Is It a Scare Tactic?

So it would seem that President Obama has asked the Democratic Caucus to accept the tax cut compromise or face the possibility of a double dip recession, and more than once I've heard talking heads calling it a "scare tactic."

And just now, I received an e-mail from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

DEVELOPING: Today, President Obama told congressional Democrats to cave on the tax cuts and accept his "deal" or the economy will be crushed.

Seriously? That's the kind of scare tactics we'd expect from George W. Bush, not Barack Obama.

My question, which absolutely no one in the mainstream media has addressed, is this: Is it really a scare tactic? Really? Do you think this President would purposely mislead the public, or is he relaying what his advisers think will happen to the economy if nothing happens and we get hit with a tax hike on January 1? Do you think the President just wants this deal to go through just because he made it? Or do you think he felt the urgency to strike a deal after the Democrats in the Senate failed to deliver a vote on two separate bills, one to limit the tax cut to the $250,000 mark, and a second to limit it to $1 million. They both failed. Five Democratic senators voted against it, including intrepid progressive and lame duck Russ Feingold.

We hear all the angry talk on the liberal and progressive side on how Obama is shitting on his own base, yelling at them to shut the fuck up and deal with it; but where were those loud, angry voices when the Democrats pushed off the vote for the tax cuts to expire on the top 2% until after the election? Where were the mighty progressives jamming up the phone lines in the Capitol Building demanding to have that vote before the election as President Obama had asked? Where was the "caving" talk then?

Now the train has left the station, the Congress is in a lame duck session and in a couple of weeks we'll have a Republican majority in the House. And because Obama strikes a deal to temporarily extend the tax cuts to the rich for 2 years in exchange for a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits, a child tax credit increase, a payroll tax cut and college tuition tax credits, when no one really thinks of the deficit issue as a priority compared to job creation or the economy, now he's the enemy, now he's caving when he's the only one not playing politics with this issue.

On The Rachel Maddow Show a few nights ago, Rachel pinpointed video at the Obama press conference saying he'd have to take John Boehner "at his word" in reference to a question of raising the debt ceiling. Anyone knows if that doesn't happen, the US defaults on its loans and there is a global economic collapse. Boehner may be dumb, but he ain't stupid. And yet Maddow basically used this as a point of ridicule to show how naive Obama was to "trust" Boehner.

Today on the Thom Hartmann Show, Hartmann was miffed that Obama "caved" because already two Republican politicians whom he didn't refer to by name said that, of course they would have voted for an extension of unemployment benefits just before Christmas, they're not heartless after all. You mean the same Republicans that threatened to block all legislation in the Senate until the tax cuts issue was settled, those Republicans? So we can trust their word about a vote not taken after the fact, but Obama can't trust Boehner not to intentionally collapse the economy? Now you tell me who's being naive?

While I'm not thrilled with the concession (and neither is Obama, by the way), I am glad a compromise was reached. It was a compromise, not a cave. A cave gives you nothing in return. And I, too will take the president's word that come two years from now, he'll fight this again.

I hope that the Democrats who are not bringing this plan to a vote can really make something happen - and as co-contributor Jennifer said in a previous post, they'd better come up with something at least as good as what the President bargained for the middle class and unemployed.  Otherwise, they'll all have egg on their face and millions of people will be screwed.

To me, this was the health care fight all over again. I had a Twitter back and forth with Dylan Ratigan (of all people) back during the health care debate and I basically came to the conclusion that being in a position of already having health care, I can't morally fight against a compromised deal if it's going to give people access to health care that previously couldn't attain it. Who am I to put myself in a position to deny others? If that means forgoing the public option in the immediate future, so be it. (By the way, if you hadn't guessed, Ratigan's response was, "But the insurance companies blah, blah, blah! The banks blah, blah, blah!")

I feel the same way here. I can't say, "Fuck you! No deal! Vote NO!" when I know that 2 million people will lose their unemployment benefits and everyone else will have their taxes raised when it won't readily affect me. If my taxes were raised, I could survive it. A lot of people can't. And I'm not going to stand on my ideological pedestal at their expense.

Kucinich To Vote 'Yes' on Health Care Bill

Thank you, Dennis.

"This is a defining moment for whether or not we'll have any opportunity to move off square one on the issue of health care. And so even though I don't like the bill, I've made a decision to support it in the hopes that we can move towards a more comprehensive approach once this legislation is done," [Kucinich] said.

Now if only more progressives could see the forest for the trees instead of working with teabaggers in trying to kill the bill.

I like Dennis Kucinich, but before he decided to vote in favor of the bill, I thought he was wrong. As I think progressives are wrong to throw him under the bus after his years of service because of this one vote.

Jane Hamsher: Dennis Kucinich has called a press conference for tomorrow. Howard Fineman is reporting that Kucinich will vote “yes” on health care...

If... he settles for some worthless reassurances that “Obama will work toward it in the future” (which nobody but Lynn Woolsey is dumb enough to actually believe), or a meaningless symbolic vote that achieves little more than 15 minutes of futile grandstanding, good luck to him. A thousand people have donated over $16,000 to Dennis since yesterday to thank him for standing up for what he believes in. We’ll be asking him to return it.

During the presidential campaign, I donated $50 to Dennis Kucinich when he ran with an idea that he could finance his entire campaign with $50 million. He was looking for $50 from one million donors. He didn't get anywhere close. Are you telling me there aren't a million progressives willing to give $50? Or two million to give $25?

And yet Jane Hamsher gets all crazy on this? Wanting money back from the most liberal representative in the House and working with Grover Norquist to kill the health care bill, under some delusion that they'd what? Start over again next month?  Pathetic.

Dennis Kucinich fought hard, but he's smart enough to know that killing this bill will kill any attempt at expanding health care for at least another decade.

ADDING...  Meanwhile, MoveOn.org has already raised $1 million in just a few days to challenge anti-Health Care Democrats in their primaries. I know they're a much larger organization than FDL, but more and more it just makes it look like Hamsher has jumped the shark.

Every Vote Is Important...

...not just Joe Lieberman's, or Ben Nelson's, or Olympia Snowe's. And while these Senators are wielding their power because of an elusive 60th vote and making health care legislation exponentially weaker in the process, the White House assumes that the liberal votes will be there in the end. They shouldn't be so quick to count on those votes if they keep stepping on the throats of liberals and progressives instead of the extortionists they've been trying to appease for the last three months.

Now that the Senate Democratic leadership has stripped the last vestige of the public option — the Medicare buy-in provision — from its bill, progressives are feeling doubly betrayed.

“It’s time for the president to get his hands dirty,” Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, said in a statement this week. “Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares.”

...“I don’t sleep well,” [Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie] Sanders said. “I am struggling with this issue very hard, trying to sort out what is positive in this bill, what is negative in the bill, what it means for our country if there is no health insurance legislation, when we will come back to it.”

This in combination with Ben Nelson's new movement of the goalposts for his vote is having everyone walking a fine, thread-bare tightrope.

Although I still think this whole thing may backfire, as I believe not passing anything would be a more devastating blow to the Democratic party and the progressive agenda than passing a weak bill, I really do want to see liberals and progressives push back hard and let it be known that they can't be taken for granted. Their votes count just as much.

This Is Perfect

Booman (Via Cesca): "Yesterday was probably the most embarrassing day yet for the progressive blogosphere during the short reign of the Obama administration. So, now is probably a good time to just let loose and register my disgust with the movement I've been a part of for the last five years.

If you supported Obama during the primaries, you know who you are and this does not necessarily apply to you. For the rest of you, you spent the primaries either shilling for Clinton and telling us our guy was all talk and no show, or you spent them bitching that David Plouffe wouldn't respond to and obey your emailed wisdom. As soon as he won the presidency, you started bitching about his appointments. As soon as he became president, you started bitching about his messaging, his framing, his agenda, and his lack of deference to your opinion. I want to know where the point was in this process when Obama was supposed to conclude that you were his allies and that you were responsible for his victory. When was he supposed to conclude that he owed you something, or that you had any respect for him, or that you credited his good intentions, or that you understood the myriad responsibilities of the job might mean that your pet issues might have to wait six months, a year, or two years to get to the top of his agenda.

You call him a warmonger, but he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. He ends torture and allows his Attorney General to investigate it, and you call him a torturer. He tries to enact health care reform with a robust public option and you accuse him of seeking every opportunity to sell-out to the insurance industry. He bails out the cratering financial services industry and prevents a second Great Depression, and you accuse him of selling his soul to corporate CEO's. I'm not saying that all of these criticisms lack validity. I'm not saying that people shouldn't advocate for the things they care about passionately. I just want to know where you get the fucking idea that an anonymous White House staffer who gets asked about all this criticism would feel obligated to show you deference and respect."

