The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    oleeb's picture

    Truman to Obama: Put them on the defensive

    God how I wish Harry Truman were here today because he would give Obama the advice he needs  to be successful and Harry would quickly disabuse him of some of the more Quixotic ideas clouding the President's vision as he starts his 1st term.  Truman was one of our keenest political observers and he understood just exactly what the score was.  Time has passed since Harry was in command, but the essential character and objectives of the Republican Party and the political dynamics of Washington have not.

    We all wish our President well and hope he is successful in reviving the economy, cleaning up the government, protecting the environment, etc...  But many of us understand that what we are seeing from the Republicans since power was transferred is not going to change.  Nothing Obama does will ever accomplish the mythical comity and collegiality of politics that many fondly, but innaccurately recall. 

    Truman was never fooled and the sooner Obama forgets this pipe dream of a new era of bipartisan cooperation the better.  It isn't going to happen.  All one needs to do is to observe how the Rebpublicans are undercutting the docile Democrats and the President on the hill regarding the stimulus bill.  Or take a look at how Judd Gregg's highly partisan "conditions" on accepting the Commerce Secretary position screw the President's ability to overcome Republican obstructionism.  Where is the benefit (other than to the Republican's political objectives) in cooperating with these scoundrels, liars, and criminals?  There is none: none at all.

    In lieu of the much needed, but unlikely resurrection of Harry Truman, here are some Truman quotes that the President would do well to study and take to heart now that the Republicans are mangling the stimulus bill and everything else that comes before the Congress in order to harm him and his ability to make any significant changes in DC.  It is not too late for the President to do what he should have done from day one which is to take charge, understand there is no such thing as bipartisan cooperation with the Republican Party and get on with restoring all the things they have destroyed.  So, for those who wish to argue with me about the desirability of pursuing the myth of bipartisanship, don't waste your breath.  Argue with Harry.  I'm with him 100%.

     

    "Carry the battle to them.  Don't let them bring it to you.  Put them on the defensive.  And don't ever apologize for anything."

     

    "I don't like bipartisan.  Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know that he's going to vote against me."

     

    "The republicans believe the the power of government should be used first of all to help the rich and the privileged in the country.  With them, property, wealth, comes first.  The Democrats believe that the power of government should be used to give the common man more protection and a chance to make a living.  With us the people come first."

    "We should resolve now that the health of this nation is a national concern; that financial barriers in the way of attaining health shall be removed; that the health of all it's citizens deserves the help of all the nation."

    "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke.  They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.  They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.  They favor minimum wage--the smaller the better.  The endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.  They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them.  They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.  They think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.  And they admire the Government of the United States so much they would like to buy it."

    "I do not understand a mind which sees a gracious beneficence in spending money to slay and maim human beings in almost unimaginable numbers and deprecates the expenditure of a smaller sum to patch up the ills of mankind."

    "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself."

    Also, I highly recommend that people either listen to or read Truman's acceptance speech in 1948.  It helps to remember what a real Democrat ought to sound like. You can listen to it or read it by going here: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/educ/1948.htm

     

    Comments

    The paragraph starting with this:

    "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.

    Is amazingly accurate still.

    Great post.


    Thanks!

    "The more things change, the more they remain the same," eh?


    Things are changing, but the Republicans are not. As I read your post, I was thinking that what Obama is doing is giving them honest, real chances to get on board. 2010 is only next year. Those not on board will be called out. If the economy worsens as we are seeing and which cannot change with a stimulus anytime soon, it wil be easier to pin it on those who did nothing then on those who tried. Itmay very well be that the only salve for our economic misery is time. Regardless of what we do, it will work itself out. In the end, those people with money will get antsy and return to investing because they do not know how to do anything else. Sitting on their money and not making any money will drive them insane.


    You may be right about pining it on them, but playing this game of placating these scumbags while the economy is falling to pieces is one of the things common people hate most about the DC Democrats! They need to quit playing such games and get on with it while we still have a chance of minimizing the effects of the coming depression.

