• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on President Biden’s Excell…
    Seagrl on President Biden’s Excell…
    William on President Biden’s Excell…
    Seagrl on Satellite Distraction
    eurobrat on Satellite Distraction
    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    William on Satellite Distraction
    eurobrat on Satellite Distraction
    William on Satellite Distraction
    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    William on Satellite Distraction
    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    William on Satellite Distraction
    Propertius on Satellite Distraction
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    December 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Reasons For Hope (1): The Solutions Are Known
      Ok, this place has mostly been about how fucked we are, and how we’ve fucked up. Blame is more on our leaders than us, but as a species we’re on the hook. But there is cause of hope because mostly we know what we have to do. We know we have to reduce CO2 and Methane emissions. We even know mostly how. We pretend we don’t, because the how will involve changin […]
  • Top Posts

Answer: They stand for nothing

Byron York

What’s wrong with Democrats? Sure, they got their butts kicked on Nov. 2, but they still control the Senate and the White House, and they remain in charge of the vast bureaucracy of the executive branch. So why do they seem so lost?

“We’re uniting,” one key House Republican said recently, “and they’re disintegrating.”

The lawmaker was marveling at the Democrats’ inability to come up with a coherent position on the Bush tax cuts. The party has hated “tax cuts for the rich” for nearly a decade, but now that those cuts are sunsetting, they can’t decide what to do. Some Democrats want to stand firm against extending cuts for high-income taxpayers, while others agree with Republicans that the Bush rates should be extended for everybody, even the “rich,” if only for a few years. Democratic legislators can’t even come together on an alternative proposal to extend all the cuts except for people who earn more than $1 million a year.

Think about it: If today’s Democrats don’t stand for raising taxes on millionaires, then what do they stand for?

(See answer above)

Here’s a couple giggles:

For some in the Democratic base, the party’s current confusion is the last straw. Imagine if you had said this to a lefty activist back in those happy days of January 2009: “By the end of 2010, President Obama will have escalated the war in Afghanistan, there will be 50,000 American troops in Iraq, Guantanamo will remain open, some of the most controversial aspects of the Bush war on terror will still be in effect, there will be no grand climate legislation, no comprehensive immigration reform, no second round of stimulus, and oh, by the way — they’re going to extend Bush’s tax cuts for the rich.”

It’s no wonder true believers have sunk into a funk. “I hope President Obama, who’s intensely intelligent, understands that he needs to … stand tall, stand hard, stand tough,” the Nation’s editor Katrina vanden Heuvel said recently. “It about morality, principle, good policy, good politics to stand tall on these Bush tax cuts.”

Everybody, 1-2-3:


Seriously, what the hell does Barack Obama know about “about morality, principle, good policy, (and) good politics?”

Here’s a clue – The Democrats will extend the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy because THAT’S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

Fuck you and your unemployment insurance. You poor people don’t have any money to donate to their campaigns anyway.

33 Responses

  1. Brad Reed:

    That does it. Obama needs to face a strong primary challenger. And no, I don’t care if it costs the Democrats the White House in 2012. Obama had a golden opportunity to have an actual victory — the first he’s had since he killed that fly back in 2009 — and he’s flushing it down the crapper. We cannot have this guy representing us anymore. He is too weak to lead.

    He’s not weak, he’s CORRUPT

    • I think he needs to be thrown out of the Democratic Party. Let’s throw him out. We can just say he is no longer a Democrat. I will, from this point forward, refer to him as one of those Republican assh*les. We should have some standards. And 0bama does not meet them.

  2. Sally Quinn-Lite:

    I am usually fairly skeptical of the idea that the Democrats are always screwing up and losing debates because they are consciously conspiring with the Republicans to reach certain goals. I know it seems that it’s impossible for them to be quite as inept as they are, but human nature is complicated enough that I rarely think it’s that simple, although in the case of certain politicians like Lieberman and Nelson, their combination of ego and ideology certainly lends itself to the argument.

    However, today Ezra Klein writes a good piece about how the Democrats have badly blown the tax cut debate for political and perhaps psychological reasons and I find myself leaning toward the Occam’s razor view of this rather than attributing it to fear or ineptitude or some other human frailty: I think it’s fairly clear that they want to extend the tax cuts for millionaires.

    I think most of them truly believe that raising taxes on millionaires will be bad for the economy and bad for politicians who vote for them. They are wrong about the economy, but it’s an article of faith among the ruling class that raising taxes on millionaires is bad in every way, all the time, and even those with a Kenynesian bent can see this particular tax hike as being counter-productive if they choose to.

    They always believe that tax hikes are ruinous to their careers no matter what (and the tsunami of cash that was unleashed against them during the last cycle just emphasized that point.)

    I’m not defending them. But there has to be a good reason the Democrats failed to extend the tax rates for the middle class separately the minute they took office and it isn’t because the date just crept up on them. Nobody’s that dumb. If they had been serious about doing what Obama ran on they could have gotten it done as an economic imperative in the early heady months. And the Republicans would have had no choice but to vote for extending the middle class tax cuts a year and a half ago when the millionaire tax cut would have still been in place. The only reasonable explanation for not doing it is that the Dems never really wanted to decouple them in the first place.

    • (sigh) This is so embarrassing. Poor woman.

