Obama signals he may allow rich to keep their tax breaks.
Is this some special negotiating strategy that I’m unfamiliar with? Admit willingness to compromise before negotiations even begin. What idiot came up with that idea?
This is one of the best issues for Democrats. Tax breaks for millionaires/billionaires, is a winning strategy. Even time the Republicans say “tax breaks for all;” repeat “tax breaks for all billionaires.” And repeat, and repeat, …
Keep it simple, the Republicans are giving tax breaks to their wealthy friends. Hammer them over the head with that slogan from every corner of the Democratic Party, from the Congress, from the White House, and from the pundits. The Presidency is also a political office and Obama has failed on this aspect.
This President has not been partisan enough. A person who is not partisan does not have strong principles. Maybe that’s the answer, Obama is too much of a pragmatist and lacks the principles that set great leaders apart.
H/T The RAWSTORY
-David Drumm (Nal)
*to the extent it corroborates what [Jill] has said in the past…
Elaine: “What am I…your blog water boy? Why don’t you ask Buddha yourself? If YOU think Jill has a point–why don’t YOU tell me what it is.”
No Elaine, I was just suggesting that you either recall what Buddha has written in the past to the extent it corroborates what Buddha has said in the past, or, simply ask him to refresh your recollection.
BTW, I agree with Gyges’ observation: “There are a lot people who suddenly turned a blind eye to abuses of power now that their guy is in charge. Where you’re wrong is saying that the majority of people here fall in that category.”
Elaine: “Where’s the beef, Jill? BTW, are you working on an autobiography titled The Moral Superiority of Jill?”
Well, if you must be shown ‘where the beef is,’ why not start with this rump roast:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/28/biden-tells-democratic-voter-to-stop-whining-and-buck-up/#comment-168048
To clarify my view, if that is possible, I abhor many of the decisions of the Obama presidency. I abhor everything I experience as deceptive and dishonest.
However, I find it would be deceptive and dishonest of me to expect anyone to do what their demonstrated response abilities have demonstrated their being unable to do, because they did not do it.
Can anyone get through law school without being damaged along the way? Then there is the book and the movie, both named “The Paper Chase.”
Were I to want to write a book, or make a movie, about that which I experience as abusive in formal education, I have yet to imagine how to improve on that story.
Remember the Stockholm Effect? The abuse victim became the staunchest defender of her abuser? Or, Patti Hearst?
To me, a point has no dimensions, and therefore no content, which is why I never make points in what I do.
I cannot speak or write for, or on behalf of, Jill, without treating her with what I would experience as unconscionable disrespect. What follows is only about me.
What I got out of Jill’s writings was a valid, process-based concern, which is a function of procedural brain function, whereas I find that making points is of declarative brain function.
For what I find to be a decent account of the contrast, please carefully and thoroughly read neurologist Robert Scaer’s “The Trauma Spectrum,” W. W. Norton, 2005; with emphasis on Chapter 3.
Jill,
You don’t find it odd that you say “I now see for many people here, there is nothing cruel enough, nothing depraved enough, nothing illegal enough to stand up to as long as it’s President Obama doing these things instead of President Bush,” in a response to a post dedicated to criticism of the Obama administration?
Of course the last time you raised that criticism of the regulars here, it was in response to a post critical of Obama. This observation is coming from a guy who happens to think that you’re mainly right. There are a lot people who suddenly turned a blind eye to abuses of power now that their guy is in charge. Where you’re wrong is saying that the majority of people here fall in that category.
Bob,Esq.,
I posted the comment made at 5:54 pm and meant to address it to you. I must have mistakenly typed your name in the wrong place. Sorry about that. I’ll post the questions to you again–under MY name.
**********
Bob,Esq.,
What am I…your blog water boy? Why don’t you ask Buddha yourself? If YOU think Jill has a point–why don’t YOU tell me what it is.
What am I…your blog water boy? Why don’t you ask Buddha yourself? If YOU think Jill has a point–why don’t YOU tell me what it is.
Elaine,
Why don’t you ask Buddha if Jill has a point.
FFLEO,
You remind me of the words of my grandfather who said, “The best way to ruin a good man is to elect him to office.”
Dratted biology classes. Dichotomous taxonomic keys?
If Huckabee does not believe that he evolved from primates, he is correct. Why? Because, like all humans, Huckabee is of:
Subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens
Species: Homo sapiens
Family: Hominidae
Order: Primate.