    While Obama goes through all this symbolic reaching out and giving them a chance to "get on board", they gut his economic recovery program and he barely complains about it. He appoints a Republican to Commerce who won't do it unless he gets replaced by another scumbag Republican and to top it off he refuses to support his own President's stimulus bill! That's just naive beyond belief. The miniscule benefit of saying "see they didn't act in a bipartisan way" during next year's elections is no consolation for watering down the stimulus and undermining every measure that needs to be taken. The Republican Party is as thoroughly discredited today as it was in 1932, perhaps more so. There is abolutely no need to play footsie with or make nice with them. It's time to get on with doing what we know needs to be done and not letting those assholes stand in the way, generally obstruct, slow down, water down, undermine and ruin the efforts of the President. It makes no sense. Any alleged benefit of this excercise in futility is nearly worthless.

    As a reminder to people about the futility of working with these assholes, I strongly recommend reading Krugman's column from last August that can be found here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

    He concludes the column with the following:

    "In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy."


    Personally, I'm all for people apologizing. That part I do not agree with.


    CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!!!!!

    I think that one of the fruits of this charade is that the reps are looking worse and worse to a lot of voters.

    But if the SP goes in the tank, it will hurt the Dems.

    Maybe the plan all along was to feign some sort of bipartisanship and then uncover the real republican agenda.


    "...not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy."

    Oh, I like that!

    Bottom line, no one has a certain idea that can turn the economy around. It may simply be the case that we have to bear down and ride this thing out. It is inevitable that it will turn around and whoever has the reins at the time will be jumping up and down to take the credit. I suspect there will be plenty from both parties fighting to get the credit.


    he would give Obama the advice he needs to be successful

    Are you serious? You think of Truman as successful in doing what he wanted to do?!

    Truman went from 87% approval rating in June 1945 when his administration was fresh to 22% approval rating in February 1952.

    Some examples of "success" from wikipedia

    The disorderly reconversion of the economy of the United States was marked by severe shortages, numerous strikes, and the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act over his veto.
    In the spring of 1946, a national railway strike, unprecedented in the nation's history, brought virtually all passenger and freight lines to a standstill for over a month. When the railway workers turned down a proposed settlement, Truman seized control of the railways and threatened to draft striking workers into the armed forces.[69] While delivering a speech before Congress requesting authority for this plan, Truman received word that the strike had been settled on his terms.[69] He announced this development to Congress on the spot and received a tumultuous ovation that was replayed for weeks on newsreels. Although the resolution of the crippling railway strike made for stirring political theater, it actually cost Truman politically: his proposed solution was seen by many as high-handed; and labor voters, already wary of Truman's handling of workers' issues, were deeply alienated.

    He won re-election by the skin of his teeth, and

    After his re-election he was able to pass only one of the proposals in his Fair Deal program.

    he would give Obama the advice he needs to be successful

    Are you serious? You think of Truman as successful in doing what he wanted to do?!

    Truman went from 87% approval rating in June 1945 when his administration was fresh to 22% approval rating in February 1952.

    Some examples of "success" from wikipedia

    The disorderly reconversion of the economy of the United States was marked by severe shortages, numerous strikes, and the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act over his veto.
    In the spring of 1946, a national railway strike, unprecedented in the nation's history, brought virtually all passenger and freight lines to a standstill for over a month. When the railway workers turned down a proposed settlement, Truman seized control of the railways and threatened to draft striking workers into the armed forces.[69] While delivering a speech before Congress requesting authority for this plan, Truman received word that the strike had been settled on his terms.[69] He announced this development to Congress on the spot and received a tumultuous ovation that was replayed for weeks on newsreels. Although the resolution of the crippling railway strike made for stirring political theater, it actually cost Truman politically: his proposed solution was seen by many as high-handed; and labor voters, already wary of Truman's handling of workers' issues, were deeply alienated.

    He won re-election by the skin of his teeth, and

    After his re-election he was able to pass only one of the proposals in his Fair Deal program.

    You should remember there was bipartisanship in the house vote on the porkulus spending bill. The bipartisanship was AGAINST Odumba's bill.

    Republicans are not 'undercutting' 'docile' democrats. Those democrats know they will be up for re-election in about 21 months. They realize how the voters in their districts look at this attempt at a Marxist coupe.

    If Harry Truman were alive today he'd look at Odumba with disgust. I doubt Truman would lower himself to even speak to the SOB.


    The biggest difference between Marxism and Capitalism is the date in history they ended.