      • Annie Augustine at Atlantic is completely sans clue:

        The American people are more in line with the White House than the GOP and incoming House Speaker Rep. John Boehner in their opinion on how to handle the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, according to a new CBS News poll. Republicans argue that the midterm elections signaled a demand by the American people to halt tax hikes and extend the Bush-era cuts to all Americans, but the CBS poll finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year, as Democrats have proposed.

        No, the American people are more in line with what the White House SAYS it wants.

    • Has the Deficit Commission weighed in on the extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Because in their report, they recommend significant income tax cuts for corporations and individuals (net losing the mortgage interest deductions) which will definitely benefit the wealthy. They probably would recommend extension of the Bush cuts for the wealthy too. All of which would put us in a much deeper deficit hole and would require deeper spending cuts. Makes no sense at all. But it looks like BO might cave on the Bush cuts for the wealthy…which is unbelievable. They should be raising top marginal rates, not lowering them. And it’s all happening right out in the open in front of everyone’s eyes. Rich taking from the poor. Not complicated. The stuff of revolutions.

  3. If they wanted the Democratic party to act coherently, stand up for things, and get things done, then they needed to elect a leader. They elected a follower. And what’s worse, a follower of wall street, banks, and oil. The results were obvious to anyone paying attention. We have Bush III. Same money, same results.

  4. Pretty sure these are Obots, they sing like Obots. If they aren’t Obots, then I have no clue what they are up to here.

  5. Dem Senators Rally for Austerity

    From FDL, more fine Democrats in action!

    Fourteen Democratic Senators have asked Harry Reid for action on reining in the budget deficit, on the same day that the Catfood Commission failed to reach the threshold to deliver an official report.

    The number – 14 – is incredibly significant. Democrats will have 53 members next year. 13 of the 14 members who signed this letter will be back next year, and the letter didn’t include Dick Durbin or Kent Conrad, who voted for the Catfood Commission plan. That would mean that, if every Republican wanted a deficit reduction plan, there would be a filibuster-proof majority to do something. There may not be such a majority on the specifics, but in a general sense, there will be some kind of deficit reduction action next year.

    The 14 signatories were: Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Mark Begich, Michael Bennet, Tom Carper, Dianne Feinstein, Kay Hagan, Amy Klobuchar, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Jeanne Shaheen, Jon Tester and Mark Udall.

    14 Democratic senators to remember next election cycle.

  6. Here’s a fun exercise. Since Obama’s actions and policies are barely distinguishable from his predecessor, substitute Bush II (or dubya if you prefer) into any of these essays. In the ones where they can’t decide if he’s incompetent or carrying out some big money agenda, notice how that looks with dubya’s name there. What in Obama’s past would make any of these people treat these two presidents differently in their analysis.

  7. […] the free media messaging and the sneaky power of Soros types. Call it revenge of the Moderates. Liberals may have a fit, but as we know now, liberals don’t matter. They’ve been rolled … Democratic power brokers looking down the barrel of what could easily be 16 years of GOP White […]

  8. The acronym WTYS has gotten pretty well known in even the prog blogosphere by now.

  9. Bi-partisan is a one-way street:

    Collins says ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal must wait for tax cuts

    Democrats hoping to move forward with legislation other than tax cuts shouldn’t look to centrist Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to break the logjam.

    Collins said again on Friday that, while she would vote with Democrats to end the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, she wouldn’t do so until a debate over tax cuts has been resolved.

    “Once the tax issue is resolved, I have made it clear that if the Majority Leader brings the Defense Authorization bill to the floor with sufficient time allowed for debate and amendments, I would vote to proceed to the bill,” she said in a statement.

    Don’t expect DADT to be repealed even after the Dems fold like a cheap suit.

  10. The 2000 general and our 2008 primary were decided in the margins, and both winners won with iconogophy (“W” ovals and the creepy BHO cult images).

    I’m thinking of an oval sticker that says, “Hillary Democrat,” with Hillary’s signature in the background, and Democrat in the foreground. The visual communication is that Hillary people are genuine, authentic, proud, and unrepesented – which they are – and that BHO sycophants should be embarrassed. Like Rove said, campaign with images as if your audience has the sound turned down.

    The end game is that we will ultimately have to paint both the DNC latte coup and the GOP as illegitimate. The actors will largely do our jobs for us. We just have to be there to serve when called.

  11. One of those Guardian stories that make you go “HUh?’… Mick Hucknall apologies to thousands of women he slept with

  12. Apparently, we have a 31 year old Deputy National Security Advisor named Ben Rhodes who also writes all of Obama’s foreign policy speeches. Ben does have a Masters in Fiction Writing from NYU, and he is 3 years older than Jon Favreau, the President’s main speechwriter. It’s like grade school.

    • You can become a Deputy National Security Advisor with a master’s degree in Fiction Writing?!? 😮

      Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? 🙄

  13. Why do they keep repeating that he is “intensely intelligent,” and “brilliant?” Where is the evidence of this in his past or present? Everyone repeats it like a fact, without any evidence. I didn’t see brilliance in his history, the debates, or anything he’s done so far. His speeches were/are written by others and for the most part, pale copies of great orators in the past (MLK, RFK). Remember when Beschloss declared him to have the highest IQ of any president in the WH, and the interviewer asked him what his IQ actually was, and he said, “Uh, well, I actually don’t know?”


    • I think people’s ideas about intelligence are kind of warped these days. The progs for instance really seem to care that they’re seen as more intelligent than the “idiot” masses, but most of the time they sound pretty idiotic themselves. This weird sort of defensiveness about intelligence…there’s something going on there I’m not entirely understanding.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: