The words "purist position" and "sanctimonious" today were painful.

[madfloridian]

Since 2003 when we supported Howard Dean there have been many terms used to describe the "left" of the party, the "liberals"....they even called us "fringe."

Today President Obama talked about our opposition to his "compromise" using purist and sanctimonious. Those two words spoke volumes about his attitude toward his party's base. It was arrogant to talk to us that way.

Here are his words, and there is no other way to interpret them.

Krugman: Obama's Tax-Cut Defense 'Enormously Self-Indulgent'

So, I pass a signature piece of legislation, where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for, for a hundred years, but, because there was a provision in there that they didn't get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that, somehow, that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

Now, if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it: 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 seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting condition, or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

R. J. Eskow has more to say on the press conference today.

Obama's "Tax Holiday". A Poison Pill for Social Security

You know what they always say: Pay now or pay later. Middle-class Americans may pay very dearly for the president's tax deal, and at the stage of life when they can least afford it. By providing a temporary cut in the payroll taxes that fund Social Security, this deal starts the nation down a slippery slope that could lead to permanent benefits cuts for the middle class and even more wealth for the rich.

In other words, Obama's "payroll tax holiday" could send the financial safety of America's seniors on a permanent vacation.

The embattled president lashed out at his critics at today's press conference. (Well, not all his critics. Just the ones in his own party. That seems to be the pattern lately.) He sneered at those who, he said, just want to "be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are."

"Purity" is a strange word for opinions that are strongly held by seven out of ten Americans, including most Republicans, independents, and even Tea Partiers.

I was glad to see Eskow continue with more words about today's presser, and the dangers to Social Security from this "compromise."

Extending this 2% cut would gut Social Security's finances forever. But whatever happens, look at what Social Security's enemies will have accomplished:

* The "lockbox" principle between Social Security and the overall budget will have been erased forever. A relatively small infusion of cash into the trust fund will be the poison pill that erases the "trust fund" principle. Once the program has contributed to the deficit, it's no longer separately funded.
* The enemies of Social Security will have painted a bull's eye on its only source of funding. People will see it as a "new tax" -- in a year when the economy's not expected to have fully recovered.
* They'll be in a position to argue, once again, that "America can't afford" to provide financial security for middle-class seniors.

I did not get to hear Obama's words until Rachel Maddow's show tonight. My first thought was how arrogant his words sounded. Once I got past the "purists" and "sanctimonious" I began to feel concern for the 2% payroll tax cut and its implications for the future.

Today showed me that they really do not need us if they rope in the independents and enough of the right. Now that is scary. My feelings are more of helplessness than anger. Not mattering to your party's leader is a scary thing indeed.

[somone]

1. Nothing but contempt for people who worked hard and voted for him

Disgusting.

[caseymoz]

97. I don't understand your contempt.

It's known as having hope.

[Supersedeas]

131. fragging the soldiers on the ground in order to make a deal with hostage takers

[Pholus]

2. Yeah, let's add "Professional Left," "15%" and a few other words meant to marginalize.

Don't worry though -- we'll still get blamed when the election comes. We DO have our uses for our masters, afterall.

[madfloridian]

34. Yes, the blame...

I agree with you that those of us thought to be the "left" will be blamed for any losses.

[Amonester]

91. When they call us "Professional Left", I call them "Professional Losers"

which perfectly "describes" them after they "left" us (to pander to their beloved right-wing).

[t0dd]

3. +1

[laughingliberal]

4. It's obvious Social Security is targeted and this 'deal' is part of the effort. nt

[NorthCarolina]

72. Wasn't it obvious that Social Security was a target when the appointments to the Debt. Commission

were announced?

[caseymoz]

100. Now they're striving to make social security insolvant.

Tax cut for a year? I thought the idea Republicans had was to fix it. Yeah, this will fix it the way it fixed the rest of our government budget.

[Starry Messenger]

5. I had a feeling those words were coming straight from the top.

I guess it's good to have suspicions confirmed.

[Nite Owl]

6. I feel used and lied to

but I refuse to be abused. He's lost me totally.

[leftstreet]

7. K&R

Worth repeating:

"Purity" is a strange word for opinions that are strongly held by seven out of ten Americans, including most Republicans, independents, and even Tea Partiers.

[donheld]

8. He's turning out to be the kind of guy who

asks an ugly girl to a dance as a joke. Then makes fun of her when he arives at the dance.

[snappyturtle]

12. Great analogy! nt

[Raine]

32. Yup GREAT comparison. nt

[MsPithy]

82. I still like,

Obama chased Republicans on his honeymoon! Don't remember who said it.

[snappyturtle]

9. Most definitely painful and so were these words:

".......because there was a provision in there that they didn't get..." THEY? Shouldn't that have been "WE"? He separated himself from his party!!! or am I just hyper-paranoid tonight?

[Catherina]

11. No. He said what he meant, what he believes. There's no we there. n/t

[snappyturtle]

14. Sorry...it was a rhetorical question! However, were he with us he

would have have phrased that thought differently.

[somone]

13. Us : Obama & GOP vs. Them : Democrats

[snappyturtle]

15. Yep! sorry to say I think you're correct. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

81. Nonsense.

[StarsInHerHair]

88. public option to Pres. Obama is "just a provision" to him

nt

[WiffenPoof]

10. Yeah, Those Two Words...

really bothered me as well.

[Tansy_Gold]

16. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I started to post about this issue in another thread earlier this evening and realized I was simply too angry to be coherent. Now I'm not only angry but tired as well, so if this is even less coherent than the post you didn't see because I didn't post it, well, my apologies.