    Harry had some good quotes but he was faced with the same Republican obstructionism (led by presidential hopeful Senator Taft). His national healthcare didn't get off the ground, and he had to wait until LBJ passed Medicare/Medicaid to see something like it. God knows we all would have benefited from such a program, physically, spiritually, and economically. Harry also had the poor judgment to bog us down in Korea, which was a big part of his unpopularity (it didn't help that he relieved the enormously popular MacArthur, who wanted to drop nuclear bombs on the Chinese.)

    Perhaps obstructionism disguised as bipartisanship is just the nature of our system, and we are even now slowly stumbling towards a more socially ideal state and nation.


    " . . .there was bipartisanship in the house vote on the porkulus spending bill. The bipartisanship was AGAINST Odumba's bill."

    ELEVEN Dems (out of 255) voted against the bill, you perky pinhead. So that makes it a bipartisan push? Only in your fevered imagination.


    I think it is politically necessary for the administration to reach out to America's internal enemies during the first 100 days. I don't for one second believe Obama will not have obatined all the capital necessary to put his enemies squarely on the defensive when he closes the door.

    Obama will "Slam the Door Softly".



    "America, Love It, or Leave It"


    ps - "a Marxist coupe" - ain't that what Joe Stalin used to tool around in?

    Keep slingin' it, ReNeigh - you're gettin' me hot again : : :


    A Marxist coupe? I thought Trabant went out of business years ago!


    Toad,

    Bipartisanship is bipartisanship. Odumba, or at least his handlers, know this. The house vote score was the bellwether they recognized as the unraveling of the porkulus deficit spending bill.

    The dems are running scared on this thing now. Just get off that chotie you're puffin long enough to watch it bog down in the senate.


    You precious pinhead, repackaging an almost strictly party-line loss for the Repubs as a bipartisan win - you do have an active imagination!


    I think you may be right, and I hope you are.


    We can only hope you're right about that.


    If you measure success by popularity alone then you have a point.

    I'd say Truman was a very successful President indeed and many of the things that made him unpopular at the time turned out to be the very things that have elevated him to being one of the most popular of modern Presidents. Truman was faced with a coalition of Republicans and segregationist southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond on a host of domestic issues and won most of his battles with them.

    As for "barely" winning in 1948 I'd say your discounting of his victory is pretty amazing given that no one believed he would win at all. Nobody gave him even a chance of winning. Every newspaper was against him. The war was over and his party had been in power for 16 years running. His opponent was popular and well known. Truman's victory was an extraordinary affirmation by the American people in him, not a slight victory that should be looked at askance. His victory over Dewey was an extraordinary triumph.

    But more than anything else, he had the Republicans' number and he still does which is the point of the post.


    I hope you're right but am highly skeptical since there's just no indication that will happen. Obama's response to all the Republican BS thus far has been silence more than anything else. That isn't very encouraging.


    I agree, it amazes me so many do not want success, as if not realizing anything else means we ALL go down the tubes, If ever there was a time to ask, What were they thinking?, isn't it now?


    It isn't about convincing Republicans in Congress to be bipartisan... it is about peeling moderates away from an increasingly regional party. It is about moving the ideas that compose civics leftwards by making overtures of compromise while the GOP does what it always does. Taking the fight to them DOES NOT WORK. It only empowers and legitimizes the extremism. Now the GOP is nakedly behind tax cuts. The stimulus bill may waver because of the accusations of pork, but tax cuts have no traction and do NOT make the GOP an appealing alternative come 2010.

    If you want to pick a fight with the Repubs so badly, go to a military bar and start making fun of Bush. But this whole fighting concept is not borne out by history. Look at Reagan... he was backed into raising taxes but was always ALWAYS throwing out olive branches even while shanking the poor in the back. It is about public perception and the power of ideas. Not drawing a line in the sand and challenging varmints to a duel.


    I can't help myself, dd. SP is already in the tank!
    (for the repubs that is)


    I want Obama to get mad, and show them his teeth. I want him to kick ass and serve up to the GOP a measure of payback. But, at the same time, I'm not sure this is the best way to get us back on track, financially and morally. I remember my older brother's scoutmaster (I know this is corny - hang with me here); this guy lived by the adage "teach by example" and lived his life exemplifying, reaffirming the importance of our bonds to other people. Fights are draining. And, I think, we're all tired of the politics of snipe and carp, of stabbing any back handy. That's the change. It's not going to be tit for tat, even though that game can be played.

