This is the hill to die on?
Yeah, I’m not exactly thrilled with President Obama rolling back the EPA’s tougher smog regulations either, folks. But there’s a difference between constructive criticism of the President’s policies, and firebagger nonsense like this. The President’s environmental record is rock solid, and Renee Schoof’s piece at McClatchy this weekend is exactly what the anti-Obama left wants…along with Republicans who don’t have to lift a finger to attack the President and demoralize the left. We’ll do it ourselves. After all, President Obama is apparently the worse environmental Chief Executive of our age:
“The White House is siding with corporate polluters over the American people,” Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke said in a statement. “The Clean Air Act clearly requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set protective standards against smog — based on science and the law. The White House now has polluted that process with politics.”
Really? Because a prudent observer would have figured out that Republicans made the protecting the environment political years ago, not to mention corporations themselves. But it’s President Obama’s fault. And the NRDC’s statement implies that President Obama has eliminated protective standards completely, not kept them as is. It’s almost like they want you to believe that the President has weakened existing standards, which he has not done…but it sure gives the NRDC political ammo to fundraise, doesn’t it? God forbid anyone play politics with the environment.
Oh, but it gets worse in the article.
The retreat on the ozone standard is the latest decision Obama has made that appears to be a capitulation to Republicans, sparking growing disenchantment among his base.
In December, he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. In April, he reached a deal to avert a government shutdown by agreeing to GOP demands for budget cuts. In early August, he signed a deal to lift the nation’s debt ceiling and avoid a credit default, though the agreement doesn’t guarantee that spending cuts will be balanced by tax increases, as he had insisted.
And this is a McClatchy news article saying this, not an opinion piece, not a Daily Beast article, not George Will or MoDo the Red or Bobo in a weekend op-ed dump, not an FDL diarist, not a FOX Nation screamer or a Breitbart hit job…but a regular McClatchy national news article from their DC bureau saying this. The message is clear: Boy, why should you bother voting, Democrats? You should stay home and teach Obama a lesson. He has disappointed you! The news says he has, so it must be true! Behold the liberal media!
And then to top it off there’s more firebagging.
“Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s re-election or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal,” said Justin Ruben, the executive director of the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, which backed Obama in 2008.
Hey, it’s like MoveOn.org would be happier with a Republican in the White House to focus on. I wonder if MoveOn.org will still back President Obama in 2012. You’d like to think they would be able to recognize the reasons why the President did what he did, but they have an awfully funny way of showing it.
Here’s why the anti-Obama left is ready to stay home:
The 2008 rule put the ozone level at 75 parts per billion. The EPA in January 2010 proposed setting it at 60 to 70 parts per billion, the range recommended by its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The final rule was never released. The White House Office of Management and Budget had been reviewing it.
And for leaving it at 75 ppb, we’re ready to hand the country over to the GOP, who will almost certainly eliminate the 75 ppb limit as too hard on businesses and kill the Clean Air Act completely. Republicans threatened to wipe out the legislation totally within the first few days of taking over the House…which they did because Democrats stayed home in 2010 in order to “teach President Obama a lesson.” When firebaggers do the same in 2012 and Republicans get the votes they need, the lesson they will teach President Obama is “You can’t count on us, we’re in it for ourselves.”
And finally, Matt Osborne reminds us that this President has gone above and beyond on auto industry mileage and emissions standards.
Obama is a transportation progressive. Why should the White House choose to fight costly battles over EPA regulations, tar sands pipelines, or offshore drilling when they can win policy battles that reduce consumption? This is not eleventy-dimensional chess. It is not apologetics. It is solid policy.
One may still save thousands of lives from smog without new EPA regulations, as transportation policy is intimately linked to public health. Less smog from tailpipes means less smog-related illness.
Nor is this a sop to conservative framing. Indeed, the White House has produced a consistently progressive and aggressive transportation reform policy, standing firm behind rule changes that encourage walkable streets and bike lanes.
The administration still wants high speed rail, which would reduce highway and airport congestion and the emissions that come from them.
The “laserlike jobs focus” of the president’s speech this week will include plenty of transportation and infrastructure spending in this line, both vital to reducing emissions. This is a major progressive priority.
But no, Obama failed us, so you should stay home so President Perry scraps all of these green transportation initiatives the last week of January, 2013. That’ll advance the progressive agenda for sure, right?
Still trying to find some data on air quality between the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963 and air quality in 2011. I suspect that one would find that even with delaying the EPA smog standards to 2013 that the air quality in most of the United States is significantly better than it was when I was a teenager in the 1960′s.
The air should be cleaner and it can be cleaner. However, one needs to remember how bad it was to put things into proper perspective.
The interesting thing is that the 1963 law was relatively toothless. It wasn’t until further amending legislation, culminating in the 1970 amendments (also known as the Muskie Act) that the law was given “teeth.”
That’s exactly right. Smog alert days in Los Angeles have dropped from more than a hundred a year to a handful.
Is it not true that the Admin. declined to toughen standards that expire in 2013?