To quote Mr. Obama:

"So, I pass a signature piece of legislation, where we finally get health care for all Americans. . . "

That strikes me as having two, um inaccuracies in it.

First, he did not pass the legislation. Congress passed the legislation and Mr. Obama signed the bill into law.

Second, the 'signature piece of legislation' did not finally get health care for all Americans. Some 45 to 50 million Americans still lack health "insurance" and when the full HCR kicks in, many will have to pay for insurance they can't afford to use or that will not cover what ails them.

Now, it seems to me that perhaps Mr. Obama is saying what he believes he has done, in much the same fashion that he believes the orange man and the chinless wonder will cooperate on future legislation.

I would have to therefore take that assumption, with all due caution of course, one step further to the possibility that perhaps Mr. Obama views much of what he does and what is done around him through a lens focused more by his belief/faith/image of himself than by the facts as they would normally be presented to a rational, proactive, liberal/progressive democrat. Or even a DLC business-supporting Democrat.

But what do I know?


TG, TT

[somone]

17. I believe other people caught that also

That was a wild claim!

[Rex]

19. That is what got me too.

Really? Where is my fucking healthcare then!? So far I don't see it and I am one of the working poor.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Video in this thread - heard the same thing and commented on it ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=532760&mesg_id=533032

[saracat]

21. You are correct but the transcript I read said "MY signature piece of legislation"

[stranger81]

23. Exactly. What he did was sign a bill requiring all Americans to purchase insurance.

That's not "getting" anyone health insurance. It's mandating that they get it themselves, then punishing them if they lack the means to do so.

[ooglymoogly]

140. To buy usurious insurance with no competition.

and in the case of the poor the taxpayer pics up the tab for that usurious insurance. Wow some fukn deal. Sounds bout as good as the part d medicare boondoggle poison pill.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. He also said it would lower premiums for 100 million people, which is false

It may, if it works as planned, slow the rate of increase a bit. But experts project premiums to double from their current rate within 10 years. And they took everything that would have truly controlled costs off the table.

[truth2power]

53. He didn't say that. See, there's the hook again...

He said, "...the potential for lower premiums." Since there are no cost controls, I think it will be a cold day...before there are lower premiums. But in the event that premiums skyrocket (as they certainly will) there will be those here who point out that he didn't really "promise" that premiums wouldn't go up. And they'll be correct.

As I've been saying...if you parse his words there's almost always a hook somewhere. I think the inability to recognize that is the root cause of a lot of the infighting here.

[woo me with science]

63. He said it repeatedly throughout the campaign and before it was passed. nt

[truth2power]

112. He probably did say that throughout the campaign. But now he realizes,

or he knew all along, that premiums would go up, so now he's using the qualifier potentially.

[OrwellwasRight]

110. The bigger lies were:

1) that the public option would only affect 2 million or so people while the bill HE passed could lower premiums for 100 million. The fact is that "the public option" he despises would have lowered premiums for those 100 million more effectively than anything in HIS bill, because it would have provided low-cost competition to for-profit plans. They could compete on price or be left in droves by cost-conscious consumers.

2) that Social Security when it started was only for widows and orphans. SSA's own website explains that old age pensions were always the signature piece of the program and included from day one. Go here and then scroll down to "Major Provisions Of The Act": http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[truth2power]

113. Yes, where are the cost controls. Are there any? n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

114. Some. Mild.

May work. But nothing that is a real cost "control" and nothing that is predicted to be as effective as the public option would have been.

[myrna minx]

39. No, you understand correctly. n/t

[Smashcut]

41. There is a certain throng that treated him as if he was literally a gift from heaven

Many of the same still do.

It would tend to color anyone's perception of their own importance and infallibility, wouldn't it?

[JHB]

58. In the past I've likened it to a merit badge.

Getting to claim passing a HCR bill without actually doing much that would rock the yachtboat of the insurance and pharma companies (especially their campagin contributions). That doesn't solve the problems, and very likely gives the Republicans yet another club to beat us with when the cracks start showing.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

68. Yes Tansy

What he said really troubled me as well, in fact I was aghast. As he continued speaking I wondered if he was in over his head or just plain out of touch with reality. I found it unnerving that he doesn't seem to understand what that horrible healthcare bill really means to Americans.

[Autumn]

69. Gee TG , it seems like you know a lot

pretty smart if you ask me.:thumbsup:

[Dappleganger]

101. You know an awful lot more than he does...

and you and I have to live in this real world, too.

[caseymoz]

106. I'll correct you:

We saw what we hoped to see in the guy. Harvard Law School does not graduate that many liberals.

And the University of Chicago is also quite conservative. The tip off should have been his vote on the Telecommunications Act while he was a candidate.

Truth is, we were taken. He's not progressive, he's not even a moderate. I say, quit holding out hopes for either. He's part of the problem now.

[saracat]

18. I just read those words and was struck by the ego and arrogance.

I also was struck by his separation of himself from us"MY signature legislation". It really is as some of us had supposed. This IS the way he feels. This is why he could announce the compromise while throwing a party and didn't even bother to delay the announcement. He doesn't care what we think. Citizens United must have crystallized his allegiance to the big donors. He will continue as he began. This is another reason he had opted out of federal financing. They knew Citizens United was up for hearing and the likely outcome. So the Prez jump started the big money elections during his first run.( And that nonsense about $5 contributions was just that. Tons of money flowed in from big interests) Its ALL about the money.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

24. We are supposed to believe we are making progress...

No matter if we are giving more and more to the wealthy and endangering Social Security and other programs we have worked seventy five years to build.