I've increasingly felt this way for the last few months now, very early on with DADT and DOMA, and now with the health care reform debate. It seems to me that everyone has their billy clubs out ready to pounce on any perceived slight by the White House, whether on the right (which is expected) or the left (which is surprising and depressing).

We're 9½ months into a new administration that started in the deepest of ditches on January 20th. Think about it: you really couldn't get handed something much worse. And despite some of the accomplishments that President Obama and his administration have succeeded on in just 9 months, there's been nothing but the feeling of "it's not good enough, or fast enough" when it comes to a specific issue that any one person can have.

Even now I look into health care debates online where some of the Progressive commenters who support single payer say, "Obama is worse than Bush." Really? Did you just say that George W. Bush could do a better job than President Obama when it comes to health care reform? The guy that cut S-CHIP? That George Bush? The guy who signed Medicare Part D into law without the means to pay for it? Is that the Bush you're talking about? And that's just on the health care front.

All the talk lately was about how Obama had too many balls in the air all at once, but if one of those balls wasn't Medicare for All or repealing DADT immediately, it wasn't good enough.

So yes, I am in agreement with Booman and Bob Cesca. You have every right to voice your opinion and feel passionate about the issues that mean something to you. But if it isn't 100% to your liking or it isn't fast enough for you, just take a deep breath and think about what the alternative might have been.

Meet the new boss, DEFINITELY not the same as the old boss.

On Glenn Greenwald's Post of 11/23

On his Salon blog today, Greenwald wrote about the disappointment progressives are feeling with the Obama appointments so far. Give it a looksee.

For the most part, I agree with Greenwald. Obama never presented himself as a Progressive, and according to Greenwald, although Markos Moulitsas suggested that "progressives refrain from endorsing or supporting any of the Democratic candidates unless they work for that support, make promises and concessions important to the progressive agenda," progressives ignored that advice and just assumed that Obama was on our side because he is the antithesis of the Bush Administration.

But here's the thing. If you wanted a true progressive candidate, Dennis Kucinich was your man. Am I wrong on this? But Kucinich couldn't raise two nickels to rub together. I am on the Kuchinich list and he had a fundraising plan. To raise $50 million, he sent out a campaign message asking one million people to donate $50. I thought this was a great plan. Surely, there are many more than a million progressives in the country - $50 million should be easy. I sent him $50.00... and then never heard a word about it. There was no fundraising thermostat, no talk about it during his few appearances with the mainstream media. Nothing. Kucinich never got the support of the progressives, at least not monetarily.

So the liberals and progressives who thought that in Barack Obama they were going to get a popular Dennis Kucinich, they were just fooling themselves. Not to say that Obama doesn't have any liberal tendencies. And this is where I disagree with Glenn.

"...Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician. That is what he has been since he's been in the Senate, and more importantly, it's what he made clear -- both explicitly and through his actions -- that he intended to be as President."

While it may be true that Obama didn't let the "left" dictate his moves as McCain let the religious conservative wing call all the shots (as qualified by his decision making processes), I don't believe that Obama is a centrist. He may lean towards the center, but I truly believe it's from the left side. And I completely disagree with David Sirota's following statement:

"...we live in a culture that now organizes around celebrity - and Obama knew it, and knew that lots of left organizations aren't really ideological - they are, if anything, organized around the Democratic Party and Bush hatred. So he basically figured out that if he could become a celebrity - and a Democratic Bush-hating one - he could swallow up a huge part of the 'progressive infrastructure' and organize it around him..."

To come to the conclusion that Obama's campaign strategy was to be the celebrity candidate and dismiss basically every speech he gave, every policy plan he articulated, is so cynical that it's too much for me to accept. Is Sirota saying that McCain's "celebrity" ads were more grounded in truth than previously thought? I find that ridiculous.

There will always be someone who is disappointed in decisions that the future administration will make, but when has any administration ever been able to please everyone? And you'd think after reading the blogs these past three weeks since the election and listening to the pundits, that it's all over for Obama even before he takes office.

Now maybe I'm being naive, and Greenwald and Sirota are far more intelligent than I'll ever be, but as I was saying to a friend of mine during one of our many glass half full/half empty debates, it's going to take a long time to reverse the destruction left in the wake of Hurricane W. And for the pendulum to swing back to the left, it's going to have to travel through the center. Once the moderates see that leaning to the left may actually work, they may be more inclined in that direction as well. It's the boiling frog theory. If we slowly move back to the left with a ride through the center along the way, a lot more may be accomplished. But if we try an Evel Knievel rocket launch toward the left, we might just fall into Snake River Canyon.