So your argument is that we should engage in intellectual dishonesty for fear of Republicans taking the executive in 2012? McClatchy is right in that bit you cited: In December, he extended the Bush tax cuts; in April, he capitulated on budget cuts; in early August, he signed a deal to put in place the fixed “SuperCongress” nonsense. These are facts.
So we are supposed to NOT recognize these things, for fear that it might turn off “swing voters,” and keep the base at home? Don’t worry on that first part — Obama is pulling in tons of corporate cash, and will far outspend his opponent in the campaign, which corresponds directly to “independent” votes. As for the latter — yeah, he might be in trouble! The vast majority of “anti-Obama” Democrats and “firebaggers” are pragmatists, and are gonna come out and vote for him anyhow. We care enough about politics to not disenfranchise ourselves just because “our feelings are hurt,” or whatever the argument is. But we, combined with you firm supporters, are only a subset of the base.
No, Obama will be in trouble because a large amount of the less tuned-in base he mobilized in 2008 are in the process of being disenfranchised as we speak. Through current gerrymandering in the States, Republican governments are rigging districts against him already. Also, in several key states, voter ID laws are being put in place that purposefully target Democratic demographics, and will keep thousands from the polls. In others, strict laws have been put in place on voter registration drives, which were a HUGE party to Obama’s success in ’08.
Obama has not said a single word about these actions, or any of the actions of Republican state governments (Union trampling, abortion restrictions, etc), and I am afraid this may be his undoing. No one gives a damn about what we “emoprogs” say amongst ourselves — and Lord knows there is no one in the mainstream media coming at Obama from the left, so don’t sweat that. I’m gonna vote for him, I’m gonna tell other people to vote for him, and I am gonna hope that his corporate billions are enough to overcome his hubris — but I am not gonna lie to myself or anyone else about his policies and actions.
Did you happen to run out of websites to troll? You must have since for some reason you have landed here.
Saw someone I follow tweet it, actually. I’m not a troll, I swear! I am just really curious if that is the argument, as I don’t see it. This #emoprog hashtag that has been popping up has led me to a bunch of sites making the same argument, and I just don’t get it. That’s all. Please, enlighten me! I am really quite open minded! Show me I am wrong.
Happy Labor Day!
i’ll take back the snarky troll intro to my comment, but the rest stands.
cheers,
ABL
“So your argument is that…”
no. that is not at all what his argument is. doesn’t matter to you, though. you came here with your preapproved talking points and were going to dump them somewhere, weren’t you?
But I’ll bite and address your points:
Point 1: “In December, he extended the Bush tax cuts.” True. This is a fact. And here are facts about that fact, the sum total of which lead to an opinion that on the balance, the Bush tax cuts deal is the best that could be achieved given the obstreperous Congress:
1) Keep $3,000 in tax savings annually
2) Unemployment Benefit for 7,000,000 Americans worth $56 Billion.
3) $2,500 in tax savings to help pay for college tuition and other expenses
4) A $2,000 payroll tax savings to someone making $100,000 or a $1,000 payroll tax savings at a 2% employee-side payroll tax cut for over 155 million workers
5) Child tax credit of $1,000 per child with the $3,000 maximum credit threshold.
6) Earned Income Tax Credit that will give on an average $600 in additional assistance to families with 3 or more children
7) A 65 percent tax credit to help cover the cost of COBRA for those who lost their jobs in the recession
8 ) forecast to creating approximately 1.6 million jobs increasing the GDP for 2011
9) extended the credit for adoption-related expenses that reduces families tax bill up to $13,170 in 2011 through 2012 with a maximum of $12,170 in credit.
Those are facts. It’s how one interprets those facts that leads you down either Purity Road or Pragmatic Place. The facts place you at the crossroads; the opinions drawn therefrom determine your path.
Point 2: “[i]n April, he capitulated on budget cuts;” “Capitulated” is an opinion. It’s not a fact. In fact:
1) Obama protected women’s health when the GOP demanded cuts to Planned Parenthood.
2) Obama protected $5550 max on Pell Grants,
3) Obama protected Race to the Top;
4) Obama protected Head Start;
5) Obama prevented Republicans from cutting $1 billion in grants for community health centers;
6) Obama prevented Republicans from cutting $500 million from biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health;
7) Obama blocked Republicans from “zeroing out” the AmeriCorps national service program and subsidies for public broadcasting [NPR].
Do you consider the above capitulation? Are there are other points about the budget deal that lead you to the conclusion that he capitulated? If so state some facts, not opinion.
Do you know what I remember from the Great Capitulation? On Boehner’s request for cuts to Planned Parenthood: Obama said: “Nope. Zero.”
Point 3: “[I]n early August, he signed a deal to put in place the fixed “SuperCongress” nonsense. These are facts.”
While he did sign a deal that put the Super Congress in place — and therefore that statement is fact — the statement that the SuperCOngress is “nonsense” is not a fact. It’s an opinion. If you want facts about the SuperCongress, consider the points made in Leo Soderman’s post. It contains facts and draws conclusions based on those facts. If you believe the SuperCongress is nonsense and wish to convince folks here that it is, you need facts, not opinion.
Your firebagger script will not work with this crowd. Trust.
Cheers,
ABL
The “accomplishments” that you noted are mere tweaks, miniscule items that nibble around the edges. Sorry, but I’m not impressed when the amount of our money that he gave away in exchange for that relative trivia is massive enough to bring the U.S. to the brink of financial ruin.
I’m sure, then, that you have a workable alternative to propose that would solve matters and improve both the physical environment and the current state of politics as practiced by our dysfunctional Congress.
Any time now…
Of course; BULLY PULPIT WITH STRONG BOLD LEADERSHIP! What else is there? The answer for everything.
Of course! Withhold party campaign funds from intransigent Democrats who insist on going along with Republicans. Use the huge polls showing that the American people oppose Republican policies. Campaign in the districts of both Democrats and Republicans who oppose him blaming them for not letting us create new jobs. Get on television every day and talk about how the rich are sucking the middle class dry.
Unfortunately, Obama has never and will never do any of those things to any right-winger, especially not against the tiny number of right-wing Democrats in Congress (most of the blue dogs in Congress lost in 2010, thank goodness, leaving only Obama and a few others behind). However, he has used ALL of those tactics — campaign funds, district visits, and television — against more liberal Democrats.
You support someone who is not on your side — unless, of course, you think neo-liberal Democrats and Republicans, who actually want the same things, have great ideas on economic policy.
Of course, you’re not impressed but that doesn’t make it any less impressive for those who care about our Environment.
Well, that’s interesting, because every well-known organization on the face of the planet that is involved in promoting environmental issues seems to think that the State Dept.’s decision on KeystoneXL and this about-face on the anti-smog rules are terrible. But since YOU say that you care about the environment, there can be no doubt that they’re all wrong and Obama is doing a great job.
Besides, exactly what in that list of Obama’s insignificant accomplishements (a sixth-grader could have gotten those things through Congress) does anything at all to reverse the devastating damage being done to our environment every day? Scientists are wondering now if we’re past the “tipping point”, but not only is Obama not even “tweaking” in the right direction, he’s actually reversing course to assure the environments continued destruction.
But, as you say, you care about the environment. Naturally, then, you support Obama. Bully for you.
aahhh. the accomplishments that i mention are tweaks. just a trifle, really.
you are hopelessly emo and are not worthy of serious consideration.
ETA: Besides, exactly what in that list of Obama’s insignificant accomplishements (a sixth-grader could have gotten those things through Congress) does anything at all to reverse the devastating damage being done to our environment every day?
surely you will go through item by item on this list and explain to the class how each of these accomplishments is trivial as compared to the pipeline or ozone issue, right?
and then i’m sure you’ll explain how obama is just like a republican by pointing out which of the accomplishments on the list garnered any GOP support, right?
Cheers,
ABL
Wow. Thanks, ABL, for the lengthy response. I have to say, though, I kind of resent your assuming I have an agenda, instead of considering me a potential new reader. I discovered you through a trusted source that said I should read this post. I did, I responded… granted, not on the particular points of your post, but as a direct question about the nature of your argument, and my response to my understanding thereof.
What I got in response was a tirade and several direct attacks to my character. I NEVER SAID Obama hasn’t achieved many things; I don’t necessarily agree that they are all as great as you imply, and I think that many came at a great price, but I don’t appreciate your implication that I don’t understand what he has done, and under great duress.
What I did NOT get was any response to any of the points I set out, or to my initial question about the nature of your general argument. Do you think that that the concessions he didn’t make are sufficient to cover the stands he did not take? Yes, Planned Parenthood is funded, but he threw MY city of DC under the bus when he did so, allowing Congress to disallow us from using OUR city funds to pay for abortions for women who could not afford them. Okay, NPR is still funded, Pell Grants are protected (for now), etc… but that is minuscule in light of his embrace of general austerity, which is going to SINK this country. Want some facts? Just look at what it’s done to Britain, and tell me why it will be different here. As for the SuperCongress? I’m afraid Max Baucus’ appointment kinda proves the whole affair is a foregone conclusion; please tell me if you think I am mistaken.
But I digress. Amongst my other points you did not address was why Obama did not address any of the disenfranchisement going on in the states. I’m sorry… am I mistaken in it being “factually” true that seven states have put new voter ID laws on the books which would prevent largely Democratic demographics from voting? Am I mistaken in thinking that Florida passed legislation making it dramatically more difficult to register new voters? Am I being irrational in finding it INCONCEIVABLE that Obama would not say SOMETHING about the Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan Union-busting legislation that has been passed, considering he promised to “put on his walking shoes” if they were ever threatened, and that Unions are traditionally FAR AND AWAY the Democrats’ top doners (FACT: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)?
While I find several of his concessions galling, these latter oversights are worse, as they, if anything, are likely to prevent his re-election. The Republican field is a joke, and they know it; that’s why they have been undermining the greatest tools of the Democratic party; those very tools that Obama used so brilliantly in ’08. He’s digging his own grave by not at least taking a rhetorical stance here.
I KNOW he’s got a lot on his plate. I believe the actions of the Republican party of late have been nothing short of treason, no joke. But I understood your article to mean we should put blinders on to his concessions and mistake, and not call him to task on them.
I am pulling for the guy, but I do NOT see how it benefits the progressive movement to engage in willful ignorance, and fail to call out a leader who has not kept many promises where he could, or fought sufficiently for others where he couldn’t. I asked in good faith if this is what you were arguing — you responded by calling me a “firebagger” (whatever that even MEANS; these labels are inane), and hurling a bunch of out-of-context line items in my face. I really don’t see that as the sort of productive discourse we on the left need at this point.
I do apologize if my initial comment struck some sort of nerve, but I think your response was a bit uncalled for… though, I guess that’s why you call yourself “Angry.” But please, consider in the future being a little more staid in your response? We are all on the same side here. The sort of knee-jerk vitriol that has become common amongst our factions is going to be our ruin, considering the forces we have to fight against. The ability to openly exchange ideas and address each others’ concerns — and in the end, if it comes to it, to civilly beg to differ — is what makes us different from them.
i haven’t yet read your comment entirely, but yes, my response was a knee-jerk reaction that had nothing to do with you and more to do with my conversations with folks on twitter immediately prior to reading your comment. for that i apologize. however, i get my hackles up when i see opinions stated as facts. it’s the lawyer in me.
as for your disenfranchisement points, i’ll have to respond at a later time, although i think such issues would be best addressed to congress and those in charge of gerrymandering.
i note, however, that i didn’t write this post; zandar did. and it’s unfair of you to respond in the tone that you did to issues not the subject of this post. any comment starting with “so your argument is…” is one that — in my experience — goes on to misrepresent the argument.
i agree that this divide is going to kill us if we don’t find a way to either bridge it or work around it.
thanks for reading and commenting.
Cheers,
ABL
Thank you. I think we can agree to disagree on things… but glad we can agree to agree on others. I apologize for not differentiating between you and the author; my bad there for conflating the two of you.
While I don’t see what I was doing as stating opinions as facts, and I still posit that my question as to the nature of his argument is legitimate, I suppose these are matters of interpetation. I think we both agree, though, that we should be better about watching how we phrase things, and keep ourselves from flying off the handle at our own team. Thank you for the apology; look forward to what you have to say on the issues re: the states.
Rob
Thanks, ABL, for creaming the professional whiny points with facts.
They never look beyond a soundbyte.
My apologies if this, O/T, has been addressed here but the: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/so-that-ignorance-wont-be-reason-why.html
”This is a summation of the first two years of the Obama Administration’s accomplishments to remind us all about what it means to have the majority in Congress that can actually pass legislation and effect the kind of change that guided the State of our country’s affair in the right path. Whether we like what the Obama Administration accomplished or not is beside the point but it takes a majority to push for something as we had witnessed during the first two years of the Obama Administration.
This is also a reminder about why we need to reverse the power structure in 2011 by electing more and better Democrats to achieve more of what we had started in the first two years of this Administration. I understand some folks will try to undermine the progress we have made but we must highlight them so that the false narrative of some does not feel like the reality.
Share it to all that you think will help inform and to those who appreciate what we have accomplished in the first two years of the Obama Administration. And, tell ‘em that these were all possible because we had Democratic Majority and why it is important not to be complaisant come election 2012.”…
I am glad that you had the time and patience to post that reponse, ABL. Well done.
I was disappointed ( that is the correct word) at what was passed by the 111th Conress; but, what was passed was what was politically possible. And, politics is the art of the possible. I wished ( the correct word) for more robust reform. And, I wished for a more robust stimulus. I did not get my wishes. What is possible and what I want are two different things. Lick em tomorrow.
Then came Nov 2012 and the 112th Congress. Damage control. Pure and simple.
Conversation between Grant and Sherman during the first night at Shiloh:
Sherman: ” Well Grant, we’ve had the devil’s own day”.
Grant: “Yea. We’ll lick ‘em tomorrow though.”
They did just that.
Here is the difference between the political Right and the political Left in the US: the Right knows that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Left doesn’t and won’t see that. If the GOP win the White House in 2012, that will be an added bonus; but they know that as long as they keep the House and win the Senate, it won’t matter if Obama is the President.
For the Left, it’s all or nothing. If the President can see different ways of obtaining what he wants, without the GOP catching his drift, that’s good. The problem is that the Left is so full of obtuse dumbasses who can’t see what the President is trying to do. Jesus!
These assholes have their bill of particulars set pat at this point and they’re not changing their beautiful minds.
“Obtuse” is too kind. It’s just bone stick stone stupidity.
One can honestly criticize this President. However, there is also a great list of achievements that this President did, even when his own party refused to give him a hand. It rivals the achievements of LBJ and FDR, who had more Democrats to back them up that Obama does now.
And what do some on the Left do? They sneer, “Whatever!!” and pout.
However, some of us still get it:
http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9093
That’s a great post from Joan Ruaiz on DFP, Marc McKenzie..thanks for spreading the word!
I can’t understand how so many people who follow politics can’t understand that Obama–or any president–can’t just wave some magic wand and do whatever he wants. There are systems where presidents can do that, and there are all kinds of names for them: “dictatorship”, “autarchy”, “authoritarianism” and “totalitarianism” are a few; you’ll see that “democracy” and “representative democracy” are not among them.
