic party, not we the left.

I disagree very much with supporting incumbents simply because they're incumbent. If a challenger is better and has a reasonable chance to win, s/he should be supported. Look at the Romanoff/Bennet race. If Obama had supported Romanoff, he would have won.

[Radical Activist]

19. Did you want to pass any legislation in the Senate?

I don't like that Obama supported more moderate Democrats. Although, I don't think it's clear that the Clinton-backed Romanoff was any more liberal than Bennet. Either way, it makes perfect sense to support incumbents if Obama's first priority was to pass as much legislation has he could before 2010. I don't know if it was the best strategy but it makes sense.

[gratuitous]

20. Ah haw, haw, haw

How appropriate! A two-dimensional cartoon for a unidimensional argument.

[HughMoran]

27. i.e. - it's right on target.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

21. Homerun! Thanks. nt

[Enrique]

22. I hear Obama is considering Mr. Burns for Treasury secretary

Wall Street is complaining that Geithner has been too hard on them.

[Whisp]

25. omg perfection!

:rofl:

K&R!

[Radical Activist]

28. Thanks

[HughMoran]

26. Right on target.

:thumbsup:

[suzie]

29. Yes.

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. But shouldn't *Obama* be blaming Senate Republicans...

... and conservative Democrats?

Perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I think the president himself should be expediting the communication process... if indeed he believes that's where the blame lies.

[Radical Activist]

33. He has.

Obama has given many partisan speeches attacking Congressional Republicans. Why don't more people know that? Maybe our left pundits aren't doing a very good job of passing along the progressive messages Obama delivers. Of course, I don't expect the corporate press to do that anyway, but why are online pundits parroting the corporate press instead of reinforcing the progressive ideas Obama introduces into the public debate?

[Radical Activist]

35. doh!