Saying that we have to stick with a black president to keep the black vote is the same patronizing attitude that gave us Sarah Palin. The Republicans only brought her on board to gain the support of the disenfranchised Hillary Clinton voters. It's as if they were saying, "all women will vote for a woman candidate just because she's a woman". It seems that both parties have a condescending attitude regarding voters.
You know, Colbert King was already an idiot because of his position on DYRS reform. The fact that he shares the same position as Harry "black kids should be locked uo before they commit crimes" Jaffe says all there is to say. But, yeah, when he asks why black women will remain Democrats if we don't support Obama, I ask why should I support Obama when taxes aren't raised, defense budgets aren't cut, decriminalization isn't happening, etc... Am I supposed about Obama's label?
@eirefrance Exactly. I'm sick of the false choice between elected officials who will make things a little worse, and others who will make sure things get a LOT worse - and this lovely little choice is not going to be improved by us asking nicely.
Colbert King is no idiot; among many other notable achievements, he's a Pulitzer-prize winner! I read his piece, and I agree with his analysis 100%.
POTUS can sign into law only those bills passed by and presented to him by the Congress; if they'd passed a single-payer plan, or a public option, do you honestly believe President Obama wouldn't have HAPPILY signed it?
When the patrol leader gets shot at, you don't bitch at him for being a target; buck-up, and lay down suppressive fire, soldier!
First of all, he negotiated away the public option in July 2009 - this much is fact. We know he appointed Summers and Geithner, and gave Volker short shrift - and ignored Krugman's advice after holding a perfunctory dinner with several economists so he politically could say that he'd heard their views. He then ignored them.
Shorter, it's the job of an elected official to rally his or her base. Period.
@stealthbadger IMO, Obama is playing a long game; if he'd picked hard-lefties for top posts at the start, he'd only feed the "OMG, Obama's a socialist!" narrative of the right-wing dogs. Remember what happened to Van Jones? I mean, FFS, that dude didn't even have any actual power! By appointing moderate establishment-types for those posts, Obama probably minimized even worse attacks from the right wing.
IF CONGRESS HAD PASSED A PUBLIC OPTION, DO YOU THINK OBAMA WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPILY SIGNED IT?
@PostSurgeOperative Yeah, well, opinions will only do us so much good relative to the facts on the ground - and those facts (both from the Clinton years and today) indicate that it doesn't matter WHAT you do, the Right will completely flip out and paint you as a racist/nazi/socialist.
And as for your all-caps, he very well may have, but why did he specifically negotiate with the insurance industry to throw out the public option from his package in July 2009? (cont)
@stealthbadger It does not matter whether he would have signed a bill that someone else brought to him with the public option (and given that he was trying to kill the public option behind the scenes, thanks to the wonderful advice of Tom Daschle, he may have tried to negotiate it away), when he was actively preventing the public option from being in the bill in the first place. :P
@stealthbadger FACTS: Part the job of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs is to 'count votes' in Congress; they're the ones actually behind the scenes negotiating bills. When there aren't enough votes to pass the President's agenda, they advise the President on strategies to force his foes to come along.
However, Republican obstruction subverted the normal process, and IMO, the President chose to accept what he was able to get, instead of being humiliated after a long, losing fight.
@PostSurgeOperative So you're saying that pre July 2009 the OLA decided there wasn't enough votes and didn't bother telling everyone before switching strategies? Bullshit.
First of all, you cited one fact, the job of the OLA. Second, it wasn't about votes, it was about a buy-in by the insurance companies who wanted the mandate but no competing public option (this is where Daschle comes in). Please stop trying to handwave away matters of public record.
@stealthbadger I cited several facts; whether you agree with them is up to you.
When developing strategies to pass the President's agenda, many options are considered; it's not simply a matter of choosing one path and pushing through, no matter what.
Again, I must ask you: if the Congress had presented the President with a bill that included a public option -- or even single-payer, for that matter -- do you think he would not have signed such a bill?
You ignored the answers I gave (or presume I'm a telepath who can read Obama's mind).
You ignored the very real counterpoint, which is that he was arguing against the public option in his negotiations with the insurance industry, and its impact on your question.