Hence, Huckabee did not evolve from primates because he is a primate.
It is, according to the biology I learned, impossible to evolve from what one is, but only from what one is not.
Score one point for the “evangelicals”? Scoring points is, to me, absolutely pointless.
The Obama presidency has taken pretty much the form I expected it to take, not in the small details which were unpredictable, but its overall form. I routinely expect situational factors to almost-invariably overwhelm any and all dispositional factors, and I took it as a near-certainty that Obama’s education ruled out his having any noteworthy grasp of this, as I expect is also true for any and every person who is at all “electable.”
Jill,
“I want to add something here. When I first came to this blog I believed I had found a group of like minded people–people who believed in the rule of law, who thought it was wrong to lie a nation into war, who believed in civil liberties, who were anti-torture and who would never countenance a cruel dictatorship of the executive. I believed in the people here.
“For the most part, that belief has been proven wrong. I now see for many people here, there is nothing cruel enough, nothing depraved enough, nothing illegal enough to stand up to as long as it’s President Obama doing these things instead of President Bush. We are sending death squads to Yemen. We have created a legal black hole of torture for detainees in Bagram. There is no justice for victims of torture or our illegal wars. Our Constitution lies in tatters. Yes, this was the work of bushcheney, but it is now the work of Obama. I never believed people on this blog would approve of such horrific actions against other people and against our own nation’s laws. The sense of betrayal in learning otherwise is something I cannot describe.”
**********
I’ll respond first by saying you’ve done some selective reading. I know that a number of us “liberal” Turley blog regulars have criticzed President Obama and his administration on a number of issues–including torture and the failure to bring Bush era war criminals to justice in our comments.
Who are the posters you speak of? Can you name them…quote their comments condoning things like torture and death squads? I don’t think it’s the liberal posters of which you speak.
I–for one–think most of the regular commenters at this blog have an excellent sense of justice. You’re the one who, all too easily it seems, cricticizes others and accuses them of approving of despicable government programs and actions without any proof. Where’s the beef, Jill?
BTW, are you working on an autobiography titled The Moral Superiority of Jill?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/dean-camp-sees-mischief-b_n_779033.html Neither Feingold nor Dean has any interest in challenging Obama. Kucinich has already taken himself out of the running.
Swarthmore mom,
And darn right I would volunteer to waterboard Bush and Cheney if that was a legal act.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/bush-waterboarding-torture-book_n_778817.html Bush says damn right he would use water boarding again.
Jill,
Appearances are to me that most people here simply trust the Republican Party fanatics less than they do the Democrat Party fanatics. We are all in a Catch-22 in today’s world of politics and we must find a way out of voting for the leaders of both political parties. I have no explanation of how we can do that to end the corruption that exists—or will most likely grow to exist—in people who are inclined to run for political office.
I have a Democrat friend who entered politics and just won his second term. I supported this person financially and did not vote for him only because I was not in his district. However, this person changed so much in 2 years of being in public office that I prefer to have nothing whatsoever to do with him again. Something very wrong happens to many people who enter politics. I do not know if it is the taste of power or what; regardless, politics markedly changes otherwise decent people in a negative manner.
I voted for Mr. Obama and you did not. However, we both despise the man for his continuation of Bush’s corrupt polices. I simply think that others here do not want to allow the full force of such polices to grow stronger—as they might—under a return to Republican control while those policies appear to be somewhat moderated under Democrats.
Personally, if I were a Democrat, I would be unrelentingly upset with Mr. Obama because he thoroughly deceived his dedicated base in the most offensive manner possible. Obama is the ultimate counterfeit among counterfeits.
Jill You are the person who touted Eric Ericson of Red State on this blog, and instructed me to make friends with tea party members. I am actually afraid of them. I think it is the tea party members who have been hostile to the media and other citizens not the other way around. When I first came here you were at war with members of this blog. I was not one of them. That was about a year and half ago. You will never convince me to like the tea party or its members even if they are my fellow citizens.
