home

Defining The Middle

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. - What Obama Needs To Learn, 2006

Via Digby, Greg Sargent writes:

There's been a ton of commentary to the effect that Obama's planned State of the Union address, which will stress the need for leaner and smarter government in order to foster "competitiveness," signals a move by Obama to the "center." But judging from what we've heard so far, it seems more likely that Obama's speech will seek to redefine the "center" as something more in line with his own current policy approach and priorities.

Sure. The question then is is Obama's "own current policy approach" what progressives want? As I detail below, on tax policy it surely should not be. I'm not sure where Obama stands on much else. More . . .

Digby cites Bob "American Taliban" Kuttner:

If you liked Bill Clinton as Triangulator, you will love the era of Triangulation II. The danger, of course, is that the man at the apex of the triangle fares better than his party. He is now Mr. Reasonable Centrist -- except that in substance there is no reasonable center to be had.

A well funded and tightly organized right wing has been pulling American politics to the right for three decades now. And with a few instructive exceptions, Democrats who respond by calling for a new centrism are just acting as the right's enablers. What exactly is the beneficial substance of this centrism? Just how far right do we have to go for Republicans to cut any kind of deal? Isn't the mirage of a Third Way a series of moving targets -- where every compromise begets a further compromise?

[. . .F]or at least two decades, Republican themes -- privatize, deregulate, shrink government, cut taxes, liberate business -- have been ascendant, while life for regular people has become more precarious, and too many Democrats have embraced Republican-lite. If you look back over the past several administrations, in most bipartisan compromises it was usually the Democrats who got rolled.

[. . .] The 1986 tax reform was supposed to cut rates and close loopholes, but at the end of the day the tax code became less progressive and the business elite went right on inventing new loopholes. If President Obama proposes another tax reform in this spirit, watch out.

[. . .] Even the one epic case widely held to be a success story of bi-partisan compromise, the Earned Income Tax Credit, is trickier than it seems. Yes, the EITC does transfer a lot of money to the working poor. But by disguising an income transfer as a tax credit, the provision adds fuel to the ideology that the best thing government can do for you is cut your taxes.

And so on. I think Kuttner is largely correct but for some reason, no one ever wants to discuss the time Democrats held firm on tax policy - the 1993 Clinton tax bill. It amazes me that the argument that the Clinton tax bill preceded 8 years of excellent economic growth and job creation never makes it into the conversation anymore.

It remains the most progressive government action of the past 40 years in my estimation. Yet it remains neglected and uncelebrated by Dems and progressives. Just bizarre.

Speaking for me only

< Say Hello to The Fearless Campaign | Donald Rumsfeld Makes Media Rounds for New Book >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    is this so surprising? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 08:41:07 AM EST
    It remains the most progressive government action of the past 40 years in my estimation. Yet it remains neglected and uncelebrated by Dems and progressives.

    celebrating it would mean admitting that Clinton was a progressive and Obama is not.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kmblue on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 08:44:50 AM EST
    then we might expect the Dems to do it again.
    Can't have that. ;)

    Parent
    I do not think Clinton was a progressive. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:15:16 AM EST
    He did some progressive things (like the tax bill).  Clinton's team also "reformed" welfare, deregulated Wall Street, etc.  Obama did some progressive things as well (i.e. Medicaid expansion), but no one is calling him a progressive (at least not in how he is governing).  

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    There are some rose-colored lenses that come out when talking about the Clinton years.  It was a fifth of a century ago.  And seems like it.  That said, I wish Obama would at least find a testicle and push those top rates up, not simply piss and moan about just not having enough votes.  Lead, you dope.

    Parent
    And what is funny, he does not have to push (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:21:57 AM EST
    anything up.  He could have just sat on his hands and watched it happen.  The rates "expired," they did not need to be "pushed."

    Parent
    What's interesting is that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    is, unlike Clinton, basically diminishing his own power by defunding the government.

    I think that that is where Clinton was a lot smarter - not necessarily progressive - but smarter about keeping his position as the President of the United States relevant - he knew he needed a healthy budget to do what he wanted and so he made sure he would have one.  The less money a government has the more irrelevant its leadership and that government becomes; and that seems not to occur to Obama.  A person like Clinton would never miss that basic point of aggregating power.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    So, how do you feel about (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:37:00 AM EST
    revenue-neutral corporate tax reform?

    Sources familiar with meetings between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and leaders from business, labor, and academia say the Obama administration is actively interested in a corporate tax overhaul and that the president will nod to the issue in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

    But administration officials caution that they won't push for broad reform unless business groups agree to support a revenue-neutral approach -- a tax reform, not a tax reduction.
    "We need to test the true appetite of business for reform that simplifies the system and lowers rates without making the deficit worse," a senior administration official told National Journal on Friday [...]

    At a White House meeting in December with corporate executives, venture capitalist John Doerr and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt argued that creating investment in the United States would require an overhaul that lowers rates and reduces complexity. Business groups especially chafe at U.S. laws to tax income earned overseas -- a policy that no other developed countries embrace.

    At that meeting, administration officials pledged to explore the issue and Geithner has hosted at least two meetings at the Treasury Department to solicit ideas from business executives, labor officials and experts from think tanks and universities.

    David Dayen's analysis (bold is mine):

    A few things. First of all, the fact that mostly corporate execs are in the room while this proposal on corporate tax reform is being hashed out shouldn't really make anyone comfortable. The White House looks like they're trying to buy off corporate elites again.

    Second, you have to look at this with a certain set of facts in mind. Yes, it's true that the statutory corporate tax rate itself - 35% - is relatively high compared to other industrialized nations. However, the effective corporate tax rate is among the lowest, according to a 2008 GAO report and this report from the World Bank.

    While the Administration push for corporate tax reform lowers that statutory tax rate, it pointedly does nothing, by design, with the effective tax rate. Mainly it brings the statutory and effective tax rates in line. Now, it's possible that changing the incentives for corporations to offshore jobs and stash money abroad will have positive implications for the domestic economy, which could lead to a total increase in corporate tax receipts. But to believe that you have to believe that corporations only respond to tax incentives and not labor incentives - namely, the cheaper labor they find abroad (not to mention the lower health care costs).