I don't know what you want from me, but blind devotion to any leader who is not a Republican is just not something you're going to get.
@stealthbadger And just to make this clear - Any leader who is not a republican is preferable to one who is right now - but any Democrat who signs away his signature campaign promise (the public option) to get a buy-in from the insurance industry is not someone I'm going to feel good about.
@stealthbadger Just because his office solicited support from industry groups doesn't mean Obama's ultimate goal was to undermine progress toward a public option; have you considered that OLA KNEW there weren't enough votes for the public option, so they decided to use it as a bargaining chip with the industries who opposed it?
Blind devotion is stupid, but so is blind ignorance; if you didn't notice the FACT that there weren't enough votes for the public option, you weren't paying attention.
@PostSurgeOperative Stop putting words in my mouth. First, just to clarify, when I say "he" I mean him and the 1500 or so appointees (depending on congressional approval). ALO acts at the direction of those appointees and at the behest of the president, so I'm going to continue to use the shorthand "him" for the administration. I'm also not speculating on motives, I'm talking about what did happen - Rahm (following Daschle's playbook) may have acted out of turn and completely (cont)
@stealthbadger disregarded Obama's call for a public option, but this would mean that he chose very poorly when putting together his staff - about the most important task a President has, because it shapes everything his administration does. In this case, it took a situation where the public option was in the HELP bill and had the votes, and encouraged the Blue Dogs and GOP to go insane opposing it.
Again, I'm not here to try and read tea leaves - the facts speak for themselves.
@stealthbadger I don't recall there ever having been enough votes for the PO in the Senate, but maybe you're right -- maybe they connived from the outset to prevent the PO. But as a fan of incrementalism, I'm not sure that WASN'T a smart path, politically, as the resulting bill looks an awful lot like RomneyCare, and as Obama will likely face a Romney challenge in 2012.
Regardless, just because a particular provision isn't in a particular bill, doesn't preclude that provision from future bills.
@PostSurgeOperative Also, Colbert King has been pissing me off for years. While I'm no fan of Michelle Rhee, he used racially-tinged language to slap at her (basically saying that she wasn't black, so she couldn't understand the DC school system). In ideal world, both of them would be on the public assistance programs they find so unnecessary for others.
@stealthbadger By both of them I mean Rhee and King. :| They're both the sort of "liberals" who are perfectly happy with the status quo as long as they get theirs.
I've been cussing and fist shaking myself over the last few days about the Left, the Democratic party, Obama, and what has been advised for "good Democrats" to do, in light of the recent tax buggering.
But don't you think this video warrants the cussing badger at the end instead of the video instead of the screaming claw?
@stealthbadger It's just that I don't take kindly to being advised to support Obama's decision and be an apologist for him, even though I consider that he folded like a cheap suit. Rest of messaged to be PM'd because it's...yeah.
@ne0nblackaeterna Huh, I don't recall saying much about Obama specifically so much as his general place in the process, but yeah, I was agreeing with you pretty much. This has been stewing for a few days.
I'm a relatively new subscriber and from what I've seen, I really like your videos. Congrats on partnering.
shamidkpzd 1 year ago
Pooka sent me with a half bag of weed and a pack of bud light. *new sub*
HellsCowBoy666 1 year ago
@HellsCowBoy666 Thank you, sir! ^.^
stealthbadger 1 year ago
Hey, now that is probably about the sexiest banner I've ever seen.
TheLaughingOut 1 year ago
@TheLaughingOut Thank you, sir!
stealthbadger 1 year ago
Saying that we have to stick with a black president to keep the black vote is the same patronizing attitude that gave us Sarah Palin. The Republicans only brought her on board to gain the support of the disenfranchised Hillary Clinton voters. It's as if they were saying, "all women will vote for a woman candidate just because she's a woman". It seems that both parties have a condescending attitude regarding voters.
