I place the blame of the small gains in the progressive agenda where it squarely belongs...

[WeDidIt]

This fucknut tops the list:



Of course no list of fucknuts holding up the progressive agenda would be complete without this fucknut:



This fucknut belongs there too:



and if I'm including the fucknut above, I've got to include this fucknut:



And you've GOT to add this fucknut to the list:



And this one completes two-thirds of the fucknuts list:



So we have to add this fucknut to the list:



This fucknut is so much of a fucknut his face is plastic:



OH SHIT, I LEFT THIS FUCKNUT OUT ORIGINALLY! How could I forget this fucknut?



and this fucknut was one of the fucknuts who demanded a woman's right to choose become limited through health care reform:



Pretty impressive list of fucknuts for Barack Obama to have to deal with in order to get something resembling progressive legislation passed, if you ask me. These fucknuts are the fuckiest nuts I've seen in the Democratic Senatorial Caucus in a long time. With fucknuts like these, who needs Republicans?

[Mz Pip]

1. So many

fucknuts, so little time.

But Lieberman tops them all. Maybe the others can somehow justify (however remotely) their actions because they come from conservative states, but Lieberman? Connecticut does not strike me as being particularly conservative.

Lieberman just wants to be a player. He wants to be relevant. He wants to be on those Sunday shows and babble away so when he is old he can sit in his retirement home and play videos of his talk show appearances.

[WeDidIt]

2. But there can be no denying it

They're all fucknuts.

[Mz Pip]

6. They certainly don't

have the best interests of the citizens of this country in mind. so yeah, they are all fucknuts.

[DLnyc]

7. Conservative states want health care reform just like libral states do

More apt, I would say, is that those Senators are owned by anti-progressive corporations.

[WeDidIt]

9. But the real question is

Does your assessmnet make them any less fucknutty?

[DLnyc]

13. I think, according to industry-standard fucknuttiness assessment criteria

they score significantly HIGHER in funcknuttiness intensity quotient (FIQ) due to corruption and dishonesty than the (already high) score they achieve without consideration of these components.

Just my best guess, though.

(edit: oops, of course it's FIQ, not FQI)

[CTLawGuy]

14. Repubs abandoned their own candidate

to back Lieberman. They thought that their guy could not win and that Lieberman would be better than Lamont.

[Armstead]

3. Stop beating around the bush. Tell us what you really think of them?

[WeDidIt]

4. Did I say they were all fucknuts? n/t

[TheBigotBasher]

5. Exactly.

They are political terrorists holding the Party to ransom.

[Skittles]

8. let's blame the voters for voting for these assclowns

[WeDidIt]

10. Meh, most of them probably want single payer

or at least a public option.

That still doesn't make these fucknuts any less fucknutty.

[TheBigotBasher]

12. The Primary voters maybe

but they are a tiny percentage of the overall electorate.. Their G/E voters voted for a platform that they are betraying. The problem is that their betrayal of that agenda will cost all Democratic candidates votes.

[Mass]

11. Your list is too short. If you include Casey, include other people like Dorgan who also voted for

the Nelson amendment, or Webb and Warner, who largely opposed many measures that would have helped the Healthcare bill. And I am sure that the list is a lot longer than that, sadly.

We won 60 votes in the Senate, but we did not win 60 progressive votes (if anything, some of these people were chosen BECAUSE they were not progressive and would supposedly not frighten their electorate). Many of the votes we won are conservative democrats, and this does not help a progressive agenda, just a slightly more reformist one.

[WeDidIt]

16. Yes, there are more fucknuts. These aren't the only fucknuts. n/t

[Laelth]

15. I think Obama is 99% responsible.

He got the Senate to pass the Stimulus bill (the most liberal piece of legislation since LBJ was in office). If he could do that, I see no reason he couldn't push for other real, liberal legislation.

Ultimately, I think his heart wasn't in it. Obama doesn't seem to want to make further progressive gains.

:dem:

-Laelth

[WeDidIt]

17. That's ridiculous. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

The fucknuts above went along with the stimulus because we were on the brink of a Depression, not because it was progressive. If the economy sank into depression, every one of those fucknuts would be up shit creek and they damned well knew it.

You need to learn something before spouting bullshit about this being Obama's fault. The fact that we got ANYTHING shows that Obama's leadership capabilities are better than any president in well over a century.

[Laelth]

20. And you are rude beyond belief. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[WeDidIt]

22. I am always rude when it comes to bullshit being spouted with no foundation in reality

and that's what the fuck you posted, bullshit with no foundation in reality.

[ima_sinnic]

25. please give links where Obama "advocated" for anything approaching a public option

or, in lieu of that (since he has already claimed he "never campaigned on that," indicating he couldn't care less about it, after his own website touted it), for REGULATION of the insurance companies he wants us all to bend over for.

He's hugely responsible, because laissez faire is "action by omission." He did nothing, and HCR went the way it was supposed to. The 9-figure bonuses, courtesy the taxpayers, are saved!

[inna]

55. Don't take it personally. :)

That's the only thing he does on this board, it's his specialty. :P

[jonnyblitz]

18. of course he is. WeDidIt and his ilk would never admit to that,

the rest of us know better.

[phleshdef]

28. The bill he asked for was better, the Senate won't give it to him, end of story.

You can bitch and moan about how he should have threw his weight around more and all this other LBJ fantasy world nonsense. Meanwhile, those of us in the really real world actually understand how government works and realize that under current Senate rules, a handful of Senators are holding us up and can not be persuaded otherwise. There are no legal threats the President can throw their way that would actually successfully change that.

You WANT to blame Obama for 99% of it. Its likely because of several reasons. You don't understand how government actually works (and don't care to), you are butt hurt because he beat your favorite primary candidate out, because he is black, maybe just one of those reasons or maybe all of them, but anyone that sais they blame him 99% is way off base and its likely because of one of those stated reasons.

[shadesofgray]

44. +1

[ima_sinnic]

19. you forgot the most major fucknut of all

"Don't-worry-about-the-Left" Emanuel

Thanks for the pressure to get everyone to bend over for Lieberman, Rahmbo! "We" really appreciate it!

The most recent 5 comments (out of 300+) under a WSJ story about this stealth republican's arrogant dismissal of progressive concerns about HCR:

*
o 4:28 pm December 25, 2009
o mtlasagna wrote:

you folks have no feel for the concrete jungle life that we all live.

#
*
o 10:31 pm December 24, 2009
o Kim Kaufman wrote:

All the lobbyist money Rahm has made deals to get for 2010 and 2012 elections is not going to get enough people excited to drag their butts to the polls and vote for more corporatocracy. Especially since the Republicans still own the voting machines and no way will Dems have a big enough margin to preclude outright theft. Back at ya, Rahm — we’re progressive jerks and you’re an arrogant jerk.

#

*
o 3:30 pm December 24, 2009
o Catherine Mayer wrote:

Instead of “What you’re seeing is the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash,” it seems more like What you’re seeing is the universal backlash against a program that makes no sense to the majority of Americans, be it liberal, conservative, rich or poor. It makes good sense to the Senators and Congressmen who THINK they will be re-elected because of the deal making. It makes sense to the politicians who are either stupid or/and want a system that denies individual rights.

#

*
o 10:04 am December 24, 2009
o Wishful Thinking wrote:

To DFH from DailyKos,

Thank you for your comment. Just so you know, I am an independent and I am disgusted with both parties. What sets Obama apart is his incredible audacity to promise voters the moon and then immediately sell them out after he got elected. Obama subscribes to Rahm Emanuel’s view that the left is in his pocket because he hasn’t denounced Emanuel’s arrogant comments, which are the subject of withering attacks by posters on this blog. Playing supporters for suckers and then arrogantly dismissing them is a prescription for failure. No wonder Obama’s job approval rating is steadily dropping. That is a reflection of the restless, negative sentiment among Main Street Americans, who are struggling to make ends meet. They are not as stupid as Obama and Emanuel think they are. They are not amused at being made to look foolish.

