Shit that Liberals Believe

[Seth Milner]

Just pretend it's a parable.

That would take the joy of ridicule away from your post.

A little harsh? I thought it was a funny alternate literal reading of your analogy.
Happy Holidays, Seth Milner, probably won't happen often.
You got that right! Happy, happy, merry, merry back at you. . . until we clash again.

[homerfobe]

Just pretend it's a parable.

That would take the joy of ridicule away from your post.

A little harsh? I thought it was a funny alternate literal reading of your analogy.
Happy Holidays, Seth Milner, probably won't happen often.
You got that right! Happy, happy, merry, merry back at you. . . until we clash again.

Brown-nose much Seth?

[Seth Milner]

I would say you were an obnoxious ass; but you know that already and you enjoy the attention.

[Vrede too]

How Progressives Won in 2015
A look back at a year of historic grassroots victories for CREDO Action’s 3.9 million members.



:thumbsup:

[Vrede too]

Buyer's Remorse: How Obama Let Progressives Down (book description)

... From climate change to gun safety to, yes, even health care, Obama’s legacy on important issues falls far short of what could have been. Time and again, he let down his most impassioned supporters—the ones who used their powerful voices to vote for change—neglecting their priorities and wasting his potential by either not doing enough or, worse, repeating the errors of his predecessor....

How President Obama Disappointed Liberals During His Tenure (author video)

Jacket blurb by Bernie Sanders:
“Bill Press makes the case why, long after taking the oath of office, the next president of the United States must keep rallying the people who elected him or her on behalf of progressive causes. That is the only way real change will happen. Read this book.”

I would add (they may be listed in the book):

Relying too much on congressional Dems to take the lead;
Escalating the Afghan War;
Not prosecuting the Iraq War criminals;
Not prosecuting the torturers;
Not prosecuting the people that crashed the economy;
Not fighting Citizens United hard enough, we're still pushing him to take executive action on disclosure for federal contractors that make campaign donations;
Not reining in out of control military spending;
Not slashing nuclear arms;
Despite some differences, being too accommodating towards Israel;
Continuing and expanding the spying on Americans and our allies.

What else would you put on the list?

[billy.pilgrim]

Allowing palin and the sort to dominate the discussion on health care

Allowing the aca to be called obamacare - that alone dooms it in most of the country

extending the bush tax cuts

[Vrede too]

Allowing palin and the sort to dominate the discussion on health care

Agreed, I only skipped it since the book description and video both mentioned it, with the video focusing on his caving in on the public option after having rejected even debating single payer.

Allowing the aca to be called obamacare - that alone dooms it in most of the country

That had already happened before the Dems and Obama also started calling it Obamacare. Unless it's repealed or fails miserably, the inaccurate name will enhance his legacy.

extending the bush tax cuts

Good addition.

[O Really]

]That had already happened before the Dems and Obama also started calling it Obamacare. Unless it's repealed or fails miserably, the inaccurate name will enhance his legacy.[/color]

Could be, but generally things named by those who don't like you don't often come out that well. "Hooverville" comes to mind, along with "Reaganomics" and "Bush League." (maybe kidding about that last one)

[Vrede too]

Yeah, I should have said *could* enhance his legacy. If not, serves him right for caving in on the public option after having rejected even debating single payer.

Any Obama disappointments for you that we haven't listed yet?

[rstrong]

That had already happened before the Dems and Obama also started calling it Obamacare. Unless it's repealed or fails miserably, the inaccurate name will enhance his legacy.

It *will* be repealed. That it, Cruz and friends will eventually move a comma or make some other meaningless change. Or make some favorable change that Obama wanted in the first place but conceded to Republicans. And then they'll declare victory, claiming that ObamaCare is no more.

extending the bush tax cuts
Good addition.

Or to be more precise, losing the fight against extending them to the Republicans.

Pretty much every point listed here - 15 years of Republicans healthcare policy known as ObamaCare, extending the Bush II tax holiday and those listed before - falls under the category "Sticking With Republican Policy."

[O Really]

Yeah, I should have said *could* enhance his legacy. If not, serves him right for caving in on the public option after having rejected even debating single payer.

Any Obama disappointments for you that we haven't listed yet?

I really have only one, but IMNVHO it's a big one. When Obama took office, he had a Congressional majority. During the effort to pass a healthcare bill (that at the time would have been better than Obamacare) it became apparent that the Republican minority (damn, those are nice words) was having none of it. So as the year wound down toward December, Obama should have told P-Lo, "You will get this bill voted on an passed before year end." He should have jumped in and helped lean on any recalcitrant Dems. Twisted tails. Promised rewards. Whatever. But he didn't. So the whole process dragged on for a year, gave the Republicans the chance to trash talk everything about the program, weakening parts of it, making it more mongrelized, stirring up crap about killing off grandma, etc. By the time it did pass, it was doomed from a pr standpoint if not a practical standpoint. A little LBJ-style pressure at the right time would have avoided most of that. Take away that year of constant obstruction and trashing, the Republicans couldn't have made much headway in the fall running against Obamacare and might not have won nearly so many seats. History would have been different.