Pragmatism is only a technique. In and of itself it is neither bad nor good. It is the guiding principles behind the use of pragmatism that can be judged bad or good. In the case of Obama he has been an extremely pragmatic politician, using this technique for very bad aims. He has also been extraordinary successful at getting everything he wanted. I cannot say this better than my friend Rich, so I will quote from him directly: “Actually, Obama didn’t move “too slow,” and he didn’t “compromise.” He moved very quickly and decisively to help the banksters loot the Treasury, to expand all the wars, to protect the health insurance profiteers, & to protect Bush admin criminals. Even before he was inaugurated, he picked a Cabinet & a set of advisers that was 100% pro-war and pro-Wall Street. And a week before Inauguration Day, when asked by reporters if he’d favor investigating Bush admin figures for evidence of criminal abuse of power, he said he had “a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”
Obama didn’t “compromise” a bit. He’s just a right-winger who took over the reins from Bush, & moved directly ahead on his program of militarism & corporatism, which in most essential respects represented Bush’s 3 term.”
This is the truth, one that is difficult for many Obama supporters to accept. Obama and the Republicans do not have a separate agenda, they are one in the same.
I want to add something here. When I first came to this blog I believed I had found a group of like minded people–people who believed in the rule of law, who thought it was wrong to lie a nation into war, who believed in civil liberties, who were anti-torture and who would never countenance a cruel dictatorship of the executive. I believed in the people here.
For the most part, that belief has been proven wrong. I now see for many people here, there is nothing cruel enough, nothing depraved enough, nothing illegal enough to stand up to as long as it’s President Obama doing these things instead of President Bush. We are sending death squads to Yemen. We have created a legal black hole of torture for detainees in Bagram. There is no justice for victims of torture or our illegal wars. Our Constitution lies in tatters. Yes, this was the work of bushcheney, but it is now the work of Obama. I never believed people on this blog would approve of such horrific actions against other people and against our own nation’s laws. The sense of betrayal in learning otherwise is something I cannot describe.
I have also been sickened by the breezy way so many here are ready to turn on their fellow citizens. Most liberals say that Israel and Palestine must have peace talks, despite atrocities that boggle the mind, atrocities on both sides but more so from the occupying power, Israel. Still, liberals expect the Israelis and Palestinians to know that peace is the only way and the only way to peace is to sit at the table with one’s enemy. Yet, these same liberals refuse to sit at the table with their own enemy on the right. Will problems everywhere else in the world be solved by sitting down with your enemy, but here in the US, liberals will not have the courage to be peacemakers–to do that which is hard, to sit down with your enemy for the sake of a common good? Instead, I see time after time that many people here are happy to engage in fanning the flames of citizen on citizen hatred. To what purpose are you aiming by these actions? Did you suppose peace and justice and a good society was an easy task?
I wish that many people hear would regain a sense of justice. That can only happen with a real commitment to peace, justice and truth.
You ever go down the same street maybe a thousand times and you may not be inclined to sight see,well this morning coming back from the store and with the rain dropping as it is,traffic was a little congested and coming pass a health food store the store had a sign up that caught my eye and maybe it applies here.
The sign said:
“We Cure Everything But Death”
Interesting and funny at the same time.
Elaine M.,
Thank you for the link … I hadn’t read that article … “like a Muppett” … sounds as if he almost fooled Taibbi … really good article
Swarthmore mom & Blouise,
Taibbi take on Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney: Will Republicans Elect a Bloodsucking CEO?
Mitt Romney’s endless bragging about his wealth and success has kept him near the top of the Republican polls, but he’s running for the nomination of a party that has nothing left to sell.
By Matt Taibbi
October 27, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/66068/
Excerpt:
Here’s Mitt Romney in a nutshell: During a town-hall event at a chapel in Merrimack, New Hampshire, some stammering yahoo in the back row gets up and asks the slick Mormon venture capitalist just exactly what he means when he says he plans to “change the face of the Middle East.” “I want to know where you stand on that,” the yutz pleads. “Your answer will determine whether I want to vote for you.” Romney smiles, humbly accepting the challenge. When it comes to the satanic art of presidential campaigning, this lean, heavily moussed political athlete is a stone prodigy, a natural who glides through campaign events with the aid of some dark supernatural power — a tie-clad, sweat-resistant cross of Roy Hobbs and Rosemary’s Baby. As he ponders the question about the Middle East, you can almost see the Terminator display screen behind his eyes, calibrating to the hundredth of a centimeter the exact distance to his questioner and quickly selecting from a prefab list of responses.
“Well,” Romney says sunnily. “What I’d like to see is, I’d like to see a Palestinian state at peace, where Israel and Palestine are at peace.”
Nods of approval in the front row. Peace between Israel and Palestine, what a great idea! How about a cure for cancer, water for the world’s deserts, more girls in bars who will say “yes”?