No it is not progress. It damages what we stand for - it does not build upon it.

[LoZoccolo]

25. How do you expect him to react to a group of people

who spent the day before talking about how he should be fired at the next opportunity? "Hi, you think I suck and I want to be your friend?" People shouldn't claim victimhood when they get called on their disingenuous insults.

[truth2power]

46. That's an interesting question. Actually, he's saying just that to the Repugs...

"Hi, you think I suck and I want to be your friend." In a manner of speaking.

[Marr]

49. Why not? It's what he does for Republicans.

[Celtic Raven]

60. That's his MO

He *should* be kissing Liberal ass since he has a pattern of trying even harder to make the Republicans his BFF.

[Horse with no Name]

26. I can think of ONE smug

and sanctimonious elected "Democrat" right off the bat here...

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Painful? No.

FUCKING INFURIATING.

[area51]

157. +1

Obama's arrogance knows no bounds. Does he really expect leftists to re-elect him in '12? He needs to be primaried.

[JoseGaspar]

28. "Sanctimonious" is a funny word...

It is a semantic progression. In fact, it is what is classified as an antiphrasis, a word turned in on itself so that it is an ironic negation of its original meaning. Sanctimonious once meant holy... "sanctified". Now it indicates hypocritical expressions of over-blown morality.

In politics it is a "tell": a neon sign flashing "liar" at the person who just used it ("demagogue" is another one).

Do you remember Bill Clinton using that exact word... and poking his finger in the air, exactly the same as Obama? What was Clinton talking about then?

The word is pure projection. Think about a guy who drags the halo onto his head by claiming he had to "help" 2 million unemployed, "whatever the cost", while not mentioning at all 4 million long-term unemployed who he just threw off a cliff.

Obama is telling you about himself... not a good idea for such a sophisticated president.

(Hmmm... "sophisticated"... sophist?)

[SwampG8r]

29. another funny word...mucklucks say it mucklucks

ooooooo and galoshes good one galoshes

[phleshdef]

30. The truth often is.

[hfojvt]

31. I don't really care if I don't matter

I am just one guy, after all, but apparently the whole bottom 50% doesn't matter. At least not nearly as much as the top 2% does.

[Raine]

33. He has nothing but contempt and disgust for us

his base ... I truly believe and it's a horrible realization. :-(

[AndrewP]

56. It's amazing, isn't it?

[bvar22]

36. Obama did NOT "GET" Health Care for 30 MIllion people.

THAT is a BIG LIE.

Obama is FORCING 30 Million (60 Million?) Americans to BUY Health Insurance from the For Profit
Health Insurance Cartel. MOST of those policies WILL be WORTHLESS due to high deductibles and high Co-Pays.
This IS a Republican Victory.

Bush & The Republicans could have NEVER passed Mandates without a Public Option.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bullwinkle428]

42. He actually didn't say "30 million" yesterday. He said "ALL AMERICANS"!

I nearly drove off the road, yelling at him stop overstating his own accomplishments!

[madfloridian]

45. Yes, he did say 30 million yesterday. From the transcript:

"Q Where is your line in the sand?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I've got a whole bunch of lines in the sand. Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent -- that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved -- that was a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama's name attached to them instead of Bush's name attached to them.

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

Now, if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, 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 seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out."

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-on-tax-cut-deal.php

I hate when he says that because the bill doesn't give health care to anyone....it just demands that they buy it.

[dflprincess]

120. "because there was A provision in there that they didn't get "

that provision being, of course, the public option. Apparently that was just a minor omission to Obama.

What he doesn't get is this tax bill of his is just one back room sell out too many. He also doesn't seem to think we're smart enough to notice that the wealthy get their tax cuts for at least 2 more years (yeah, like he won't make them permanent in 2012) while the unemployment extension lasts only 13 months and earned income and tuition credits were only extended for a year. He seems to be drifting to Leona Helmsley's philosophy that only the "little people" pay taxes.

BTW Mad, I have one correction to your last line. True, the bill doesn't give health care to anyone, but it does not demand we buy care - it requires we buy insurance. Bt the time we're done paying our premiums we won't be able to afford to buy any actual care.

[madfloridian]

122. That's what I meant. My insurance goes up 80 a month next month.

We think hubby's goes up at least 100 a month.

We already have insurance, but I know so many people who don't have the money to buy insurance if it keeps going up like that. Mostly those out of work for an extended period...there are many like that.

[trekbiker]

85. high deductibles is right.

My girlfriend has seen her health insurance premium increase dramatically over the last year which is forcing her to raise her deductible from $1000 to $5000. My brother is self-employed and also raised his deductible to $5000 in order to be able to afford it. Everyone will be forced into some form of "catastrophic" insurance policy in this manner. HCR is a bad JOKE.

[myrna minx]

38. K&R. Especially since part of this plan is to set up Social Security to fail.

:scared:

[Jefferson23]

40. His decisions have been wrong for the majority of Americans. He has

nothing substantial to back up his claims imo. That he even tries to frame the deal with the best interests of the people
is complete bullshit and he knows it. So, he uses defensive obnoxious and quite childish descriptions to throw at those who
do not approve.

He NEVER FOUGHT at all, he did not take his cause to the people. I am suppose to believe the POTUS is going to be denied
television time to make his case if he wants it? I'm suppose to believe Democrats have no money to spend getting there message out?

[asdjrocky]

43. We poor folk are so far below the ruling class that they can only hold us in contempt.

Gee, I wonder what they are having for dinner tonight.