    I think it's worth blowing away tax expenditures, especially in the corporate tax code, but I don't think the guys who promoted "16 small business tax cuts" over the past year are the best candidates to do so. And this idea that simplifying the tax code without increasing the level of revenue needed to run a modern society will just constrain the government for the future. That's especially true if the revenue-neutral model for the corporate tax code is transferred to income tax reform. Just returning the individual rates to the Clinton era would accomplish more than the Republican Study Group report in terms of revenue, and the same as the Bowles-Simpson cat food report.

    I just think this is glaringly obvious, not to mention that I think Americans are pretty tired of hearing about what will - in the end -amount to more breaks for the corporate world that are unlikely to have any positive effect on our own wallets.

    Seriously, I think everyone should listen to Obama tonight as if the words he delivers are being uttered by a Republican, and see what kind of reaction you have.

    Really (none / 0) (#12)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    He's a republican now?

    Like I've said, he's not going to get a fair shot despite delivering on many of his biggest campaign promises.

    Why listen to you?  Your votes aren't going to the republicans. You think you are going to stay home out of protest?

    Wait until Nominee Palin/Huckabee/Romney start really getting their groove and scaring the doo doo out of people.

    Give him a chance. Be realistic. Be reasonable.

    Or don't.  I honestly don't think Obama cares anymore and good for him.

    Parent

    What I suggested is that people (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    listen to him as if the speech he is delivering is coming from a Republican, and see what they think.  And the reason I suggested that is because if many of the policies coming out of the Obama administration had come out of a Republican one, you - and a lot of others - would not be defending them, or trying to find ways to justify them, you would be pretty much spitting mad - just as you were when Bush was president.

    The last line of your comment makes Obama out to be a spoiled and petulant child, willing to ignore and dismiss and belittle those from his own party - in favor of what?  You've made the point before that maybe if we supported him, he would support us, but that doesn't explain why he makes so much effort to curry favor with and suck up to and take ideas from Republicans, who are not now and will not ever support him.  They will allow him to shape policy that is to their liking, that they don't have to vote for - why?

    At some point, it has to be clear that he advocates for the policies he likes, that he is comfortable with, and he's happy to use a bunch of bipartisan BS rhetoric to do it.

    Just as you are happy to wave the specter of Palin and Huckabee at me, as if that's supposed to send me running back to the safety of Barack Obama.  Sure, Obama's more "normal," but I happen to regard the normalization of some really offensive and un-democratic policies as really scary because it's easier to sneak past people before they fully comprehend what's happening.

    Give him a chance?  Jesus, how many chances does he need?

    Be realistic?  I think I am firmly planted in the real world, thanks.

    Be reasonable?  I'm not looking for perfection here, just a credible hewing to Democratic principles and ideology, which I think Obama has more or less abandoned, if, in fact, he was ever really on board.

    I know he doesn't care about why I think or what I want - that's been obvious since the campaign - he doesn't share my worldview, doesn't believe what I believe, and supporting him means helping him do things that are against my interests - which is just crazy.  I may get bad policy, but I don't have to help it happen.


    Parent

    His tax policies are terrible (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:52:00 AM EST
    I do not much care for labels.

    The substance of Obama's tax policies, and indeed his policies with regard to the economy, have not been good, to say the least.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    The tax cuts were not his policy.

    Let me repeat that.  The tax cuts were not his policy.  I don't think he wanted to give them.  I don't think he was happy to give them.  I don't think he would have given them if there was any other reasonable and likely option.

    Our divide on Obama really isn't about tax policy, it is about Obama's probability assessments.

    The disconnect is that you have made the jump (despite everything he's said and done to the contrary) from "Obama conceded to the GOP demand" to "The GOP demand was Obama's preferred policy" which is completely unsupported by anything other than your analysis of the probabilities of his success in winning the tax fight.

    I, like Obama and Clinton apparently, don't think that he could have won the battle and he smartly got himself and the dems a lot of good stuff during lame duck.  You think he could have.  Now that's a fair disagreement to have.

    I don't think arguing that the cuts are "Obama's tax policy" is at all supportable by anything other than the sales job he was forced to do after it.

    But that's what he had to do.  What president has ever signed a bill while simultaneously telling the world how horribly he really thought it was. Makes no sense.

    Parent

    What many people IMO fail to think about (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    regarding The Deal is that Obama did not have to lead, did not have to scrounge up votes, did not have to offer anything.  He could achieve the most progressive policy change of his administration by doing nothing.  If the Bush tax cuts expired and that was it, a very progressive tax change would have occurred.  Once it was clear Obama was ready to let them expire, he could wheel and deal on extending them on those making less than $250K and the repubs would have had to concede or else tell the American people "if the rich taxes go up, then so do yours."  Not only is that a bad political message, but the majority of the American people already supported letting them expire on the rich.

    Obama let himself get pushed into a regressive tax policy from The Deal.  That is what is so infuriating.

    Parent

    And he got pushed either out of fear (none / 0) (#32)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    of passing a progressive policy he agreed with, or he got pushed into it because it was the exact policy he wanted.

    Parent
    I was going to ask (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    about that

    Parent
    Alt #3 (none / 0) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    There was no other choice that would save the middle class.

    Parent
    The Deal (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    "saved" the middle class? you have got to be kidding me.

    Parent
    Always the same three options (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:23:28 PM EST
    1.  It was the best, reasonably achievable outcome.

    2.  He's only the POTUS - he can't just waive a magic wand.

    3.  He had no choice.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Parent
    there was another choice available (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    Let the tax cut expire and enact middle class tax cuts this year. The Obama Tax Cuts. Do you think the Republicans would have blocked tax cuts to the middle class?

    Parent
    Actually, there was... (none / 0) (#88)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    During the first 100 days they would have had the public support to repeal the breaks for the people at the top end.  Politically-speaking that would have been a perfect time to have addressed the issue.

