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:
“WE TOLD YOU SO!”
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.
Filed under: 2010 Elections, 2012 Election, Democratic Party, General | Tagged: Bah Humbug |
The Confluence 
Brad Reed:
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.
Sally Quinn-Lite:
(sigh) This is so embarrassing. Poor woman.
Annie Augustine at Atlantic is completely sans clue:
No, the American people are more in line with what the White House SAYS it wants.
The delusions are strong in that one.
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.
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.
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.
Dem Senators Rally for Austerity
From FDL, more fine Democrats in action!
14 Democratic senators to remember next election cycle.
That’s very embarrassing that Mark Warner is on there. At least my other senator, Webb, isn’t. Sigh.
With friends like those, who needs enemies?
Maybe Webb’s partner, Sergeant Friday will take care of him.
DiFi the DINOcrat is on the list.
She used to be a moderate but she gets more conservative every year.
If I had a Democratic senator, I’m sure they would be on that list.
Both of mine, Michael “Wall Street” Bennet and soi-disant “Boulder liberal” Mark Udall are on the list.
Thank God I didn’t vote for either of them.
13. Lieberman really isn’t a Democrat. Not that the others are anything but DINOs.
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.
[…] 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 […]
The acronym WTYS has gotten pretty well known in even the prog blogosphere by now.
Bi-partisan is a one-way street:
Don’t expect DADT to be repealed even after the Dems fold like a cheap suit.
After the tax cuts, she will want something else. Giving in to these people is a no-win from the start.
Just read the weasel words in her statement
I sure as hell am not holding my breath.
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.
One of those Guardian stories that make you go “HUh?’… Mick Hucknall apologies to thousands of women he slept with
On a totally unrelated note, that is my sad mood song.
Well, he didn’t waste all those years 🙂
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? 🙄
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?”
Pffft.
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.