[Overseas]

44. I agree. And it is the Republicons who are purists -- Cruel Obstruction Over All.

Wish he'd talk about how very obstinate and impractical their ideas have been all along.

Their pure ideology = Destroy President Obama, even if they bankrupt the country for decades to come.

[burning rain]

47. Conservative Democrats misuse those words the same stupid way teabaggers misuse "socialist."

That is, to mean "anything I don't like."

[tigereye]

48. yeah, it's kind of odd to have so many Dems (of all inclinations) pissed off

at him. :wtf:

[Bluenorthwest]

50. It. It takes. It takes one.

It takes one to know one. Obama calling others sanctimonious is hugely amusing and revealing. This is a man who when asked about equal rights for certain minorities, will calmly explain that he is a Christian, and believes that his sort of person is "sanctified" and others are not and thus they should not have rights. He actually says his kind are sanctified by God Almighty and that others are less worthy than they are. What on Earth could be more sanctimonious than declaring that God likes your people better than those other people?
He is utterly without self inspection. He gives himself all quarter, none to others. Sanctimonious, and declarative of a hard core purist faith tradition, based on nothing at all but his 'belief'. Sanctified, he is. Where as I am an infidel, apparently. Heathen.
I laughed out loud at that line, as if it were a gag.

[Kaleva]

51. I'm part of the base and I thought the comments were fine.

[Dr.Phool]

52. "Purist" as opposed to contaminated? Polluted? Watered Down?

"Sanctimonius", as opposed to treacherous? Untruthful?

I rue the day I ever voted for this self-important, sanctimonious, sellout, New Democrat, DLC, operative. And I'll never hold my nose again to vote for another one, for any office.

My nose is getting blisters from squeezing it so much to keep the stench out.

[kenfrequed]

74. The only fix

That I can imagine is if every DU'er went in and registered to run for all democratic offices, no matter how small. Many of us have sharpened our arguments and logic over many moons of discussion.

[DeSwiss]

54. K&R

The only "good" thing to come of all this, is that it has allowed me to see much more clearly and without a shred of doubt who it is that I should add to my IGNORE list, so that I might continue to enjoy my wonderful posting experience here at DU -- simply by identifying and eliminating all those annoying Obama sycophants who lack a discernment gene.


- Besides, they remind me too much of the 20%ers who continued to support George W. Bush to the very end.......

[StarsInHerHair]

96. yes, me too

nt

[librechik]

55. President Obama's Right Wing handlers are revealing themselves a little too much

Aren't they supposed to be pretending to be far left liberals like Obama? How could they let him come out and say all that yesterday. They are slipping.

[JDPriestly]

57. I just emailed my congressman asking him to vote against this deal.

It is just bad for America.

And if people who have businesses hire employees, they can deduct the cost of the salaries form their taxes. We don't need these tax cuts to encourage hiring.

The OP correctly states that lowering the payroll taxes will just give the wealthy another excuse to do away with Social Security or lower benefits on the ground that the Social Security trust fund is broke.

If the Social Security trust fund is broke, the nation is broke. And when you are broke, you try to increase your income, you don't do things that will lower it. The tax "compromise" is immoral, unpatriotic, bad for the American economy and bad for all Americans.

This is the worst thing Obama has done yet. And even the apolitical are up in arms about it.

We got a call from a relative out of state who is just furious. He is not a political person at all.

Obama will rue the day he made this deal. More and more people are questioning his judgment. He needs to get new advisers.

[dgibby]

124. This is one time living in SC is an advantage.

I don't have to write my congressmen and ask them to vote against this. There's no doubt in my mind that Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham would ever vote for anything Obama proposes!

[JDPriestly]

128. For once, I hope not. This deal will really hurt our economy.

Instead of this, we should increase the amount of the tax deduction for employers who hire or continue to employ people in the US.

[femrap]

59. Well, as a member of the

(unpaid and out-of-work) Professional Left, I feel spat upon by this president. He spat on SS recipients, the poor, the unemployed, the 99ers, and the former middle class.

If I'm a purist, then someone here is bought and paid for by the wealthiest of the wealthiest. Because the wealthiest GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED....now that's a purist position.

Even my low expectations have been blown away.

[Pisces]

61. I worked hard consider myself leftwing liberal and still support the president. I will vote

for him proudly in 2012. All of this outrage, anger, disrespect and outright hatred toward Obama is disgusting. Deals are made in Washington to get things done. We are not in a position to play
chicken with people's lives. All of the rancor on this board makes me sick. The only saving grace is that I know most are trouble makers, and that the regular voter doesn't bother with the news or blogs like these. Democrats still support Obama and he will win by a landslide in '12

[bobbolink]

64. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You conservadems "play chicken with peoples' lives" all the time, and think nothing of it.

[katnapped]

66. Must be fun living in a dream! LOL n/t

[trekbiker]

89. sheesh....

you do understand our country is 13 TRILLION in the hole????

thats $13,000,000,000,000

not only should Obama have let the tax cuts expire, he should be screaming at the top of his lungs and FIGHTING to return to pre-Reagan tax levels, not a piddly 3% increase for the wealthy.

Our "Democracy" as we knew it is finished... 15 years max. by 2025 its all over

[BrklynLiberal]

98. knock..knock.. Anyone in there????

[Dappleganger]

103. Well he is playing chicken with our children and grandchildren's lives.

How you like them apples?

[Pisces]

147. Sounds very similar to teabagger statements.

[John Q. Citizen]

134. Your post is filled with rancor. My feeling is that you are a very

angry individual because people disagree with you. Believe me, it's easier and better to get used to the fact that many people disagree with you and there is no need to be angry about it.