    Parent
    nah (none / 0) (#91)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 04:48:29 PM EST

    Impossible to have the tax fight and the healthcare fight simultaneously.  

    Parent

    And we could have (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:02:21 PM EST
    Not wasted a year of everyone's life on a bad health bill.

    Parent
    Your timeline is flawed. (none / 0) (#107)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:12:04 PM EST
    Healthcare was addressed after the first 100 days.

    The first 100 days.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:16:08 AM EST
    Let me repeat (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:10:43 AM EST
    Tell me what you do and I will tell you where you stand.

    Obama did The Deal. The Deal is his policy.

    Parent

    This is (none / 0) (#56)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    completely disconnected from the reality of the way things work in the real life.  A compromise by definition means that you are accepting stuff that you do not like.

    Under your theory, every single democrat in congress who voted for healthcare believes in limiting the right to choice, including the strongly pro-choice contingent like Wasserman-Schulz.  That's nonsense.  People weigh pros and cons and make logical and rational decisions.

    That's what people do.  

    Name the congress person that you most love and respect and I'll give you a list of things that he/she "did" that we all know are completely against what we know they believe.

    The standard you are holding Obama is not only unfair, it is not being consistently applied by you.

    If it was, you'd see every politician in DC as a republican because they have all conceded on something at some point for a greater good or self interest.


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    It is completely connected to the reality of what matters - to wit, what was DONE as opposed to what was said.

    Look I do not care "what Obama really wants!"

    I care about what Obama really DOES.

    He did The Deal.

    Your counterfactual of the awful things that would have happened if he had not done it is a defense of his doing The Deal, but it also includes not having The Deal.

    Parent

    When Wasserman-Shultz is the (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:18:23 PM EST
    freakin' leader of the party, I'll look at it like that.  Are they calling the bill 'wasserman-shultzcare' now?

    If your name is going to be on the policy you dang well better not compromise on the key issue you believe in.

    I don't think Obama did that, since he was never for single payer or a public option, but then he does not get to call it a progressive bill.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#92)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    the leader of the party is responsible for everything done on his watch, regardless?

    That leads to some interesting concepts.  The Clinton Financial crisis. The Clinton DADT policy. The Clinton DOMA. Etc.

    Parent

    Well, in fact (none / 0) (#95)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    if by financial crisis you mean the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Clinton is blamed for DADT, DOMA, and for Glass-Steagall.  And the defenses are "this was the best we could do at the time," etc.  Presidents are held responsible for the legislation that they sign.  Whether or not that seems reasonable is something we can argue over.  For example, I doubt President Clinton wants to be remembered among the progressive community primarily for welfare reform, but he did in fact sign the legislation the third time around.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:01:47 PM EST
    If we had a "financial crisis" under Clinton, I'd sure as heck like another one to get here soon!

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:47:43 PM EST
    the leader of the party is responsible for nothing done on his watch, regardless?

    Unless, of course, it's something you like ...

    Parent

    Pretty much, yeah (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    People do blame Clinton for DADT, welfare reform, DOMA, NAFTA....etc.

    Also he gets credit for the good things- balancing the budget and a decent economy, etc. YMMV.

    Parent

    May have been too flip there (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 07:13:34 PM EST
    It is an interesting question. But the responsibility and power of the president to exert will and effect outcomes seems to me a lot stronger than one member of Congress. Else all he is is a state dinner figurehead.

    Parent
    Actually, Obama DID promise a public option (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:45:27 PM EST
    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange -- a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans -- including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest."

    - President Obama - Weekly Radio Address - July 17, 2009
    Link

    Parent

    Yeah he promised it (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:57:47 PM EST
    I'm just not convinced he ever really cared about getting it.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 07:09:13 PM EST
    Agreed.

    Parent
    I am completely with BTD on this (none / 0) (#98)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:54:19 PM EST
    It is completely irrelevant what Obambi or any president/pol says, it is only relevant what they do. And Obambi does everything he can to please the repugs and screw the middle class.

    Words may shew a man's Wit, but Actions his Meaning.- Ben Franklin

    Parent

    Your comments would have much (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    more credibility if you would stop referring to Obama as Obambi; it's a cheap and annoying nickname, and it detracts from your message.

    Parent
    Regardless (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    of what Obama might have wanted, which we cannot know, here is what he says now:

    Now we're seeing more optimistic economic forecasts for the year ahead, in part due to the package of tax cuts I signed last month. I fought for that package because, while we are recovering, we plainly still have a lot of work to do. The recession rocked the foundations of our economy, and left a lot of destruction and doubt in its wake.

    The tax cuts and other progress we made in December were a much-needed departure from that pattern. Let's build on that admirable example and do our part, here in Washington, so the doers, builders, and innovators in America can do their best in 2011 and beyond. Thanks everyone, and have a nice weekend.

    Find one reference in the speech to the perhaps not so great, deficit-expanding policy that is giving tax cuts to the rich.  It's not there.  

    Obama owns this policy and he will run on it in 2012.  It's not like he's going to win an election by saying "I didn't actually want to do a lot of that..."  

    Parent

    Well, Clinton did win an (none / 0) (#89)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    election saying that he didn't want to do a lot of that.  At least, that's how I remember it playing out at the time.  But whether or not he was genuinely disappointed with some of the things that went down while he was President, the GOP House and Senate did give him cover.

    I think that the people in the White House now were not totally unhappy about losing the House in the last election.  I imagine that the landslide was a bit too much for their tastes, but I am not entirely sure that they were unhappy that the elevation of Boehner will help run cover for their support of more conservative policies.

    It will not surprise me if we see history repeat itself in the next election with this President claiming that he didn't like signing some things that he signed, but this crop of Republicans is much more committed to denying him a win and destroying him politically than even Gingrich was with Clinton - at least that is my feeling about this crowd - and I think that things are going to play out differently.  I don't think that this White House is clever enough to outsmart their current opposition.  We'll see though...