    Here's the real clue of substantive change: Rove has started cooperating with Congress in the AGA firing probe. He smells 'perp walk' in his future, and... sure... he's playing for time, but it's a whole new ballgame. For ideas, for rescue, we need allies - even if they are 'comrades of the moment'.


    Taft was president decades before Truman, otherwise, I agree with your assessment. Truman was far from the democrats most shining star. I would say Ike was as good a democrat as Truman was if that is the measuring stick.


    Apologies. Different Taft, though he sounds as if he was as big a dick as the original.


    Well said. Perception is reality.


    Totally agree, Curt. Lead by example hasn't been an American political trait for decades.


    I am smarting from the realization that the progressive left is also contributing to the stimulus gridlock thorugh agenda and ideology... but are unwilling to admit it.

    The degree of holier-than-thouism that permeates a lot of this dialogue is a hindrance to pragmatism and compromise. And using Truman as an example just irks me.


    I think he might have said also:

    Republicans are pro-life -- until you are born.


    And the biggest difference in renaye and a steaming pile of excrement is ... oh, never mind; they both stink to high heaven!


    Renny isn't too smart. She is always talking about a coupe when she really means a sedan. And even though I tried to teach her about this a few days ago, she is totally undereducated and remains so.


    Beautiful post. Absolutely on point politically and also a wonderful history lesson. It also reminds me of something I think FDR once said of the wealthy elite, "They hate me and I welcome their hatred." It's hard still to imagine a contemporary politician talking like FDR or HST, but the times they are a-changing.


    Look, House Repubs know that (a) they're already in the toilet (tapping their feet) and there is no hope of rising. Might as well stick together - or not. It makes no difference. (b) the fight is in the Senate. Learn the difference between the two chambers (and their pots). (c) they don't know history past their last election. Apparently, you don't either.

    Today's trivia quiz:

    Who said: "In Communism, man oppresses man. In Capitalism, it's the other way around."


    Did you know that your 'user' name is an anagram of 'eyeran'? Islamo-fascism in porno disguise?

    Back under the bridge with you.



    Yeah, Renaye

    Truman certainly wasn't any Marxist.


    Yeah, Renaye

    Truman certainly wasn't any Marxist.


    They won't have to reach very far. The cabinet is fuller of America's enemies than Obama's church!!


    Obama's handlers will never allow him unscripted coverage.

    He'll either be on a teleprompter or be interviewed by some news actor after a number of rehersals!!!!


    Obama preemptively compromised. He must have learned that from the prememptive surrender monkeys in the coward caucus. And why blame us powerless progressives? It's the same Blue Dogs like Harrold Ford making Republican talking points as usual.


    An apology looks different in hardball than it does in softball.

    Obama is in the big leagues now. I think his "I'm sorry" was okay but weak. The only way it works is if it lures Repos into further arrogance so that they overstep grossly and he can calmly nail them on that, in short order.

    It's about time for Obama to show real leadership.




    Truer words have never been spoken. It's amazing, actually astonishing how relevant Truman's quotes are today.

    Both parties have members in congress that are serious impediments to honest political discussion.

    We need a progressive governing majority. What constitutes progressive? Progress, not regress. It's that simple. We're so far behind in advancing essential social issues such as education, health care and clean energy alternatives (Heck, science was put on hold in 2000), that if you're not a progressive, you're so 20th century.


    Really, after BUSH, you have the gall to call Obama dumb? This is a brilliant man. You may disagree with him, but he's certainly not dumb. Where are your standards -- for intelligence, for telling the truth? And where is your self-respect?


    You miss the point entirely.

    By the way, how on earth would you know if taking the fight to them doesn't work? It hasn't been tried by Democrats since the mid-60's. It is about winning and getting things done and this namby pamby approach to kissing the asses of the Republicans has been tried and proven not to work for decades now. That is the policy and approach of Tom Foley, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the weakling Congressional Democrats.