I'm not sure why you believe that the voters will be pro-Obama in 2012 since they gave Obama a "shellacking" (his words) in 2010.

Maybe you know something we don't, or maybe you are confusing hope with votes.

I love Obama, but i don't agree with many of his pro-Republican policies and I will vote for a change in 2012. i know that you like his pro-Republican policies and if you want to vote for him, that's fine with me.

[Pisces]

148. Unfortunately the outright ignorance on this board does sometimes anger me.

Not the disagreeing with me, but the amount of rightwing talking points that have made it on this board towards our President. Disagreement is how we learn and grow so I welcome that, but this
garbage that is packaged as disagreement doesn't pass the smell test.

The shellacking as you call it is the same Clinton took and Bush took at the midterms.

As far as knowing something you don't, maybe it's the American short term memory, or the fact that I know more people like me that will work just as hard for Obama in '12 as they did in '08.

You know nothing about my likes or dislikes. I also didn't ask for your approval of my vote.

[Jakes Progress]

62. The really galling part

is where he screwed up the whole deal, but then wants to take on the mantle of being the savior of the poor people. He cheated them and screwed their children with his desire to please republicans and moderates, but casts himself as sacrificing for them. Get out the waders.

[Autumn]

65. I heard those words and got pissed, today I am embracing them.

They are very liberating to me. It showed me where he stands. Now I know where I stand.

[Brickbat]

77. Great way of putting it and I know exactly what you're saying.

It's freeing in a way. Not necessarily a good way, but now the path is clear (for me, anyway).

[trekbiker]

90. DITTO!!!!!!

[dgibby]

125. Good point!

He's not even trying to hide it anymore, is he? It's very disappointing, but he did us a favor, I think.

[myrna minx]

135. Yep - it's nice to finally know where he stands and how he feels about us.

Now I know that I'm right not to trust him anymore - this was an awful feeling that I didn't want to acknowledge, because I am so ashamed that I was so wrong about him, but now I have to tell myself the truth. It sucks. :-(

[davidthegnome]

67. I wonder if he thinks

We'll all suddenly start liking him again if he insults us enough? This President has problems with the truth, much like our former President did. I can't understand how otherwise intelligent democrats can continue to support the man. Hello? Does he have to start shooting the elderly and pissing on the poor literally as well figuratively? Is that what it would take?

I went to the convention for him, I spent weeks of my own time advertising his campaign because I believed in him. I convinced friends and family and even a few republicans to vote for him. It seems like the joke is on me though. I fought for him because I wanted at least a public option if we couldn't get single payer. I voted for him because I believed he would "roll back" the Bush tax cuts. I voted for him for his promise to get us out of Iraq. I knew there were issues where he was more conservative, but I thought him to be the only one on the left with a chance of winning and making a change. People told me I would be a fool to vote for Kucinich because he would never have enough votes to make a difference. Maybe they were right in that regard - but to think I supported this man now turns my stomach.

He hasn't provided health care for Americans - he has made expensive private insurance mandatory. I guess we're bringing a lot of troops out of Iraq, to send to Afghanistan but I don't remember keeping 50,000 "non-combat" troops there being in any speech he gave. Do I even have to comment on the tax cuts?

How is he supporting anyone but the wealthy? Who is he providing for other than the corporations? I expected so much better from him.

I'm beyond disappointed now, he has proven again and again to be false. I'll never vote for another lesser evil as long as I live. If that man is a democrat then I'm the Queen of England.

[FirstLight]

117. you nailed it for me

I have never been one to get involved in elections, until 2008. I phonebanked in places i didn;t even know, passed out stickers in front of grocery stores and defended this man to my own family, (my sis and BIL are fundies and my dad is a foxaholic)

I was really disheartened with health care, but tried to at least be happy that "something" got passed

I have been dissapointed with the whole war & torture thing too, no investigations into bush or haliburton, and billions still pouring into other countries and death ...

The gulf spill, well, we are still waiting on that one...but i sure don;t see anyone being indicted, do you?

you are right : "How is he supporting anyone but the wealthy? Who is he providing for other than the corporations? I expected so much better from him.
I'm beyond disappointed now, he has proven again and again to be false."

I was not choosing between the lesser of evils, i fell for it, hook line and sinker.. pretty words,
yes, WE can

well mr. president, YOU sure did.

[FirstLight]

118. delete, dupe

oops

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

70. That's odd that Krugman would have a problem with Obama because...

...according to Obama, "every" economist agrees with his deal.

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

73. Oblama has ignored non-corporatist economist who told him stimulus was too small...

"only 25% of what was needed" -- but he is obviously working with

pro-corporatist economists pushing the remedies which will benefit

elites.

[defendandprotect]

71. This is not the government we thought we were electing ... and it

hasn't happened because Obama or the administration has been in any

way "weak" or "misguided."

Obama knows full well what he is doing --

[BrklynLiberal]

99. I know that the person in the White House is not the same man that campaigned, and for whom I voted.

[defendandprotect]

108. Pelosi commented on that ....

Probably about a year into Obama's term --

She said: "Obama was for a lot of things when he was campaigning ....

which he is no longer for."


Co-opting a political party is a prime way of diverting it from its goals to

the goals of the co-opter.

Evidently, many of us were expecting the right wing to fight fair?


:evilgrin:

[BrklynLiberal]

141. I do not think I ever thought the rightwingnuts would fight fair..but I sure did expect the

President to stand and put up some sort of fight for those things that he campaigned on...Those things that made his supporters vote for him.
This may have turned out to be the biggest political con game ever..

[FirstLight]

119. +1000

:thumbsup:

[Capn Sunshine]

75. I'm just flabbergasted by the takes on this thread

witholding your vote in 2010 was what did it. You're swirling in this maelstrom along with 29 million of the Democrats who did not vote. The OP answered her own question. By not voting, or enabling those who stayed home with relentless postings, the independents and others are what we have to target in the future. You can't be counted on any more. The country and the party has NEVER, EVER moved left when the left stays home and doesn't vote. It in fact causes untold damage to the cause, which takes generations to undo. THAT is a historical fact. Those of you who teach, read your history.

As I posted elsewhere. Randi Rhodes :

As for leftwing discontent, Obama’s approval rating among Democrats has held steady at about 80 percent for the past year. But you’d never know that because of Obama’s seemingly dismal approval rating among Democrats with TV talk shows or blogs. It seems Obama has a silent majority. Or maybe they just seem silent compared to all the noise that’s being made by the leftwingers who are angry with him. The people who are upset with Obama are the starry-eyed types who projected all their hopes onto him. The people who just elected him to run the country realize that he’s doing that… quite well, actually. After all, we elected Barack Obama to lead, not to go where he’s told to go.

[davidthegnome]

78. Flabbergasted?

You must be if you think none of us voted (or voted progressively) in 2010. You must indeed be flabbergasted if you think he's "running the Country quite well". I assure you - my vote was not withheld.

No, I voted in 2010 as I have in every election since I was old enough to vote. I have voted with my conscience which tends to be pretty liberal - I have voted for what I have believed will aid those who need it, and against what I believe is power and greed mongering by the wealthy.

I voted - if other democrats did not, then that is a personal decision and in no way my business or my fault. It is not we who cannot be counted on, but those who have broken promises and tossed their integrity to the wind. Those who have demanded our allegiance and upon receiving it betrayed all they claimed to stand for. Generally speaking - politicians. If you think Obama is running the Country well, you must not be keeping up with the news.

[frylock]

123. *like*

great post! :applause:

[BrklynLiberal]

143. +1000

[madfloridian]

79. Oh, boy, you have either changed completely...

or I never really understood what you believed in...if anything.

[Capn Sunshine]

130. I haven't changed MF

but DU sure has. Look at the poll numbers I posted below.

[caseymoz]

105. Wrong from the beginning.

We showed and voted in this election. The independents went against us, and whoever stayed at home was not the progressives.

No, wait until the next election, when the progressives really don't show up for President Obama. Then you'll get a better idea.

As for your pro-Obama propagandist source, he's doing wonderfully, except for the fact that he ordered the assassination of an American citizen, hasn't re-affirmed habeus corpus, has pressed Bush's agenda for extending executive power, has extended the executive branches rights to secrecy, hasn't closed Guantanamo, won't guarantee trial for accused terrorists, still runs black sites throughout the world, has intensified the Afghanistan war and hasn't taken us out of Iraq . . .

I'm tired of writing all that, but that's just basic human rights, the boilerplate I expect a president to have. Minimally.

So, what does he do besides fail to become a President rather then an easygoing dictator? He gave away the public option immediately to drug companies (where public health care has worked in every country where it has been tried), he has been privatizing our schools actually lowering performance, he appointed that damn Debt Commission with those horrible people heading it, he hasn't ended DADT, he appointed Geithner and Summers, two apprentice architects of our current economic disaster to fix it, he gave a stimulus that was too small, the never campaigned for congress to help the unemployed, and his housing program was a rigged failure . . .

I'm tired of writing all that, too.

Now, he cuts a deal that guarantees Social Security will be insolvent. Guarantees it. So, he's giving the program to Republicans for further "fixing." Meanwhile, he's doing this to "cut the deficit" while making the rich richer.

So, WTF about this is so wonderful about him? Your source says 80 percent of people say Obama is doing a good job, that's like, a lie. Tell me the sky is purple and I'll believe it faster. He might even end up being a bigger failure than Bush. I'm wondering now if we could buy out his term and ask him resign and retire to Hawaii.

[Capn Sunshine]

129. Here's the numbers:

While some think President Obama’s “core” coalition “has been shattered,” here are some numbers from our latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that looks at Obama’s approval among some of those “core” groups:

- Blacks: 90% approve/6% disapprove

- Democrats: 82/12

- Liberals: 79/16

- Latinos: 56/33

- Post grads: 56/41

- UPDATE: 18-29: 53/38

See any big huge wedges in there? Not on the side you think are they? Spend a lot of time in the internet vacuum and you might think you're a mighty legion. But, you're really just a lot of electrons moving about.

[caseymoz]

139. And I'll believe it when the poll is taken in the next few weeks

How many days ago did Obama cut this deal? Do they even know about it yet? They probably don't nor do they know that it will guarantee insolvency for Social Security, giving the Republicans the excuse for gutting it next time. Meanwhile it guarantees that the rich will grow richer. Maybe the pollsters should have given them that information, waited a day, and then polled them about Obama.

These are not politically friendly media outlets making this claim, either. It might all just be propaganda to preserve Obama's case as nemesis for conservatives. I mean he's been a great recruiting tool for Republicans so far, it would be a shame if the right knew he was doing things to piss off the left.

This would make you what's called "a useful idiot," and that's if your motivations are sincere.

No, the informed people here are the ones who know about it, and they are pissed. This is a deal-breaker with Obama, and quit trying to argue that this is something unreasonable or that progressives getting pissed is an illusion.

[Capn Sunshine]

151. no one is arguing your rights to pissiness

Many here are unwittingly being goaded on by provacateurs from elsewhere.Others refuse to understand political reality. Some never operated from there in the first place. The cacophony of half truths and "here's why The President supports Rush Limbaugh" takes is only going to increase now that this tactic has proven itself useful. But only an idiot like me sees this any more I guess.

[caseymoz]

154. Who argued that the President is supporting Limbaugh?

I'd call that a straw man. Here are my exhibits about Obama's actual political leanings: Harvard Law School does not graduate very many liberal-progressives, and the University of Chicago Law School, where he taught, is a hotbed of conservatism. During the campaign, he voted for the telecommunications act giving immunity to companies that spied on citizens during the campaign when it could have hurt him. Now, was that "brave" and "standing up for what's right?" Why did he do it?

Maybe to signal to possible corporate donors and Republicans that, when he's in the clutch, they can depend on him. That's the only thing I could think of.

People who elected the Obama saw what they hoped to see. Why? It's call desperation. I voted for him with skepticism, and he bolstered my skepticism his first few days in office.

Really, if the DU has turned on the guy, these are some pretty active, progressive Democrats, and if it's somehow not a sample of his "base," it's because the word hasn't got out to the rest of the base.

[caseymoz]

155. Oh, BTW, this story was just reported on HuffPost.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dem-donors-20101210,0,49525.story

No, no sign of anger among progressive democrats, outside of our small sample on DU. None.

[caseymoz]

156. Oh, and there's this story here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4653961

As I told you it's beginning to sink in, and faster than what I thought. Approval rating of 42 percent now? Romney could trounce him? Disapproval has doubled among Democrats in just a month? That's not quite Bush-league for low approval ratings yet, but it's pretty good debacle for just two years.

I'd say he's probably in trouble with progressives. No pun intended but: he better get a soul.

[madfloridian]

145. Live and die by the poll numbers, Capn

I never thought I would have to fight for public schools and social security as a Democratic president tries to do away with them.

I am a firm believer that poll numbers can be made to say anything you want them to say.

[Capn Sunshine]

150. You're wasting a lot of energy

There is no plan by the Presidenet to do away with Social Security and public schools.

Except in the speculative maelstrom of DU where facts are bent to fit conclusions.

[caseymoz]

152. Umm, cutting the social security tax for a year will lead to insolvency.

Period. You can't do the math and not come to that conclusion. If he wants to give the middle class a tax cut, then okay take it out of income tax not FICA. Taking it from FICA is destroying social security just the way Republicans want to.

And you mean, those economically minded republicans wouldn't give the middle class tax cuts unless it came from Social Security? That tells you what's happening here.

And I'm surprised with your mathematical expertise about polls you can't figure this out about Social Security. Now, as to his popularity, I say wait a few weeks and see.

MadFloridian has been documenting very well what the President's policies are doing to schools and how much of a property and profit grab it is.

[defendandprotect]

111. The 28 million expected voters who stayed home are believed to have

done so because of Obama's failures --

to act strongly enough to remedy the economy - and evidently his economic advisors

made clear to him that the stimulus was only 25% of what was needed.

AND, because of Obama's back room deals with Big Pharma and the private Health Care

Industry to keep single-payer "off the table."

In other words, these Democratic voters were too "flabbergasted" at these betrayals

to vote again for Democrats on Election Day!



But, again, as another poster cautioned you, I would not presume that anyone here at DU

did not vote!!

You might also notice that Speaker Pelosi took great exception to the White House's stated

attitudes toward their base -- especially in criticism of Congressional Democrats --

Pelosi visited the White House twice to raise the question of whether they were trying to

cause a Democratic defeat in 2010!


I love Randi Rhodes but unfortunately have not remembered to tune in recently --

THAT does not sound like Randi Rhodes -- not at all.

But I will try to catch up with her and hear what she is saying in the next day or two.

[CrawlingChaos]

126. shocked by Randi Rhodes too

I haven't listened to her in awhile either, but I can't believe the things I'm reading here today that are attributed to her. Apparently she has undergone some kind of horrific sea change... perhaps for career reasons? Really disappointing, needless to say.

[defendandprotect]

144. Well, I'll wait and see .... a little busy at moment ...

but hope to tune in soon, even if I have to listen to old shows one evening.

Since RR isn't on 1600 am any more I can only tune in from internet --

makes it harder. I'm sure that's hurting the program.

But -- imo -- the attack on her came because while she was supporting Obama

after the primary -- she also one day began to stress that AFTER we elected Obama

it would be very important for us all to begin to support third parties -- NOT

that we were going to vote third party, but to ensure that if we needed them they

would be there!!! Thought that was very wise. A few months after that came the

attacks on her. And thought very strange the physical attack on her.

Pre the trumped up "Hillary" based attack.

Just my personal feelings on it all --


:)

[BrklynLiberal]

142. I wish I could rec your post. It deserves a rec.

[Pisces]

146. THat is the same amount of Dem voters that never vote at the midterms. But do go on

with your false analysis.

[liberation]

76. There seems to be a pattern regarding the clear divide between Obama's rethoric and his actions...

... first he crooned about having the Dem base "making him do the right thing" and when someone does exactly that, he lashes out with all sorts of condescension and vitriol.

So what is it, are we allowed to "make him do the right thing" or are we supposed to march in lockstep right or wrong?

[ProudDad]

92. SPOT ON!

"he crooned about having the Dem base "making him do the right thing" and when someone does exactly that, he lashes out with all sorts of condescension and vitriol."