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    does not have the political smarts that Clinton had. The GOP might have gotten somethings in legislation but he made them scream and curse and squirm.

    I have to wonder if the GOP won't be nicer to Obama since he's giving them everything they want. They know he won't fight them so they get to get the legislation they want without having to put up a fight.

    Parent

    The Republicans are ruthless (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:06:19 PM EST
    and if Obama continues to play the victim, they will victimize him more.  That's what they do.  Clinton was called a victim, IIRC, but he never really played the victim.  I think that's why he managed to prevail politically and maintain public support under such constant attack.

    Parent
    How do you know that exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 04:51:25 PM EST
    I mean what, other than pure speculation about self interests, leads you to that conclusion?

    Parent
    "Pure speculation" about (none / 0) (#104)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:03:49 PM EST
    the self interests of a politician to remain in office and continue to be politically relevant?  You really think that most politicians aren't driven by those self interests on some level?

    The Obama Administration's cynical desire to remain politically viable is obvious, imo.

    Whether or not they are clever enough to prevail in their quest in the face of these particular opponents in history is not entirely clear, imo.

    Parent

    you can honestly say that !?!? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:47:46 PM EST
    The Gingrich crowd tried  to impeach Clinton and you can sit there and say they are harder on Obambi???? Unbelievable

    Parent
    You know, you raise an (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    excellent point about Clinton's impeachment.  And I would add to your point all of the pointless, but endless investigations that they undertook.  But there is something crazier to me about this crowd than that one in the 90s.  These people strike me as far more removed from reality than the group in the Gingrich era.  Don't get me wrong, I thought that no one could out do the Gingrich crowd's brand of crazy back then, but I really think that these people now are off the scale.  Newt was interested in bringing home the bacon - only exactly how he cooked it up - but still understood that bringing it home was integral to his political survival.  This new crop is all about slash and burn.  That's why I think that they are so dangerous.  And what's more is that Obama, unlike Clinton, keeps diving into the snake pit.  The reality is that the reason Gingrich et al felt the need to go as far as impeachment was that Clinton was pretty skilled at evading their other more conventional attacks.

    But that's just my opinion.  In any case, I honestly think you make a great point, but I still think we've gone to crazy to the tenth power with the current crop of people.

    Parent

    If Newtie (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:00:47 PM EST
    and the Contract For America crowd had the power of the internet and the strong FOX News, they could have been much worse.

    Parent
    But the party had not moved (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:10:19 PM EST
    nearly as far right as it has now - and "right" might be an unfair characterization of the latest group to the people of the traditional right - I think that this current crop is off the scale as I said.  They are so far removed from American Democracy in some cases that, for me, it is difficult to say that they that they fit into the American political spectrum at all.

    Parent
    If it was not ihis policy all he had to (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    do was nothing. He pushed to get the tax cuts extended. He owns the policy now.

    Parent
    Do nothing (none / 0) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    and let taxes rise on everyone, hence breaking his other campaign promise.

    He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't and he took the path that kept the promise to the middle and lower class.

    That's the proper framing of the issue.

    Parent

    Since when does Obama have a problem ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    ... with breaking campaign promises?  Campaign promises?!?  Why, they're just so ...

    ... 2008.

    He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't and he took the path that kept the promise to the middle and lower class
    .

    No he didn't.  By agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he actually did break (yet another) major campaign promise.

    Oh, well.

    Just add it to the ever-growing list ...

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    The 1993 tax bill was Clinton breaking his promise to not provide tax cuts for the middle class.

    Campaign promises are nothing.

    They have never mattered.

    He damned by me because he extended the Bush tax cuts, not because he kept or didn't keep a campaign promise.

    For crissakes, the number of campaign promises all pols break is not worth even keeping track of.

    Parent

    Weelllll..... (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:06:05 PM EST
    George HW Bush lost a lot of support from his "Read My Lips" promise.....

    Parent
    He lost more support (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:32 PM EST
    because the economy was in bad shape.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    But yet everyone still remembers that broken campaign promise - one of the most memorable.

    Parent
    It helps (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    If you don't make a campaign promise into a slogan before you break it.

    Parent
    Presidents and SOTU campaigns (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    I'm saying he would then get (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    middle class tax cuts all on their own. Even if campaign promises mattered, no one would call that breaking the promise.

    I said at the time that he was unwilling to stomach even a little bit of political discomfort nearly 2 years before the election. I just don't understand that attitude so I am left with the conclusion that he is just fine with the complete extension of the Bush tax cuts becoming his new policy.

    Parent

    The tax cuts were his policy (none / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:49:18 AM EST
    In fact he did not stop at extending the "Bush tax cuts," he improved on them by making them even more generous to the wealthy. Of course those making $20,000 pay more but what they heck, Obama's tax  policies are great policies for helping him raise the billion dollars he wants for his reelection campaign.  


    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    Give him a chance. Be realistic. Be reasonable.

    Or don't.  I honestly don't think Obama cares anymore and good for him.

    That seems to be deliberately mocking those who already know that O doesn't care about them, and who found themselves under the bus long ago.

    Then again, maybe you are displaying ignorance.  But if so, it's willful ignorance because commenters here have responded to you civilly and with real information.  Information NEVER acknowledged as received (even in rebuttal) and then completely ignored the next time you join our conversation.

    Parent

    You captured it the approach, for a (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    good example, see Lilburro's comment above, essentially, on how President Obama went from hostage to Stockholm syndrome.

    Parent
    I don't think I realized (none / 0) (#96)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    quite how lefty some here were.  I believe that the far extremes of each party have a place in the discussion, but when it comes to formulating real policy, they have to be marginalized.  Most people believe that.

    The problem is that most people don't see themselves as being on the fringes.

    I think if you see HCR as a conservative program, you are the fringe.  Just as I see those who favor the outlawing of abortions (even in the event of rape) as being on the fringe to some degree.

    Everyone agrees on the principle.  What offends you IMHO is that I am saying the you are not a mainstream liberal/progressive/whatever we call it these days.

    That's fine. It is what it is.