    Accomodating a bunch of assholes who hate you and are doing everything to screw you is just downright naive and stupid. Obama is paying an extraordinarily high price to peel off a couple of moderate votes that he's going to get anyway. His approah is handing all the power we worked so hard to give to Obama right back to the dumbshits who fucked up the government and the economy to begin with. Look at what glee the Republicans are taking in all this. They know they are in charge and Obama has been dancing to their tune, not ours or his. What more proof do you need that this is the wrong road to go down huh? Another 20 years of defeat and capitulation to these outragously incompetent, lying, corrupt, crooks?

    Take a look at what Josh posted earlier on the front page of TPM from Theda Skocpol:

    "In response to what you are saying: Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as biparitsanship not saving the U.S. economy. Right now, he has only one chance to re-set this deteriorating debate: He needs to give a major speech on the economy, explain to Americans what is happening and what must be done. People will, as of now, still listen to him -- and what else is his political capital for?

    Speaking as a strong Obama supporter who put my energies and money into it, I am now very disillusioned with him. He spent the last two weeks empowering Republicans -- including negotiating with them to get more into Senate and his administration and giving them virtual veto-power over his agenda -- and also spending time on his personal cool-guy image (as in interview before the Super Bowl). The country is in danger and he ran for president to solve this crisis in a socially inclusionary way. He should be fighting on that front all the time with all his energies -- and he certainly should give a major speech to help educate the public and shape the agenda. That is the least he can and should do. Only that will bypass the media-conserative dynamic that is now in charge."


    Here's a little additional commentary/analysis from the editor over at Buzzflash.com on the topic of this whole Quixotic quest for bipartisan nirvana. Buzzflash BTW was a huge Obama cheerleader during the primary season and remains so. Their criticism of him has been sparing at best. Keep that in mind when reading what they have to say:

    "Appointing Judd Gregg as Secretary of Commerce is like putting the Milton Friedman "GOP School of Radical Anarchistic Unregulated Markets" fox in charge of the hen house. And, on top of that, the GOP got to dictate that Gregg's replacement would be a Republican when normally a Democratic Governor (as in New Hampshire) would appoint a Democratic senator (as a Republican governor would appoint a Republican). This isn't just appeasement and giving the losing party (by a landslide) the keys to the safe to continue destroying our economy. It's just plain weak, naive and potentially disastrous to our world trade policy, census count in 2010, and insurance that "free trade" agreements have provisions to respect the environment, unions, and the Amerrican industrial infrastructure.

    "Obama thinks that he is co-opting the "opposition," but they appear to be the winners who are getting victories even though the electorate dealt them a devastating losing hand.

    "Basically, the Democrats -- because Nancy Pelosi is pretty good at party discipline (certainly compared to Harry Reid) -- can get most of the "New New Deal" legislation out of the House. But 41 Republican senators -- and a few reactionary Democrats like Baucus and Nelson -- are holding the future of America hostage. They are asking us to resolve a cratering economy by doing more of what led to its downfall in the first place.

    "Instead of coming in and steamrolling the Republicans -- because unlike Bush, Obama had a clear mandate due to the popular vote and the former Bush states that he won -- Obama is acting like he is more concerned about appeasing the losers and assuring them that he is not beholden to the people who elected him or ready to govern through assertive leadership."

    You can find the whole thing here:
    http://buzzflash.com/articles/node/7603


    Oh look! The pric has returned.


    Along with his enemy, Groucho.


    Truman had gotten the USA into the Korean War where our troops were fighting the Chinese; the ultra-right Republicans like Joe McCarthy were dominating the press with accusations that the Democrats were the party of "20 years of treason," and by the end of his term, Truman's popularity was pretty low. But that doesn't invalidate the message of his words, and the example he set in the 1948 campaign! President Obama is fumbling and stumbling because his focus is on appeasing the crypto-fascists instead of doing what he was elected to do. And he's even backing down on his stand against torture!

    He should try channeling FDR instead of Lincoln. But he's still doing Lincoln . . . who didn't think the southern traitors really were serious about secession. The first part of Lincoln's term was a series of political and military missteps.

    But even Lincoln filled his Cabinet with RIVALS not ENEMIES! Why put Gregg in the Cabinet? Why not Norm Coleman---then Franken at least could get to the Senate.

    Now is the NOT the time to sit silently and HOPE that President Obama has some deep plan to outmaneuver the Republicans. The President needs to hear loud and clear from the people---many of whom weren't so much voting for him as AGAINST the Republican perjurers, thieves, and war criminals.

    The campaign is over. There's no need to keep capitulating to the SOB's who got us into this mess.


    Curt, all the New Prez has to do is offer one of the reps a giant, double decker pizza with everything on it. Then he gets five or six condom earmarks off of the bill and then he passes it.

    There will be the great smell of some cheese, but we get to stop the filibuster. Besides, I wonder, would all forty one dare to filibuster?

    And when you get one or a few of the reps to refuse to filibuster, they can always look good by voting against it.

    There are so many ways to handle this and I will not give the New Administration a by and blame it all on republicans.

    I am only earmarking this to you because you wrote this.


    Take it easy oleed. - Back away from the cliff. Much of what you are seeing is a predictable distraction. I still think Republicans are gorging on dangling, fish-hooked, bait.

    I predict at 100 days or so, the Republican enemies of the United States, and their supportes (Mr. renaye) will be exposed for what they are and entirely marginalized and humiliated. Give the process a chance to work.


    ...spric ??? out on bail?


    I find the quotes to be incredibly accurate and refreshing. Over the past 20 or so years, the US public has been sold a bill of goods. Reagan's "revolution" was really a public relations program to obscure the fact that Republicans are always Republicans. There's no new brand. Government was always the problem, unless they could rob its Treasury. Grover Norquist is nothing but Reagan's dark side.

    We've been lied to so much, we've been marketed 24/7 for the past 29 years on the myth that Republicans will build a smarter, richer America. But through the decades their BEHAVIOR has always been the same. The past eight years represented "Republicanism Unchained." They ran amuk. I hope all of those Reagan Republicans who will be lining up outside the unemployment office remember who brought them this mess. The line is only just beginning to form. The Republicans who are hastening the lengthening of the lines are committing political suicide.


    The Republicans may be thoroughly discredited, but you wouldn't know it by watching the corporate news media, still owned by Republicans. There was a far less distinctive bias during Truman's day. Now, Republicans have tighter control on the media and have the power to shape the debate.

    Obama likely already knows that he's playing a fool's game. He's planning the details of the next step. In a month's time, we'll see something very different coming from his Administration.


    There's more to Obama's push for bipartisan consensus than naive political idealism.

    To interpret his victory as a broad mandate for liberal policies is a mistake. He had two powerful winds at his back: disgust at the moral vacuity and incompetence of the sitting administration and a tanking economy.

    For Obama to get any kind of momentum behind health care reform, energy and the environment, two things need to happen. He needs to get at least some Republicans behind the recovery and reinvestment plan, and it has to work. If things begin to turn around and he can recognize Republicans for their role in its success, he's got a shot at achieving the kind of mandate he needs to implement the rest of his agenda and make it stick.

    Otherwise, all bets are off.


    The appearance is that Obama is writing the story of his own failure. Remember his behavior on the campaign trail. Remember that he wrote his most stirring rhetoric. I'm telling you, something's afoot here. There's something in the script that's being written that feels like a foreboding, as if there will be a major thematic shift in the political dynamic.

    Republicans are daring Obama to become a Democrat. By their actions, they're saying, "You aren't going to finesse us. You'll have to beat us into submission or we won't stop."

    That's what's happening. The Republican Party is bloodied and hemorrhaging badly, but they're stabbing a victorious Obama in the ankle as Obama offers his help.

    Obama knows this. Believe me, he feels the pain. But he also knows that he has the public at his back and that's where Obama has always gotten his power. Obama's given the Republicans a few bones, including the Commerce Secretary, who, after all got the job because he said that he'll do Obama's bidding. (Let's remember that.)

    Obama's always had great timing. He's being polite right now, and he's also building the case for using his power. The Republicans would have been wiser were they more conciliatory.


    I am buying your argument here Eyeball. It is a good one and I always thought this was a chess game.
    If it is indeed that, I shall have great fun watching it play out.


    I hope your prediction is close!


    It's called ceding to the wishes of representatives for 45% of the country, plus whatever percentage of moderate democrats who don't think this spending actually accomplishes what it sets out to do.

    I know three moderate democratic friends who have varying degree of heatburn with the bill as it exists. They are also suspicious of thing that big that they rush through the process. So am I. These guys can't get things right that they debate for months, so how is a couple weeks enough time to get it right?

    Would another month or two be so bad? I think not. Look at TARP to see how well Congress performas under pressure.

    I think Congressional democrats totally spoiled Obama's play, unless these "pork" programs were sacrificial pigs to be removed in the interst of "giving" republicans tax cuts they always planned on adding.

    To Zipper's point, he was talking of the progressive (liberal) left who use "fighting words" vice intelligent thought. There are many pragmatic progressives that you continue to paint as "surrender monkeys" or whatever, rather than forcing them to be more progressive. Just because Harold Ford et. al. acted one way in the past, doesn't mean they will act the same way in the future.

    Taking out a bunch of special interest pet projects, no matter how needed, is not the same thing as using republican ralking points. Compromising on language, but attaining your progressive goals just the same, is not the same thing as the Clinton "Third Way" that was really a third rail.

    Times have changed and the democrats will have to deliver progressive change, notwithstanding the strange DC dance they must do for cameras, or they will lose big in the 2010 primaries. Just like Congressional republicans will if they continue to offer sound bites instead of solutions.


    It's always fun to watch wingnuts put words in the mouths of Democrats. Nice try, honey.


    Right on!


    You are trying to make Obama into what you thought he would turn into, rather than what he actually is. That isn't anymore realistic with politicians than it is with a significant other.

    Obama is doing exactly what he campaigned on, so any disillusionment is purely on you. Speaking as someone who also "put my energies and money into" Obama's campaign, I am quite happy with his pragmatic and principled approach. I never expected it to pay off dividends in the very first skirmish. I am not sure I agree with all of his choices, but so far Geitner is playing his role well as are the other cabinet picks.

    The democratic Congress is running around with their heads in their rears, but perhaps that was part of the plan as well. They just couldn't help but accommodate the liberal and push a bunch of small ticket, ideological-driven items into the bill, knowing what the response from republicans (and many moderate democrats) would be.

    That is purely a checkers move and politics is definitely chess.

    One plans a dozen moves ahead of the coup de grasin chess, not caring that an opponent might be using a checkers strategy. That doesn't make Obama naive or stupid. It just makes him unwilling to start playing checkers in the middle of a chess match because the other side (many on his side as well) is doing the same thing.

    The purpose of the game is get Checkmate, not shout "King Me!" from the top of your lungs.


    "Obama is acting like he is more concerned about appeasing the losers and assuring them that he is not beholden to the people who elected him or ready to govern through assertive leadership"

    That's one spin a person could put on it. The curious thing about the truth is that it can easily be spun for better or worse.

    I missed a "than" which would make "more" a measurable notion. As it is, it's just vacant fluff.

    Obama is acting like the guy who campaigned without resorting to negative ads when he could have, who calls for unity and wants to assure everyone reasonable will have their voices heard. His kind of assertive leadership is just different, and that's part of what got him elected, imo.


    He faced down editorial boards across the country, many on video, so to say he can't speak for himself is just more Soundbite Soldiering.


    A little learning is a dangerous thing, Jason. That's a statement which can be taken in different ways . . . I suggest you have a LOT MORE to learn.

    For instance, "coup de grace," (with a circumflex over the a.)


    Yet somehow, the "liberal" farming solution led us to a nation of less nutritious food and unaccountable super agriculture companies. Soundbites and partisan warfare don't fix a plural society.

    Ideology is ineffective no matter which side practices its implementation.

    Truman demonizing his "opponents" instead of pursuing sustainable solutions is why long-time partisans make horrible presidents. Don't forget, this is also the guy who ordered the atomic destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

    Let's talk next about how Charles Manson is the best guy to debate NEA grants.


    I suggest that opening with ad hominem attacks proves I have less to learn than the critic. If you have something constructive to add to my proposition that doesn't involve a typo, please feel free. Otherwise, go Cheney yourself.


    The "corporate news media" is owned by corporations, not republicans.

    Disney owns ABC. NBC Universal is a division of GE which owns MSNBC. CNN is owned by Westinghouse/CBS. Even Fox News is owned by a public company, despite the number of shares the ideologue Murdock holds.

    The American media has been playing a game of false equivalents for decades because it keeps eyeballs glued to the tube.