I don’t know about the boneheads at FDL, but I don’t want some kind of authoritarian system where we’re dependent on the dictator being a benevolent one. I just don’t trust any dictators that much. I like our system, cumbersome as it is. It means we don’t get everything we want right away, but we also can’t lose everything we have in one whack. Yes, that means Obama can’t do everthing we want today, but I’m willing to stick to this fight for the long haul. I get the feeling that the FDL people are really just lazy dilletantes. They want things to get better, sure, but they aren’t willing to work for it. They wanted to go into the booth in 2008, pull the Obama lever and let him do everything for them. They were then off the hook, or at least that’s how they wanted it to be. When they found out that things don’t work that way, that Ben Nelson and Mary Landreiu and Joe Lieberman could hold things up and water them down, they just chose to overlook all that and blame Obama. Much easier than working to get better senators and representatives elected (true, Nelson and Landreiu are about as good as any of us could ever hope for in Nebraska or Louisiana, but there sure as hall are better people than Liberman in Connecticut, and there are other such people in other such states we could be working on).
But no. They don’t want that kind of bother. So they just wosh it away and slam the people who deal with the world as it is, rather than as they’d like it to be. I guess that might be a lot more fun than sitting in some shabby office making calls for your candidate or licking envelopes. Lord knows, because I’ve made calls and licked envelopes. But it’s the kind of thing people do when they care about how they look than about what they do. It’s style over substance. After all, few people will see you sitting around in the dreary windowless room with the peeling paint and the wobbly folding chair, listening to answering machine after answering machine; but they sure will know how passionate you are when you rend your shirt and wail about how Obama let you down.
These are people who don’t have to worry about their lives if Romney or Perry or Bachmann take over. Yeah, it’ll be ugly at times, and maybe a few other people will get shafted, but they’ll get by all right. So who really cares, right?
In some ways, these people are more contemptible than the Republicans they claim to be fighting.
“In some ways, these people are more contemptible than the Republicans they claim to be fighting.”
That pretty much says it all.
Worse, they seem not to have any knowledge about how politics–or rather, how the government–works. The President is not a dictator who rules by decree or fiat. He has to work with Congress to bring bills into law. He needs a majority in Congress composed of members of his own party to get a lot–but not all–of what he wants done.
If the opposition is in control, he will get nothing. He can compromise and haggle and deal, and that’s how things are done.
With President Obama, though, the GOP stated clearly that they wanted to royally screw up the works to make sure he got nothing done. And even with the Dems in charge, Obama still did not have an easy time (but he achieved a lot).
And then in 2010, some idiots on the Left felt that by letting the GOP get back into control of the House and Senate, then more progressive legislation would be passed or the Dems would shift more to the Left.
Say what?
Well, the opposite happened, and here we are. And still, head-up-assers like Rob insist that Obama’s really a corporate dog/GOP in disguise/ineffective President/not black enough fakearooni who must be voted against next year.
You see what’s missing from Rob’s verbal s**tblast (and from most of the Left’s arguments), right?
It’s a realization of how insane the GOP is, and how their Presidential candidates promise to take us over the cliff and this time, for good. No recovery from what they’re going to do. And rest assured Rob, if you bother to read this, that they will not do ANYTHING for you. NOT one f***ing piece of “progressive” legislation will happen under a Bachmann, Perry, or Romney or West Presidency.
So….in their efforts to say “F*** you, Obama! We’re sending you a message!!” the only message the PL is sending is, “We’re willing to screw over the entire population of the US just for payback. And we fully understand this, but don’t care.”
After all, they’ve done it before. 1968, 1980, 1994, 2000….
Sorry for the rant, but I just had to get this off my chest.
They’re just a “smarter” version of the teabaggers. Nihilistic idiots.
never apologize for ranting here, marc! :)
Here’s the link to the letter Cass Sunstein wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa P.Jackson..
http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USEOPWHPO/2011/09/02/file_attachments/56091/Letter.pdf
In essence it states that by waiting for information in the new studies it will reduce redundancy and assure that we are more responsible in changing standards.
If you don’t want to go to the government document..a poster on DFP got screen shots in four different posts so one can read exactly what transpired between Cass Sunstein and Lisa P. Jackson.
http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9045&pid=57030#pid57030
So many mediawhore$$$ so little time to put out the fires.
Thank you for your post, Zander! President Obama has an excellent record on the Environment and it hasn’t changed and neither will the lies from the “media” and professional whiners.
Simplest explanation. Obama is “abandoning” EPA regulations because a NYT headline says he is and the Grey Lady has never lied to us before, has she? Judith Miller? Jason Blair? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
So many mediawhore$$$..so many suckers, willing and otherwise.
It’s interesting that Obama’s defenders are saying that he has an “excellent” and “flawless” record when his State Dept. just okayed the KeystoneXL pipeline — arguably the worst idea for the environment since George W. Bush’s parents decided to reproduce — and when the very decision that the McClatchy article pointed to approves a policy that is called “indefensible” by his own EPA. Oh, and about the cap on carbon emissions… Where is it?
And about the criticism of the McClatchy article: Unfortunately, everything it said was factually correct. That’s the biggest problem that Obama’s supporters face: in order to continue defending him, it becomes necessary to deny and ignore reality.
I’m not ignoring any reality. The ones who ignore reality are incapable of acknowledging anything this President has accomplished.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/so-that-ignorance-wont-be-reason-why.html#comment-302015019
The McClatchy article fails to mention that they are only postponing it until they can go over the new studies so they can reduce the redundancy and be assured that they are responsible in changing standards. Imagine mediawhore$ leaving out a detail like that!
http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USEOPWHPO/2011/09/02/file_attachments/56091/Letter.pdf
And, do have a link for the “State Department okaying the pipeline”? thanks.
JuarezTraveler isn’t likely to provide anything so mundane as evidence. He clearly would prefer to simply assert, in true firebagger mode, why everything President Obama does is somehow wrong, because he’s the same as Bush or worse, because he is, that’s why.
Facts don’t matter to such people.
I can’t believe that twelve years later that the Naderites are back again. Fucking less than 5% in the polls losers.
That’s exactly what I thought! They lie like republicons and fundamentalists to get what they want. Stupidly thinking the end justifies the means. What end, you ask? They don’t know..there is no end to whining.
By the way: I really love the audacity of some troll wandering in trying to marginalize us as mere “Obama supporters” and not the majority of voters who elected him in 2008 by giving him nearly 10 million more voters than McOnionOnMyBelt and his lovely assistant, High Plains Grifter.
@ JuarezTraveler:
“Withhold party campaign funds from intransigent Democrats who insist on going along with Republicans.”
A few examples, if you will, of a major political party doing such and remaining viable in this country. I’ll wait. (Probably for quite some time.)
“However, he has used ALL of those tactics — campaign funds, district visits, and television — against more liberal Democrats.”
Evidence, and make it solid.
“You support someone who is not on your side — unless, of course, you think neo-liberal Democrats and Republicans, who actually want the same things, have great ideas on economic policy.”
And here we end up with the old “They’re both the same.” nonsense again. I’m just going to refer you to ABL, above, who has laid out in conclusive detail exactly how you’re either (best case) dead wrong or (equally likely) a bald-faced liar.
Your understanding of such matters is clearly deficient enough that it would make sense for you to quiet down and learn a few things before embarrassing yourself further.
However, your attitude problems are such that it’s highly unlikely. You obviously can not disagree without becoming disagreeable. And your emo-prog schtick is becoming tiresome. In fact, it’s well beyond the sell-by date.
Do you know nothing about politics? Presidents have been using party campaign funds, threats of primaries, and promises (or threats) of district appearances forever. This is ELEMENTARY politics, a topic that seems to be far over your head. Read a book, for crying out loud.
FDR in ’38 and Nixon in ’70. Both lost big time.
You’re right. FDR lost because he cut spending during high unemployment in 1937 which caused a recession. Nixon lost because he cut spending and sent the country into a recession WITH inflation — an incredible feat of incompetence if ever there was one. Of course, he then raised the minimum wage and strengthened and expanded Medicare and was re-elected.
However, your two examples have nothing to do with the topic of the power that presidents have in their party’s politics, and that is the topic at hand: what can Obama do. I’ve answered it. All you have is the excuse that poor President Obama is powerless.
That’s just plain false.
http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable/index.html
Besides, if Obama really is powerless, then that problem will take care of itself. Americans have NEVER re-elected a weak president.
FDR went against his own party to defeat conservative Democrats in ’38 and lost. The conservative Democrats won. Nixon went against his own party to defeat liberal Republicans in ’70 and lost. The Democrats won in November. Since you left a Sirota link then I’m going to skip over the rest of your posts since he’s the most negative motherfucker in “progressive” politics. If this is the best representative “progressives” can get then they better buy a box of razor blades and fuck themselves with them. Yeah man, Sanders/Kucinich in ’12, ’16, ’20, etc. Go for it righteous “progressive” dudes.
Re-elected GDub, if you remember that far back.
By the way, just look at the stops that Obama made during his last trip out of D.C. and ask yourself, “why did he stop there?”. Each stop was chosen with precision and with particular purposes in mind. He’s not going to waste his time gallivanting around just to glad-hand a few voters.
Look at his schedule. Look at the people he meets, where he meets them, and what the press releases are. He shakes hands with and gives photo opportunities to conservatives, but sends someone else to lecture and criticize progressives in the basement. He’s done that since the very beginning of his presidency. Sorry, but my goal is to rid the Democratic Party of people like him so we can get someone into office in 2016 who will actually fix our country’s problems. If he and the other neo-liberals are humiliated next year — and it looks like independents might to just that, as they did to Obama and the other blue dogs last year — then we’ve got a good chance of doing that. But if he wins, then we’ll be saddled with Republican rule for at least the rest of the decade.
Learn politics. Then you might have something interesting to contribute.
Oh, do please enlighten all of us poor, benighted Obamabots as to why he stopped where he did!
(This ought to be interesting…)
The problem with this is it doesn’t even work as bad fiction. Are you truly foolish enough to believe Republicans taking the White House in 2012 and holding Congress won’t result in the very same sort of voting maneuvers Walker and his crowd are trying to do in Wisconsin right now? Are you genuinely naive enough to think that your mild dissatisfaction with President Obama (that just infuriates you, doesn’t it? PRESIDENT OBAMA, asshole!) would not become revulsion and horror at what a President Bachmann or Perry might do to the US? And if you believe that they won’t rig things so elections become Soviet-style ratifications rather than choices, you’re even more of a fool than I suspected at first.
Christ on a motherfucking crutch, you’re as mindlessly stupid as some of the uber-lefty morons on TPM Cafe used to be back when, and I’m betting you’re actually one of them in mufti. Which one, though?
Show me a United States where a Dennis Kucinich, a Cynthia McKinney, a Ralph Nader, even a Bernie Sanders, could win the presidency. Seriously, construct a plausible, workable scenario where that would happen. (None of them other than Sanders has won even one statewide election.)
You can’t.
Because it won’t.
Ever.
Since you claim to be such a political wizard, you are no doubt familiar with Bismarck’s famous maxim: “Politics is the art of the possible.”
There is a more recent and more descriptive view expressed by a very wise fellow, none other than John Kenneth Galbraith, which I will post here to illustrate the sublime idiocy of your views: “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.”
Some of what President Obama says and/or does may be unpalatable to you. I know parts of it have been disappointing to me as well.
To change that you would advocate the disastrous?
The choice is yours, and mine.
Choose wisely.
“Look at his schedule. Look at the people he meets, where he meets them, and what the press releases are. He shakes hands with and gives photo opportunities to conservatives, but sends someone else to lecture and criticize progressives in the basement. He’s done that since the very beginning of his presidency.”
I am. He’s about to address the AFL-CIO Labor Day rally in Detroit. ABLC contributor Eclectablog is live-tweeting from the scene, and he and his wife, photographer Anne Savage will be posting content from the event here and at their other sites. It should be wonderful!
I, for one, appreciate JT’s candor here. He has the honesty to admit that he is deliberately concentrating his efforts on defeating President Obama in 2012. Thanks for stopping by!
Yes, more of this delusion please. Obama is holding his big Labor Day rally in Detroit today because Detroit is one of the most conservative areas in America. (Insert eyeroll here)
Besides. You still have not answered the author’s question contained in the title of this blog entry: Why is THIS the hill we’re supposed to die on and let the the GOP swarm back into power to undo ALL regulation?
The fail is strong in this one, young Skywalker.
Here are some pics from the Detroit Labor Day Speech. Meet some of The Base. :)
http://theobamadiary.com/2011/09/05/detroit-labor-day/
I’ve been recently reading Nixonland. The ratfuckers are back in business. No doubt about it.
The ratfuckers worked for Nixon. The new ones work for Obama, but if his new economic policy chief is any signal, he might actually start to use them against Republicans instead of against the people who got him elected.
And who do you work for, ratfucker?
Justice Department Puts Hold On South Carolina Voter ID Law
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/31/308619/justice-department-puts-hold-on-south-carolina-voter-id-law/
I prefer to view the “Obama Disappointment” in a more pragmatic way. With the hate (yeah, I said it) coming from the Republicans, getting things done is an up-hill battle. As far as seeing the Prez as caving in to Republican demands, think about this: what have they done in concrete terms with their advantage? The more they remain stuck in their craziness, the President looks more sane. Hopefully, the American public will come to their senses and refuse to go over the cliff. While I do not agree with the new EPA stance, lets see if more jobs are created (which I do not believe will happen)the ball is in the other court. Where are these jobs the Republicans say are out there?
As I said above, I am disappointed with the 111th Congress and the WH because the reforms as I wished. The politics of the possible reared its’ ugly head. Life is contingent and fair as nothing to do with it.
Then came Nov 2010.
“YEA. Lick em tomorrow though.”
Tommorrow is Nov 2012.
The task at hand: elect a Democratic majority in the HoR and the Senate.
Complain about Obama unto the crack of doom. As long as you do what needs to be done: A Democratic Congress in Nov 2012.
If there’s one thing that sickens me beyond belief, it’s the “Oooh, llet’s send a message to the Democrats by sitting out! That’ll teach ‘em! They’ll learn they can’t take us for granted when they lose, and then they’ll come crawling back to us and be more liberal! They’ll ALL vote just like Kucinich!”
You’d think they’d have learned something since 2000. We all saw how well that worked out when the babies threw their little fits and voted for Nader. Since Gore was just as bad as Bush, right? And everything’s gone so well since then, right?
And now they want to do it all over again, because their feelings are hurt that Obama doesn’t think they’re the coolest, awesomest, most important people EVER!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s nuts. One of the specific reasons for voting for Nader in 2000 that I heard a lot was that it would “make the Democrats more liberal”. After Bush wrecked everything, they thought the Democrats would go full-on liberal to clean up the mess. (This from the people who in the next breath told us Bush and Gore were indistiguishable, but let’s leave that aside right now.)
So we had 8 years of Bush fucking everything up, just as they planned, and now they’re whining that the Democrat who came in to clean up the mess isn’t liberal enough? Really? After their vaunted plan to force the Democrats to shift to the left? It didn’t work? So they think they’ll do it all over again and it’ll work this time? What’s wrong with these people?
And also let me chime in on how supremely assholish it is to CHOOSE to help bring about all kinds of hardships for real people in the short run, on the off-chance that things MIGHT get better somewhere down the road. People will suffer. You bring that up, and they’ll mutter something about “collateral damage” or “making omelettes” and all that shit, like the “eggs” they’re talking about aren’t living people, struggling to get by. The people whining about Obama don’t have to worry about what happens to them if Perry gets in (or so they think); they’ll weather it. They made it through 8 years of Bush, after all, so they’ll be all right. Those other people, the ones who’ll go under? Well, they’re expendable. They won’t say as much, but that’s what they believe, deep down, even if they won’t admit it to themselves. They believe this. They must or they wouldn’t even THINK about throwing this election away.
And then they have the gall to be smug about it. They tell us how dedicated they are to the Cause, since they’er willing to take a hit for their beliefs (well, OTHER people will take the hit, but that isn’t the point now, is it? They FEEL like real liberal warriors, and that’s enough.), while we’re happy to settle for less than we can get, since we’re such sellouts.
All I can think of is how much we can learn from what black Americans have gone through in the U.S., and how they dealt with their long, slow, still unfinished progress. Did black Americans whine that it was taking too long? Did they give up and go home, leaving it to their children, or to poorer black Americans to fight their fight for them? I can’t begin to understand how frustrating and enraging it must have been to be black from 1940 to now. I really can’t. Truman desegregated the military in, what, 1950 or something? And then they came home from war, and whites still treated them like shit. Then they got the 1954 Brown case, and that didn’t do all that much for them, not for a long time. Then there were fits and starts toward actually doing something tto desegregate the schools. And then lots of marches for all kinds of other basic rights, like the right to eat where you wanted or site where you wanted on the bus or train. And then the right to vote and the right to be safe from some drunken white shitheel hoisting you up by the neck because you “looked at him wrong” or maybe only because he was drunk and mean and felt like killing himself a few niggers.
And through it all, how many black Americans called the people willing to do the long, slow hard work “sellouts”? I’m sure there were some, but mostly, black Americans understood that it would be a long fight. There weren’t any magic wands. There weren’t any unicorns or leprechauns who could make everything better with a nod and a magic wink. (However much Dennis Kucinich might LOOK like a magic leprechaun, he isn’t one, and he’ll let you down just as surely as Obama has.)
Progress is slow. It’s hard, and it isn’t a whole lot of fun, since with every small step forward, it’s so easy to see how far there is still to go. And you assholes, like Mr. Traveller, who weep and wail and whine that Obama isn’t catering tot heir every whim just as and just when they’d like, I’d like to offer you a hearty Fuck You. If you don’t like how things are going, then DO something, you sad little prick. Run for your school board, or if you’re especially ambitious, run for the state legislature. DO something. If you don’t want to run yourself, find a candidate you like (preferably not a pointless and destructive 100% liberal you can run against a 90% liberal to wreck the 90% candidate’s chances) and go sit on your sorry ass in some dank, ugly office and make calls and stuff envelopes. Until then, for the love of God, shut your fucking face and let those of us who are willing to work, (and who don’t believe in liberal fairies who can give us our every wish) do what we need to. This includes our president.
So, again, to wrap it up, kindly lend a hand or shut the fuck up.
Thank you. Now get lost.
Thank you!
Thou shalt not suffer a troll to live.
I’d like to point out, especially, this bit: “However much Dennis Kucinich might LOOK like a magic leprechaun, he isn’t one…
Kucinich has yet to win a statewide election even in Ohio. And I think we’ll be waiting a long damn time for him to do even that.
Repeat as necessary: THE OBJECT OF THE GAME IS TO WIN!
that was one satisfying rant.
i’ve retired juarez. you don’t come here and spout misinformation and falsehoods. there are enough blogs where you can do that.
-ABL
::pours a Corona on the curb for Juarez::
::then a squeeze of lime::
You did him a favor, ABL. I’m sure he’ll be much happier in firebag hell.
Thank you for this! I posted it on facebook as have others and we love you! WE LOVE YOU! If you visit my page you’ll see how hard I work to stop the ugly vitriolic undeserved slamming of Obama. Even though some decisions were disappointing I think mostly he has been hamstrung by an unruly republican mob. He may not be as liberal as some of us would like but neither is this country. I will continue to do what I can and so glad you are out there! Wishing you the best, Janice
The angry ranting of the left that they have been betrayed etc is tedious at best but frankly dangerous. Those who never complain about republicans have shown who they really are. Those who say they will sit it out so they can punish the democrats and especially Obama have not matured beyond age 2 which is famous for “NO”. Elections are not about personal statements they are public actions with consequences. I have no respect for those tho think their ranting is special and don’t care what happens in 2012. It is a form of propaganda just as much as the lies the republicans tell.
Wow, responding to something from two weeks ago. No Obots must go unchallenged indeed. Impressive.