    Parent

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:00:02 PM EST
    I'm not NEARLY as lefty as many people on here - I'm much, much more in the middle.

    And I think HCR was way too conservative.

    Parent

    Oh, please (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:39:01 PM EST
    I think if you see HCR as a conservative program, you are the fringe.

    Seriously?!?  You don't think that's so transparent?  I'm a moderate/liberal Democrat, and (as it's been pointed out numerous times) this POS HCR plan is a warmed over version of the Republican plan of '93.  In fact, 40% of Americans think that the reforms do not do enough to lower costs or regulate insurance companies.

    In other words, it's too conservative.

    Parent

    If you had read my previous (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:07:37 AM EST
    responses to you, you would know that I never claimed to be a mainstream progressive.  Unlike jbindc I am and have always been very far to the left.  I am far from offended to have that recognized.  But you're quite right:  it is very fine, and it is what it is.

    I am offended when you ignore the facts presented to you by many well-informed commenters here and continue to demonstrate willful ignorance.

    You blithely ignore information and just talk about how very, very lefty some are here.  And I expect that you will never acknowledge Yman's response.  And when we next hear from you about it, you will be back with the "fringe" comment.  Or something like it.

    Parent

    I'm not worried about being fair to Obama (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by kmblue on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    I'm worried about whether Obama will be fair to the vast majority of Americans.

    So far, not so good.

    Is ideology important or not? (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    the provision adds fuel to the ideology that the best thing government can do for you is cut your taxes.

    Almost every single thing Obama has done, except for much of the stimulus, lends credence to that notion.  So if that suddenly matters let's apply that standard not just to the past but the present as well.

    Most Progressive in the Last 40 Years (none / 0) (#7)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    I just can't let that pass despite the opposition here to Obamacare (again, he should be happy they gave it his name . . . reclaim the meaning as a wise man said).  HCR was the most progressive legislation of the past 40 years if you consider providing government subsidized healthcare to as many people as possible and expanding healthcare coverage to be progressive ideals.  it just is and history will prove me right on that.  I have absolutely no doubt.

    But I digress . . . Let me tackle this from the opposite end: we know people hate the tax deal but spending cuts of some sort were always going to be required as well.  The place that a middle of the road compromise is playing/could play effectively is defense cuts.  It's the one place that the Tea Party caucus and the Left see eye to eye and it's quietly been happening. Gates' proposed reductions are a great start and the White House seems to be pressing firmly (but quietly) to support it.  Why on earth aren't we all rallying around that to provide a counter to the attacks on entitlements?  I want to see Krugman on the offensive ripping up military waste and the drain of the wars every day.  It's the one argument that cuts across two huge liberal issues (growth of the defense industry and the two wars).  

    How is that not the No.1 Progressive/Liberal talking point every time the budget is mentioned?  It's so obvious it's stupid.  What I believe (and hope) is happening is that there are some real strategic opportunities to use Tea Party momentum to go after some sacred GOP cows.

    That's how this has to be played and so far the White house has done a great job of it.  That's the kind of thing you rarely see critics of The Deal acknowledge.  This is going to be ugly and no one is going to end up happy.  We need to give up on the idea that we are going to fight for months for concessions we know won't happen and focus on what we can get.  And there are some fairly good places that the minds on both sides can meet that don't require us to sell our souls.  Defense spending is the most obvious place.

    On a meta level, I think Obama is rejecting the concept of this turning into an all out war and is trying to outflank the right by jujitsuing their obstructionism and lack of flexibility.  I think it will work and I think it will have surprising benefits, both for the party and the country.

    I also think that The Deal critics will hate it, but they hated Obamacare and they hated the size of the stimulus package and they hated almost everything that smelled of compromise so I don't think Obama should listen to them any more. They've "hated" themselves into irrelevancy with completely unreasonable expectations (present company excluded of course).

    I hope Obama gives a middle of the road message tomorrow that everyone other than the extremes can get behind and then dares the right to upset that plan.

    If he does that, he will succeed. He'll win in 2012. He'll be looked at as a highly successful President and most people will like him other than the extremes.

    Which is, when you think about it, exactly how it probably should be.

    No let the avalanche commence.

    Assumptions (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:49:31 AM EST
    You write "HCR was the most progressive legislation of the past 40 years if you consider providing government subsidized healthcare to as many people as possible and expanding healthcare coverage to be progressive ideals."

    The health bill provides subsidies for the purchase of private health insurance and expands funding of Medicaid. It does not provide health care.

    The expansion of Medicaid is unvarnished progressive. However, the funding of that expansion is not progressive.

    With regard to the subsidies, my own view is that the mouse trap will not work and in fact, it will not significantly expand health insurance coverage because the subsidies and exchanges will prove to be inadequate for that purpose.

    The health bill's good parts, notably Medicaid expansion, are comparable to S-CHiP - link -

    At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960s. [. . .] SCHIP covered 6.6 million children and 670,000 adults at some point during Federal fiscal year 2006, and every state, except Arizona has an approved plan. [. . .] During the administration of George W. Bush, two attempts to expand funding for the program failed when Bush vetoed them. Mr. Bush argued that such efforts were steps toward federalization of health care, and would "steer the program away from its core purpose of providing insurance for poor children and toward covering children from middle-class families." On February 4, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009, expanding the healthcare program to an additional 4 million children and pregnant women, including for the first time legal immigrants without a waiting period.

    Emphasis mine. The Medicaid expansion is expected to increase the coverage by some 12 million.  This is excellent. However, because the funding mechanism after 2016 is somewhat uncertain, even without changes now, (and this is the argument for federalizing Medicaid), this number is not set in stone.

    My point is actually a different one. I would have strongly argued that the health bill was the most progressive piece of legislation since the mid -1960s IF the House funding mechanism had been kept in place. It wasn't.

    The part of your analysis that is lacking, in my view, is the failure to understand the importance of tax policy, to the issue of HOW you pay for government, to progressive policy.

    Unlike the 1993 tax bill which funded government generally, the funding for the health bill is NOT progressive.