6stringbadger 1 year ago
@6stringbadger *nods* The GOP seems to be better at stroking the ego of its base, though. FAR better.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
You know, Colbert King was already an idiot because of his position on DYRS reform. The fact that he shares the same position as Harry "black kids should be locked uo before they commit crimes" Jaffe says all there is to say. But, yeah, when he asks why black women will remain Democrats if we don't support Obama, I ask why should I support Obama when taxes aren't raised, defense budgets aren't cut, decriminalization isn't happening, etc... Am I supposed about Obama's label?
eirefrance 1 year ago
@eirefrance Exactly. I'm sick of the false choice between elected officials who will make things a little worse, and others who will make sure things get a LOT worse - and this lovely little choice is not going to be improved by us asking nicely.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
Congratulations on making partner. *glomps*
kelliko70 1 year ago
@kelliko70 Yay thankee! ^.^ *HUGS*
stealthbadger 1 year ago
Oh yeah, and congrats on the partner status!
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
@PostSurgeOperative Thank you!
stealthbadger 1 year ago
Colbert King is no idiot; among many other notable achievements, he's a Pulitzer-prize winner! I read his piece, and I agree with his analysis 100%.
POTUS can sign into law only those bills passed by and presented to him by the Congress; if they'd passed a single-payer plan, or a public option, do you honestly believe President Obama wouldn't have HAPPILY signed it?
When the patrol leader gets shot at, you don't bitch at him for being a target; buck-up, and lay down suppressive fire, soldier!
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
@PostSurgeOperative POTUS != patrol leader, in any way.
First of all, he negotiated away the public option in July 2009 - this much is fact. We know he appointed Summers and Geithner, and gave Volker short shrift - and ignored Krugman's advice after holding a perfunctory dinner with several economists so he politically could say that he'd heard their views. He then ignored them.
Shorter, it's the job of an elected official to rally his or her base. Period.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger IMO, Obama is playing a long game; if he'd picked hard-lefties for top posts at the start, he'd only feed the "OMG, Obama's a socialist!" narrative of the right-wing dogs. Remember what happened to Van Jones? I mean, FFS, that dude didn't even have any actual power! By appointing moderate establishment-types for those posts, Obama probably minimized even worse attacks from the right wing.
IF CONGRESS HAD PASSED A PUBLIC OPTION, DO YOU THINK OBAMA WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPILY SIGNED IT?
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
@PostSurgeOperative Yeah, well, opinions will only do us so much good relative to the facts on the ground - and those facts (both from the Clinton years and today) indicate that it doesn't matter WHAT you do, the Right will completely flip out and paint you as a racist/nazi/socialist.
And as for your all-caps, he very well may have, but why did he specifically negotiate with the insurance industry to throw out the public option from his package in July 2009? (cont)
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger It does not matter whether he would have signed a bill that someone else brought to him with the public option (and given that he was trying to kill the public option behind the scenes, thanks to the wonderful advice of Tom Daschle, he may have tried to negotiate it away), when he was actively preventing the public option from being in the bill in the first place. :P
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger FACTS: Part the job of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs is to 'count votes' in Congress; they're the ones actually behind the scenes negotiating bills. When there aren't enough votes to pass the President's agenda, they advise the President on strategies to force his foes to come along.
However, Republican obstruction subverted the normal process, and IMO, the President chose to accept what he was able to get, instead of being humiliated after a long, losing fight.
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
@PostSurgeOperative So you're saying that pre July 2009 the OLA decided there wasn't enough votes and didn't bother telling everyone before switching strategies? Bullshit.
First of all, you cited one fact, the job of the OLA. Second, it wasn't about votes, it was about a buy-in by the insurance companies who wanted the mandate but no competing public option (this is where Daschle comes in). Please stop trying to handwave away matters of public record.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger I cited several facts; whether you agree with them is up to you.
When developing strategies to pass the President's agenda, many options are considered; it's not simply a matter of choosing one path and pushing through, no matter what.
Again, I must ask you: if the Congress had presented the President with a bill that included a public option -- or even single-payer, for that matter -- do you think he would not have signed such a bill?
Face it: he didn't have the fucking votes!
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
@PostSurgeOperative No, you described the role of the OLA.
You ignored the answers I gave (or presume I'm a telepath who can read Obama's mind).
You ignored the very real counterpoint, which is that he was arguing against the public option in his negotiations with the insurance industry, and its impact on your question.