#

*
o 8:12 am December 24, 2009
o DFH from DailyKos wrote:

RainDoggie:
Rahm Emmanuel made the same calculation back in 1993, when he helped push NAFTA down our collective throats over the fierce objection of party liberals & organized labor. As a result, the activist base was completely demoralized, and the GOP swept the congressional elections the following year. Looks like Rahm really wants another Republican takeover of congress next year; what else could explain his crass dismissal of the party base?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/18/rahm-emanuel-dont-worry-about-the-left/

[WeDidIt]

23. He's a fucking hero

He's probably one of the biggest reasons we got anything at all.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Dinger]

27. *Snap!*

:)

[WeDidIt]

29. Then you need to leave this site

You are violating the rules of DU.

[ima_sinnic]

31. you wish. one DU mission: "to make the word 'conservative' radioactive"

and we all know what kind of person Rahm is. But beyond that:

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

I am free to support a Democratic primary challenger to Obama. Check back and see if I'm here leading up to Election Day 2012. Until then, you got nothin--in any way.

[totodeinhere]

34. I think you are talking about a grey area.

I'm not a mod, thank God, but my impression is that strong criticism of President Obama, members of his administration, and other Democrats is acceptable if it comes from their left. It is only unacceptable if it comes from their right or if it promotes a pro Republican agenda.

[rudy23]

41. Nice try, Rahmbag, but your OP does the same thing towards several Dems

Rahm is no different than any of the people in your OP. In fact, he recruited many of them, and supported them over mainstream Democrats. If anything, you are the one violating the rules.

I don't think you're being sincere though, I think the Rahmbags are trying to force some redefinition of the rules here so people can't criticize Rahm or Obama without getting TS'ed. They've been trying to redefine this site since April, and they're not going to stop now with a revolt brewing.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

49. Who did he recruit?

nt

[inna]

56. "Rahmbag"

:spray:

:rofl:


At least, you have to give him credit, he's consistent and predictable like clockwork. :D

[ClassWarrior]

62. He recruited some of them? I thought most of the centrist candidates he recruited lost...

...in contests we could have easily won if the Progressive candidates had gotten nominated.

NGU.

[POAS]

39. From the rules

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

[Sebastian Doyle]

45. He's obviously YOUR fucking hero

And one of the other cheerleaders here actually said she LOVES him. You Message Discipline LLC employees aren't even bothering with the masks anymore.

Problem is that many of those fucknuts (as you accurately described them) could have been replaced by actual Democrats in primaries, except your Angry Dwarf messiah and his partner in crime Chuck Schumer, in their respective roles in the DCCC and DSCC routinely favored corporatist DLC repukes over actual Democrats every time.

So fucknut RAHM deserves a lot of blame for the other fucknuts.

[Enthusiast]

63. Does he realize that he

actually resembles 'the Grinch'?

[depakid]

21. Hard to disagree with that

which made the decision not to push for reconciliation- and cut them out of the equation that much more disturbing.

[WeDidIt]

30. Reconciliation was a hollow threat and every one fo the fucknuts knew it

You could not mandate insurance through reconciliation.

You could not ban pre-existing conditions as a reason for denying insurance through reconciliation.

You could not mandate that 85% of premiums collected be used directly as payments for health care through reconciliation.

But once you have a framework in place, the Congress can put a public option in place at any time through reconciliation.

[TheKentuckian]

32. True. You just might be able to open Medicare up to the entire population though

as a budget issue.

Adding millions of young and healthy people to the risk pool would stabilize the program longterm. Of course that is much further than probably 20+ in the caucus could stomach but the threat might pressure the Republicans with a (D) by their names to soften or face a real threat of a government takeover.

So, fuck the mandate that no one wants but the insurance companies and those that are worried about them getting hosed by shady consumers (as if they don't deserve it with no Vaseline).

Fuck the pre-existing conditions "ban"/dump into unaffordable risk groups.

Fuck the loss ratio which they are working on gaming as we speak by trying to get some of the administrative expenses to be counted as health care.

Just a plain old choice of get reamed, if you prefer, or come into a functional and affordable alternative and let the old system die.

[WeDidIt]

33. There's one problem with opening Medicare up to everybody, though

There are enough other fucknuts in the Senate that I doubt you could have gotten 50 votes for reconciliation on that.

Remember, I only named ten of the fucknuts. There are at least five other fucknuts who lean right in the Democratic Senate Caucus.