    This is a recurring theme of mine.

    Parent

    The difference between the far left and the left (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    I care primarily about who gets healthcare.

    You care primarily about who gets paid for providing the healthcare.

    in the big scheme of priorities, I'd be fine with a 100% privatized healthcare system that covered 100% of the American population reasonably well in a way that was subsidized by the government.

    That doesn't address costs, but costs are not my primary concern.  Maximizing the number of lives saved is.

    That's the definition of being a liberal IMHO.

    Parent

    There is no far left movement (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    within this country. By defining policies that prior to Obama becoming president were very run of the mill Progressive policies as far left, you have now effectively made Palin and the tea party the political center. Congratulations.

     

    Parent

    If you care primarily about who (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    gets healthcare, I don't understand why you like the ACA so much, or think it is so progressive, because the ACA has so much more to do with health insurance than it does with actual care.

    Our system of care has been so corrupted and co-opted by insurance that it boggles my mind why anyone who truly cared about who does and does not have access to health care in this country would get behind legislation that does nothing to eliminate the insurance industry's stranglehold.

    How bad is it when the people who write the legislation are so blinded by the wads of cash being funneled into their campaigns that they continue to believe and to perpetuate the belief that having insurance is the same thing as having actual care?  

    And people like you repeat that mantra seemingly without question - you've done it over and over and over again, in spite of being informed that having one does not equal getting the other.

    Why do you continue to cling to that myth?  How does it really serve anyone but those in the insurance industry?  

    I hate to break it to you, but costs - the cost of insurance, the deductibles, the co-pays, the difference between in-network and out, who's in the plan, who isn't - these are things the ACA left wide open.   If you still can't afford the insurance, and if you manage to pay the premiums and can't afford the out-of-pocket costs of the care you need, how is it possible to maximize the lives saved?

    And what of the lives lost between now and when this Rube Goldberg contraption is - if it ever is - fully implemented?  If we're about saving lives, why the delay?  If this is a crisis, what does all this waiting do to solve it?

    One thing's for sure: we don't agree on the definition of "liberal."


    Parent

    Web site (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    The Kaiser Foundation has developed a calculator for expected insurance premiums and expected subsidies.

    Go here Link

    The calculations are based on insurance with an 70% actuarial value, which is the standard for applying subsidies.  Consumer Reports assumes a sample plan with a 70% actuarial value will have about a $1500 deductible and 20% coinsurance. Of course, this is after the individual pays their portion of the premiums....and since the subsidies are in the form of a tax CREDIT, I'm not sure how or if the subsidies will be applied during the year, or if the individual will have to wait until the next tax year for reimbursement (if he subsidies still exist in 2014, or if they're cut in favor of "austerity)?

    As you know and as ABG can't seem to find it in himself to figure out (because that might dilute some of the Obama love), the subsidies aren't going to make insurance affordable to those who can't afford it now.

    Parent

    It's so frustrating... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    I ran my numbers and the program calculated that for someone my age and income, my premium would be $10,000+ and not only would I not qualify for any subsidy, but:

    The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $6,250. Whether a person or family reaches this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services they use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year.

    The minimum coverage available will have an actuarial value of 60%. This means that for all enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 60% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. Specific provisions like deductibles and copyaments may vary from plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs for any given individual or family will depend on their health care expenses. Preventive services will be covered with no cost sharing required

    This is affordable?  Has anything to do with care?

    ABG is, I'm afraid, a lost cause; there is some slight amusement value in coming here to see how inventive and convoluted his arguments for Obama are becoming, but considering there is still a pretty large percentage of people who share his arguments, it's not that easy to laugh about it.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    Romneycare (which is a bad word because it is attached to a republican but whatever) now covers 98% of the state and the number is growing.  I've said that before, you've countered that it doesn't work nationally and I counter that you have no idea how it will work because it wasn't implemented.

    Maybe we should see what happens before calling it a failure.

    Parent

    It does not matter (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    what I think will work or not work.

    The bill has been passed. We can judge it on its own merits.

    The Massachusetts experience matters not now.

    Parent

    Keep it honest (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:59:16 AM EST
    I care primarily about who gets healthcare. You care primarily about who gets paid for providing the healthcare.

    Wrote something like that again and I will ban you from my threads.

    I accept that you agree with the Beltway types that tax policy is not a "progressive" issue.

    Just say that next time.

    Parent

    Just silly (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    That doesn't address costs, but costs are not my primary concern.  Maximizing the number of lives saved is.

    You can't maximize the number of lives saved without addressing costs.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    You care primarily about lying to yourself in saying that the "affordable care act" actually makes insurance affordable.  It does not.

    I posted it above, but I'll post it again.

    Here is a link to an "ACA" insurance premium calculator.  This calculator is based on a 70% actuarial value insurance plan.  Consumer Reports says a sample 70% actuarial value insurance plan will have about a $1500 deductible and 20% copay.

    Use your brother as an example.  Plug him into the calculator as a 27 year old and his wage as what you'll predict it will be in 2014 or later.  Decide if he can afford his portion of the premium AND a $1500 deductible, AND 20% copay for his medical care.  Then come back and tell us if you REALLY think that the "reform" bill provides health CARE.  Often these individual plans also have a max on prescription drugs of about $2500.  

    Chances are, even you will believe it does not.

    Parent

    Defense cuts (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:30:47 AM EST
    Will never pass muster -  we may not like it, but that's reality.  Besides looking weak on national defense (which the Dems won't do as a group), no member of Congress is going to stand up and say "Cut funding" to an industry that more than likely supplies jobs in almost all of their districts somehow.  And while Gates has proposed some huge cuts (which will make further cuts proposed at this juncture look like piling on), in reality, the kind of cuts I think you envision are never going to happen.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#46)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:50:59 AM EST
    but I see your point of view.

    To complete the circle, your position is exactly where I was on getting a deal through without tax cuts for the rich.  It just wasn't going to happen.

    Raising taxes during a recession was political suicide.