Outstanding...

[BrklynLiberal]

102. Excellent point..

At least when FDR said that the left should make him do the right thing, he meant it.

[gmiami]

80. Obama

I never thought I would type this but......Obama SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!

[thanks_imjustlurking]

83. He activated my BushCo reflex yesterday as I was watching him on TV.

I have had it.

[The Second Stone]

84. I feel as though the middle class, and the poor and the future

taxpayers got no place at the table and had no say. The disrespect and insults of "purist" and "sanctimonious" were entirely gratuitous and served no purpose. A compromise is where all parties revise their positions to give something up and get something in return. We gave up everything and got only a short extension of unemployment benefits for only a fraction of the unemployed. The damage done to the payroll taxes for social security should alone be enough to scuttle this deal. There are many other repulsive surrenders in this "deal". I'm beginning to feel like Lando Calrisian.

[MsPithy]

107. Excellent points!

Very well done!

[WinkyDink]

86. Our President has shown time and again that he has a VERY thin skin.

[Individualist]

87. Purist is one of DLC's favorite memes.

:puke:

[David Zephyr]

93. K&R.

Kudos to madfloridian!

[BrklynLiberal]

94. David Frum: The Republicans fear their base. Democrats despise their base.

Need one say anymore than that..?

[ProudDad]

95. Nuff said... (n/t)

[caseymoz]

104. Let's see how he does against conservatives without the left.

. . . for a while. I sense a new President in 2012.

[MsPithy]

109. I sense a new

nominee! Can't you just see the Republican campaign commercials using clips of this press conference showcasing Obama talking about how weak he is, IN HIS OWN FUCKING WORDS!

[cullen7282]

115. I'm probably going to get beat up for this

but while I'm not crazy about the rich getting their tax cuts, I don't see what else could have been done at this point. If we would have just let everything expire the economy would have taken a huge it and all those families who are on their third or fourth tiers would have nothing. Do you really think the Repubs would have extended them in January when they had control? They don't give a crap about the unemployed. Yes, the rich got their tax cuts but we got an unemployment extension, lower payroll and business taxes, and to keep our tax credits (i.e. child tax credit, earned income credit, interest on student loans, etc.), and an extension of the HIRE act. Most economists are forecasting growth and job gains because of this. He basically passed another stimulus package. The repubs were refusing to let anything come to the floor until they got their extension. That includes the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the DREAM act, the nutrition bill, the bill to make it easier for first responders to unionize, and START. With the exception of possibly START, do any of those sound like something the Repubs would pick up come January? Obama does not have the votes to be able to tell them to stick it so I believe he got the best deal he could at this time.

[madfloridian]

116. And those millionaires need that tax cut. Are you ok with cutting payroll taxes?

And if they continue what will happen to the SS present retirees? The SS will not have the money to continue paying out to them if the taxes are lowered. Any ideas about that?

Do you think the GOP demanded that payroll tax cut as well?

They don't even have to demand anymore...just throw out a hint and they've got it.

[dflprincess]

121. You did notice that the tax credits were only extended for half the time the tax cuts were.

And the unemployment extenstion will help a lot of people but they didn't do a damn thing for the 99ers.

[dgibby]

127. He could have used the rest of the stimulus funds to pay UI.

And what about the 99er's. He's going to cover 2mil unemployed and let the 4mil 99er's just fall thru the cracks? How is that ok?

[Starry Messenger]

132. 4 million 99ers did not get unemployment extended.

Gee, I wonder what could have helped pay for that?

[Pisces]

149. I agree with you 100% , however, pragmatism gets you burned at the stake

on this board. I guess people on this board have never had to compromise or negotiate. Both sides have to give something. It seems like this deal has gotten us more than we could ever hope for out of 'the next Republican Congress.

[russspeakeasy]

133. madfloridian...you're the best...thanks for the post..

[ieoeja]

136. Neither side should compare healthcare and the tax cut.

While Obama did a horrible job negotiating on healthcare from day one, it did ultimately make a permanent and substantial expansion of our rights to healthcare. Prior to the health insurance reform, we had zero rights vis-a-vis health insurance. Now there are numerous rules protecting access to health insurance. And the precedence has been established for regulating health insurance that was not there before.

The tax cut got us nothing new. It extended a band-aid for those unemployed less than 100 weeks through the end of next year. I'm fairly certain that the bulk of the long-term unemployed will exceed that 99 week period before the end of next year making this of even less worth.

Worse yet, it gives the investor class a disincentive against investing. If taxes are going up in two years, now is the time to cash out. You keep more of every dollar you take *out* of investment today than you will when taxes increase two years from now. So this tax cut deal is more likely to increase than decrease unemployment.

And, of course, it adds to the deficit, hurts social security's bottom-line, and is just plain irresponsible governing.

[mod mom]

137. This "fringe" eement is no longer working/contributing to any candidate but progressives.

I have many friends who feel the same. Let's see how much those pandered to GOPers will work for the party elite to GOTV.

[sabrina 1]

138. Those two words are DLC talking points. Pure DLC!

They've been used around democratic blogs by DLC activists for years. In fact it's one way to recognize them. I noticed that right away. He is being schooled. They think those words cannot be countered. They modeled their 'tactics' after the right, after Karl Rove who I've actually heard DLC bloggers claim they 'admire'.

Yes, when I heard those words I knew for sure he is pure DLC. Btw, those are very old and worn 'words for liberals'. It made him sound old, in cyber time I mean.

[704wipes]

153. Yes well

I don't require a HNIC prez who is platitudinous, either.