To many liberals and progressives, the president's unwillingness to veto any measure that includes continued tax relief for billionaires is the last straw, building on a record of spinelessness that includes his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, abandonment of a public option for health-care reform, refusal to prosecute those who tortured in Iraq or lied us into that war, and unwillingness to tax carbon emissions.all of these independently need to be tackled; but together, to be accomplished in a year or two? put together like that they are ponies and rainbows and unicorns.
Mr. Obama’s plan, approved by the House on Thursday, would have extended the lower rates on income up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals, but Democrats did not have the 60 votes required under Senate rules to muscle it forward.So Republicans straight-up filibustered a policy of his that a clear plurality of Americans want. And thanks to the condition of the media in this country, you won't hear a peep about the party "going against the will of the people."
Nor could they muster the votes needed for an alternative proposal, championed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, to end the breaks only on income exceeding $1 million.
"In describing some of the challenges to passage of the public option in the health reform bill, I did not mean to suggest in any way that the President was not committed to it. The President fought for the public option just as he did for affordable health care for all Americans. The public option was dropped only when it was no longer viable in Congress, not as a result of any deal cut by the White House.Even in the original statement, Daschle only said that it was "assumed" (by who?) that the public option would probably have to be conceded in order to make the deal with the hospitals work, and even then it wasn't taken off the table "completely." Not exactly scandalous, IMHO.
I used to scoff at those who would say as late as 2006 that there was no difference between the parties. How can you say that, I’d ask: do you really think the country would’ve been different under President Gore? But now, Obama has made that argument much more difficult.posted by Joe Beese at 1:02 PM on December 5, 2010
By continuing the Bush/Cheney Wall Street bailouts, amplifying the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, enhancing the worst of the executive power grabs, refusing to investigate or prosecute the criminality of the Bush/Cheney terror policies, failing to champion serious environmental reforms, by doing a stimulus bill that was loaded up with tax cuts to attract GOP votes, extending the irresponsible Bush tax cuts for the rich — and of course, delivering a Republican health insurance bill, stripped of its meager progressive elements — Obama has all but obliterated the meaningful differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. ...
Really, to get the GOP position on anything, just add the word “more” to the Obama’s: more tax cuts, more war, more corporatism, more fealty to Wall Street, more screwing of the American worker.
Unless a progressive Democrat challenges Obama from the left, the Democratic Party will be synonymous with Obama’s corporatist, hawkish agenda for years — an agenda which seems to please only the Evan Bayh/Blue Dog wing of the Democratic Party. It certainly does not appeal to independents — whose support of Obama has cratered recently, and certainly not the base of the Democratic Party, who delivered such resounding victories in ’06 and ’08 in opposition to Bush.
Obama’s presidency might be a lost cause, but for the good of the country, the soul of the Democratic Party must be saved. And the only way to do that is to challenge him for the Democratic nomination in 2012.
« Older New Weird Australia... | Old man winter has arrived. Th... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Lerner rehashed the political platform of Lyndon Larouche. Why?
posted by Yakuman at 5:12 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]