    Parent

    Except (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:00:01 AM EST
    No tax cuts for the rich was wildly popular with most voters.  The vast number of people whose livelihoods depend on defense spending, plus those who have a world view where defense should be our number 1 priority, do not make "defense spending" a popular idea.  You can argue if that's correct or not, but when you potentially threaten the jobs of people in almost every congressional district, it isn't going to be a popular measure.

    Parent
    Should read (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:00:51 AM EST
    The vast number of people whose livelihoods depend on defense spending, plus those who have a world view where defense should be our number 1 priority, do not make "defense spending cuts" a popular idea.


    Parent
    Not a big enough majority (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    when the congressional map is looked at, and that's what really matters.  People in their own districts trying to figure out how it would look to vote to raise taxes during a recession when odds are that the economy was going to stay pretty bad.

    Parent
    2 years till the next election (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    is plenty of time for people to get over it.  Especially if the economy continues to improve.  So unless you believe the taxes would have actually been bad for the economy, I don't see how it follows politically.  Half the time you argue on here that the economy is bound to improve so Obama will win big in 2012.  Here you are arguing that the economy won't improve and you don't want people to blame it on taxes.  Which one is it?

    Unless you believe that taxes would have been a job killer, in which case you should just say that.  FWIW, I do not believe that.  I think taxes would have taken some pressure off the deficit and led to increased gov't spending (as compared to what we will get now) in the next session.  There-by taking pressure off the economy and improving election chances in 2012.

    The middle class voters you need to win an election aren't going to abandon you over a tax vote that raises taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year.

    Parent

    to put it another way (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    you'd have a much better point if this vote were held 2 weeks before an election rather than 2 weeks after.

    Parent
    Defense cuts?? Are you Jon Stewart? (none / 0) (#9)
    by observed on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    Uhh yeah (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:42:57 AM EST
    Defense cuts.

    No idea what Jon Stewart says about it but if he is hitting that point hard, good for him.  I like that guy.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#11)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    we must lower defense spending but if you think that making that the no. 1 political issue for Democrats is going to be a winner I have to disagree.  There's a reason why Democrats during elections do their macho posturing.  Besides, the Tea Party will never cooperate with Democrats on anything, they are just hard-line conservatives (look at the polling) who are hardly issue driven.

    Parent
    If the Tea Party doesn't take the correct position (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    on defense (despite their slogans) they will look hypocritical and Obama still wins and has increased leverage.  

    That's the trick.

    What's lost in the analysis here is that if Obama comes out guns blazing with a left wing speech, his ability to get things done decreases greatly.  He maximizes his leverage with a straight down the middle bipartisan speech, even if he secretly intends to try to push things hard left.

    In other words, regardless of whether Obama's plan is to secretly turn the country socialist or give Wall Street all of the money it wants, the speech would need to appear moderate regardless.

    What we should be rooting for is a speech so widely praised that he gets a minor boost in leverage that he can use to the Dem's advantage.

    The big picture strategy seems completely lost here because we want to hear the words we want to hear.

    There is a much bigger game at foot and thankfully on Obama has proven adept at.

    Parent

    The big picture for many of here is (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    whether good sound legislation that benefits people is passed. So far, IMO the major legislation that has passed pretty much sucks unless you are a wealthy individual or a major corporation.

    Much of Obama's policies and rhetoric have normalize the tea party as traditional as "apple pie."

    And no giving some people health insurance does not equate to universal health care. Insurance for some is not care for all.  

    Parent

    What dimension are we up to, now? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    What's lost in the analysis here is that if Obama comes out guns blazing with a left wing speech, his ability to get things done decreases greatly.  He maximizes his leverage with a straight down the middle bipartisan speech, even if he secretly intends to try to push things hard left.

    Yeah - like there's any chance that Obama is going to do anything other than come out with a middle-of-the-road speech to try to give himself a boost.  Problem is, there's also zero evidence of his willingness to actually use his "leverage" to fight for anything.

    There is a much bigger game at foot and thankfully on Obama has proven adept at.

    Geeeeezus ... is anyone still buying that 11th-dimensional chess argument?

    Parent

    "secretly intends to push things left?" (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    Are you kidding me?

    No, wait - let me put that another way: are you F**king kidding me?

    There is absolutely no evidence that Obama has even a passing interest in the left - none - much less that he has a secret plan to move in that direction.

    If he aims down this new middle he's created, there's only one direction anything's going to be moving in order to "get things done for the American people," and I can guarantee you that it isn't to the left.

    And, once again, a rip-roaring, barn-burner of a speech that has all the talking heads alternately wetting their pants and enjoying the leg tingles, isn't going to do squat for us - it never has.

    Obama is adept at one thing...he has perfected the Art of the Bamboozle; I realize this every time I read one of your comments.

    Parent

    Republicans, and the Tea Party, (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    are to their core hypocritical.  That never appears to hurt them because their hypocrisy is never made an issue by either the media or the Democrats.

    Do you really think cutting defense spending is a bipartisan issue?  You seriously think Obama is going to win in 2012 by uniting the country around lowering defense spending?  You have got to be kidding me.

    I don't really know what you are responding to in this reply.  The gist of this post is

    But judging from what we've heard so far, it seems more likely that Obama's speech will seek to redefine the "center" as something more in line with his own current policy approach and priorities.

    This is a good idea.  Better to situate yourself as the "center" than as "bipartisan."

    I don't think anyone even remotely believes that Obama is going to come out with a left-wing speech.  I'm hopeful that he'll address the housing market and obviously jobs.  If he was going to go bipartisan in this speech I think it would be over the 1099 provision in the healthcare bill.  Which would be fine with me because small business owners gripe about it constantly and IMO it would be a good political move.

    Parent

    "to their core hypocritical" (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    great minds


    Parent
    lilburro (none / 0) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:11:35 AM EST
    You are precisely right.  Their hypocrisy is never made an issue.

    Obama's strategy is the most obvious way to do that if played correctly.

    Now don't get me wrong here people.  I am an Angry Black Obama Supporting Man but he's disappointed me as well.  He could screw this up and go down in flames if he doesn't stand strong at the correct times and back down at others.