I don't know what you want from me, but blind devotion to any leader who is not a Republican is just not something you're going to get.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger And just to make this clear - Any leader who is not a republican is preferable to one who is right now - but any Democrat who signs away his signature campaign promise (the public option) to get a buy-in from the insurance industry is not someone I'm going to feel good about.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
Comment removed
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
@stealthbadger Just because his office solicited support from industry groups doesn't mean Obama's ultimate goal was to undermine progress toward a public option; have you considered that OLA KNEW there weren't enough votes for the public option, so they decided to use it as a bargaining chip with the industries who opposed it?
Blind devotion is stupid, but so is blind ignorance; if you didn't notice the FACT that there weren't enough votes for the public option, you weren't paying attention.
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
@PostSurgeOperative Stop putting words in my mouth. First, just to clarify, when I say "he" I mean him and the 1500 or so appointees (depending on congressional approval). ALO acts at the direction of those appointees and at the behest of the president, so I'm going to continue to use the shorthand "him" for the administration. I'm also not speculating on motives, I'm talking about what did happen - Rahm (following Daschle's playbook) may have acted out of turn and completely (cont)
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger disregarded Obama's call for a public option, but this would mean that he chose very poorly when putting together his staff - about the most important task a President has, because it shapes everything his administration does. In this case, it took a situation where the public option was in the HELP bill and had the votes, and encouraged the Blue Dogs and GOP to go insane opposing it.
Again, I'm not here to try and read tea leaves - the facts speak for themselves.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger I don't recall there ever having been enough votes for the PO in the Senate, but maybe you're right -- maybe they connived from the outset to prevent the PO. But as a fan of incrementalism, I'm not sure that WASN'T a smart path, politically, as the resulting bill looks an awful lot like RomneyCare, and as Obama will likely face a Romney challenge in 2012.
Regardless, just because a particular provision isn't in a particular bill, doesn't preclude that provision from future bills.
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
@PostSurgeOperative Also, Colbert King has been pissing me off for years. While I'm no fan of Michelle Rhee, he used racially-tinged language to slap at her (basically saying that she wasn't black, so she couldn't understand the DC school system). In ideal world, both of them would be on the public assistance programs they find so unnecessary for others.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger By both of them I mean Rhee and King. :| They're both the sort of "liberals" who are perfectly happy with the status quo as long as they get theirs.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
You make partner? Trippy, dude!
I've been cussing and fist shaking myself over the last few days about the Left, the Democratic party, Obama, and what has been advised for "good Democrats" to do, in light of the recent tax buggering.
But don't you think this video warrants the cussing badger at the end instead of the video instead of the screaming claw?
Congrats and hugz on the partnership!
TheRecoveringZombie 1 year ago
@TheRecoveringZombie Naw, The sort of BS that "serious people" tell the left (for their own good, of course) mostly just makes me tired. ._.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger It's just that I don't take kindly to being advised to support Obama's decision and be an apologist for him, even though I consider that he folded like a cheap suit. Rest of messaged to be PM'd because it's...yeah.
TheRecoveringZombie 1 year ago
Hurrah for partnership! :D
abbynormal0ne 1 year ago
@abbynormal0ne Thankee, loverly one! ^.^
stealthbadger 1 year ago
I see an Guy Fawkes mask in the background.
shaedies 1 year ago
Congrats, Badger. The kind of stuff you were saying about Obama is exactly the kind of stuff I was bitching about w/ Don yesterday.
This is GoatOfTheMountains, btw.
ne0nblackaeterna 1 year ago
@ne0nblackaeterna Huh, I don't recall saying much about Obama specifically so much as his general place in the process, but yeah, I was agreeing with you pretty much. This has been stewing for a few days.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger Oh yea, you were there, weren't you? lol
Well, that is essentially what I meant. :P
ne0nblackaeterna 1 year ago
huh....i thought you'd have a badger...
warpedwiselegoman 1 year ago
@warpedwiselegoman Unfortunately I'm the only badger in the house. ._.
stealthbadger 1 year ago
@stealthbadger then go out and find yerself a lady badger! :P
-ajh
warpedwiselegoman 1 year ago
@warpedwiselegoman That idea has a certain appeal... >.>
stealthbadger 1 year ago