Getting fifty votes for a public option through reconciliation would be difficult enough, and may have to wait until after another election because we need to get at least two non-fucknut Senators seated into the caucus in order to get that much.

[TheKentuckian]

36. I grant that and said so but the constant threat might have been a shot across the bow

Even 35 Senators on record would create some pressure to behave a little more. I'm not claiming there are 35 but maybe there are.

[WeDidIt]

38. I think the real threat lay wiht the PO through reconciliation

It was how Rahm twisted arms to get the fucknuts on board with what we got.

I'm figuring he basically told them if the Senate couldn't come to an agreement, he'd have to go to Harry and all they'd get is a public option through reconciliation. I'm pretty sure they wuld have believe Emmanuel had he said, "I guarantee you, I'll get fifty votes for it and it will be open to everybody in the country." There would have been no other reform, but that would have fucked up all ten of the fucknuts.

That would have terrified the likes of Bayh, Pryor, and Lincoln. Nelson and Lieberman are such fucknuts that they demanded more.

[ima_sinnic]

26. yes, look over there everybody, it's all the "obstructionists"

Obama is really nobody at all, he has no power to do anything, his hands are tied because he doesn't even have people around him who can do anything either. I guess that's why he didn't try very hard, Yes We Can meant yes we can get elected on the basis of some million-dollar speeches and slick appearance of "concern" about the "average American," but after that, No We Can't get anything for The People, no matter how many doctors and nurses are arrested while Obama does--what?

[Kind of Blue]

35. Wow, and I thought there were only 5.

Great post. Thanks! KnR

[WeDidIt]

37. Well, I did leave out five of the less fucknutty fucknuts.

So really, there's at least fifteen, with another ten who lean fucknutty.

[rudy23]

42. People don't even talk like that!

I really think our problem is that Rahm is like Kaang or Kodos and has no idea what normal people are like.

[POAS]

40. Along with my K&R may I add

F**king A

[shadesofgray]

43. And Obama enables Lieberman every chance he gets.

[avaistheone1]

53. True.

It is easier for Obama not to enact real change that way.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. So-called progressives need to balm others for the failure of their won agenda?

Sounds like a Republican tactic to me.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

47. That's about it, the real cluprits, as long as we stay focused 2010 fewer of them will matter.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

48. That's about it, the real cluprits, as long as we stay focused 2010 fewer of them will matter...

Primary opponents may not always work but it can keep them on their toes.

[WeDidIt]

50. Fore every progressive added to the Democratic Caucus

The power of the conservative Democrats diminishes exponentially.

[Number23]

51. What??!! Putting the blame where it actually belongs instead of automatically blaming the Black Guy?

That's simply UNHEARD Of!!!! :)

Kicked and rec'd.

[styersc]

52. Yeah, the Black Guy, fucking genius.

You're right, if he was white and fucking me over regularly I wouldn't mind a bit.

[Number23]

54. Fine by me.

[styersc]

57. There is something overtly racist about someone who will not

disagree with an African American politician for fear that the politician needs to be handled with kidd gloves. I, on the other hand, have enough respect for Obama and others to engage them as I would any white politician and speak up in opposition when it is honest.

As long as you treat Obama like he needs to be coddled for fear he can't hold up, your racism is on display.

[Number23]

58. Oh for God's sake. Get a grip and PLEASE find someone else to annoy and bore simultaneously

[angee_is_mad]

59. ahhhhhhhhhhhh Casey not that bad

I don't agree with him on a woman's right to choose but them other mother fuc&^rs to go to the porch.

[applegrove]

60. It is the republicans and their strict obstructionist agenda that has moved

the goalposts in this debate and others to come..to stop obama from having any success.

[davidpdx]

61. We need to focus on getting rid of some of these through primary challanges

Over the next 4-5 years.

Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh are up this year.

Casey, Lieberman, Conrad and Nelson are up again in 2012

Baucus, Pryor and Landrieu have until 2014

[backscatter712]

64. Blame is in the correct place here.

We need to be working on throwing all these fucknuts out next election.

Especially the top fucknut Joe Lieberman for his cockblocking of the public option.