    But the strategy of moving to the middle while winning small progressive victories is a solid one and what you have to do with a GOP House.

    He just needs to implment effectively and it's not clear that he will. But dang, the calls for a Ralph Nader SOTU and roll out strategy miss the point entirely.

    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:18:59 AM EST
    I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "calls for a "Ralph Nader SOTU"...all people are asking is that he doesn't leave Social Security on the table.  That's Ralph Nader stuff now?

    We've been twiddling our thumbs for thirty years waiting for Americans to get that Republicans are hypocrites.  It doesn't often happen, but when it does, it only happens with great effort.

    Parent

    I agree with all this (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:18:07 AM EST
    except I think trying to highlight the tea partys hypocrisy is a complete waste of time and energy except to the extent that it makes him look reasonable.

    Parent
    the tea party will look hypocritical (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    and the sky will look blue. do you honestly believe at this point that hypocrisy will phase them?  really?  they are and always have been the very definition of hypocrisy.

    I have no idea what he will say tonight but whatever it is the right will say he is a socialist and the left will say he is a republican.  we should all know that by now.  and when it comes down to it I dont think it matters much what he says.  at this point I am far more interested in what he does.

    for example the carefully worded thing yesterday about not "endorsing" cuts to social security while not saying he would oppose them.

    Parent

    I don't care whether it phases them (none / 0) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    I care about how they are perceived.  They will never change but opinions about them can be.

    Parent
    I wonder whos opinion (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    you mean?  it seems to me that pretty much everyone except the tea party already knows the are full of it.

    I think its unlikely it will cause them any deep introspection.


    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    They have some surprising support from the moderates for certain of their proposals, particularly defense spending.

    If Bachmann really does give a Tea Party rebuttal, I think it will signal a real conservative divide that we'd be stupid not to exploit.

    How to exploit it is an open issue, but there is definitely an opportunity there.  Normally any cry of defense cuts is a way to call the Dems weak on defense, but there is a unique and fleeting opportunity here.  The storyline is playing out that republicans will be forced to call other republicans weak on defense: Link

    If we're smart, we can take advantage of that weakness in the same way that conservatives took advantage of the dems when the wars were rammed through.  

    Now is the time to kill the "spending cuts" = "weak on defense" meme once and for all.

    That would be a huge win for the dems and one that would extend far beyond Obama's term.

    Parent

    LOL. No offense ABG, but there is no daylight (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    whatsoever between Bachmann and Ryan other than the latter sounds a little more polished and a little less crazy.  The Bachmann rebuttal is simply one person trying to ram herself in the limelight as much as possible for her political future.  She wants to be the darling of the Tea Party and fancies herself a Presidential candidate.  There is no divide or intellectual diversity in the republican party right now.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    mostly.  but I do think there are still a few republicans who can be embarrassed by the Bachmans of the world.

    Parent
    having said that (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    find the clip of Eric Cantor being asked to call out the birthers on MTP last sunday.

    Fred Astair could not tap dance better.

    Parent

    Very few. Ryan is delivering the (none / 0) (#44)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    "offical" rebuttal while Bachmann is pissing everyone off giving her own "Tea Party" rebuttal.  How much space is there between Ryan and Bachmann?  Look at Ryan's roadmap where he privatizes SS, replaces Medicare with insufficient vouchers, increases taxes on the middle/working class and uses that revenue to pay for cutting taxes on business, wealthy, etc.  Ryan's plan is too contraversial for the Republican where only about 13 are willing to endorse it.  He is the chair of the budget committee.

    Parent
    Ryan (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    and Bachman are the same with the difference being he is smarter and is able to wrap his crazyness in a nice corporate wrapper.  no disagreement.

    but I think Ryan is a much bigger threat.

    Parent

    I think they're both ridiculous (none / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    and the GOP is just punting on giving a potential Presidential candidate an opportunity to speak.

    Parent
    Ryan is a Republican who (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:23 PM EST
    has Obama's trust and respect. Have not read that he has said the same thing about Bachman even though their policies are much the same.

    Parent
    Yup. Look at it this way (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:13:39 PM EST
    There will be 8 Republicans on a POTUS primary debate stage less than a year from now. The only thing that will differentiate them is the approach they take to appeal to the conservative base. Bachmann will spout the tea party rhetoric, Romney will say the same thing using other buzzwords.

    Note: NONE of them will attempt to appeal to the center, no matter how it is defined.

    Parent

    Oh, no (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:15:08 PM EST
    The first Republican presidential debate is scheduled for May 2, 2011. For those of you counting - that's 97 days from now.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    it would

    Parent
    Lot of 'ifs' in there but I agree (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    it would be great if it plays out like that. Some big Republican momentum behind defense cuts would go a long way towards making that truly a bipartisan idea.

    In a world where (cue movie voice) Dems are willing to put SS on the table, maybe Repubs will put serious cuts in defense spending on the table.

    Not holding my breath on the latter.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:20 AM EST
    doesn't triangulate though. If he triangulated we would get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama simply caves.

    Why cave? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:38:57 AM EST
    Obama is popular.  The public does not see him as caving.... the last poll had him high for holding his own ground.  

    If asked if Obama is acting out his principles, I would say yes.  I see Obama as a conservative that passes conservative legislation.  He is doing more damage to the middle class than Bush as he is accelerating the imposition of conservative policy on the country.

    Obama's whole econ team is now made up of WSers and people actually think the admin is going to stop before wages collapse.  I don't.  They want it all, they are going to take it and Obama is going to give them more than they demand because he wants there money to get elected.

    Parent

    Here is the plan (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:03:29 PM EST
    "A White House official says President Barack Obama will call for a five-year freeze in non-security, discretionary spending during his State of the Union address."

    "Obama will also call for lawmakers to back a five-year plan put forth by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to save $78 billion in defense spending."

    Link

    Not applying the BTD bargaining tactics, that's for sure.  The real question is, where will we end up from here.