As for most of the rest of the list, I'd credit most of those to having constant and relenting opposition, basically not having the political capital to spend on stuff like "prosecuting those who crashed the economy" with a slim or no chance of getting meaningful convictions.

[rstrong]

I really have only one, but IMNVHO it's a big one. When Obama took office, he had a Congressional majority. During the effort to pass a healthcare bill (that at the time would have been better than Obamacare) it became apparent that the Republican minority (damn, those are nice words) was having none of it.

A majority wasn't enough. To pass the healthcare bill Obama needed a 60-vote supermajority, and he never had that.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

The claim is often made using the December 24, 2009 Senate roll-call, to "prove" that the Democrats had a 60 vote, filibuster proof supermajority. But when you look closer you see that they had 59 votes. And to be clear: Even that included the "Senator for Aetna", independent Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson, another independent who opposed single-payer. Realistically Obama had only 57 votes.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.

[O Really]

All true, but continuing along the line of "what if" the House never passed the bill they had. If they had done so before all the positions got carved into stone, who knows - maybe a Republican or so might have gone along. In any case, it would have shifted the argument.

[Vrede too]

... that included the "Senator for Aetna", independent Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson, another independent who opposed single-payer. Realistically Obama had only 57 votes....

Don't forget my favorite, Montana's powerful Dem corporate shill, former Senator Max Baucus.

I agree, O Really, and I'd expand the same discussion to many tactical failures. We can and have discussed the reasons for any number of particular choices and results but Obama was ultimately not able to shame enough Dems, bully enough Republicans and bribe enough of both to get much done after the first 14 months. He wasn't leader enough to create a "Change" legacy, though he also hasn't made things worse like Shrub and others have. I thought of posting this originally, but it's a leadership shortfall, not so much a liberal one.

[rstrong]

All true, but continuing along the line of "what if" the House never passed the bill they had. If they had done so before all the positions got carved into stone, who knows - maybe a Republican or so might have gone along. In any case, it would have shifted the argument.

History shows otherwise. With independents Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson owned and operated by insurance companies, Obama always needed at least four Republicans to change sides. (He got one, Arlen Specter.)

Even the ACA didn't pass until Lieberman nearly single-handidly killed the effort to expand Medicare to include Americans as young as 55. (Sending Aetna's stock soaring.)

The Republican Party dictated policy to its senators: They were not to cooperate with Democrats on ANYTHING. Not even medical coverage for 9/11 first responders. Not even when the Democrats adopted long-term Republican policies. Look at what happened when Obama instead adopted 15 years of Republican healthcare policy: Republicans STILL declared jihad against it. And they're STILL fighting that jihad, half a decade later.

And you can't claim that both sides play that game; this is brand new. There's always been horse-trading regarding the budget, for example. But when even Republican hardliner Newt Gingrich suggested cooperating with Democrats, he got tarred and feathered as a RINO. The Tea Party set up a web site declaring scores of Republican senators RINOS and traitors for talking to Democrats, and fought to get them replaced - with a fair amount of success. It's like a witch hunt; smart people keep a low profile, don't contradict the witch hunters, and try not to get noticed.

This is reflected in the clown car of Presidential candidates. Anyone viable as President has either smartly stayed out of the race, or like Chris Christie fought to establish thier inbred wingnut cred by saying the most goddamned stupid things. It's not business as usual.

[rstrong]

, but it's a leadership shortfall, not so much a liberal one.

The irony is, the leadership shortfall on the Republican side is a big part of it. As I wrote above...

And you can't claim that both sides play that game; this is brand new. There's always been horse-trading regarding the budget, for example. But when even Republican hardliner Newt Gingrich suggested cooperating with Democrats, he got tarred and feathered as a RINO. The Tea Party set up a web site declaring scores of Republican senators RINOS and traitors for talking to Democrats, and fought to get them replaced - with a fair amount of success. It's like a witch hunt; smart people keep a low profile, don't contradict the witch hunters, and try not to get noticed.

If the Republican leadership hadn't lost control, Republicans would have negotiated policy as both sides had always done. And Obama would have accomplished much more.

Yes, it was a leadership failure on Obama's part, more specifically a COMMUNICATIONS failure. He failed to explain that the lack of negotiations in the senate was not business as usual. He consistently failed to explain why not renewing the "temporary" Bush II tax holiday for the rich wasn't a tax increase. He failed to point out how most of the ACA was Republican policy to begin with. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I think the old saying about preparing to fight the last war applies. Obama was prepared to deal with Republicans. With rational adults. But traditional and Bush II era Republicans were replaced by the Tea Party. And even the Republican leadership didn't know how to counter them.

[JTA]

White guilt

[Vrede too]

White privilege

[JTA]

White privilege

Pass some of that to my parents that are poor as fuck and are going to have to work until they're fucking dead.

[Vrede too]

On average, people with their history and skin color will do better than a black with their history, but of course there are exceptions. And, you seem to have done well. On average, their black child would have done worse.