Tweet
Woopity doo. Obama won a debate over the Republicans. You see it all over FDL, Huffingtonpost, AP, OpenLeft, ThinkProgress, DailyKos, all the main progressive websites.
For the less astute political observers, it looks like Obama did a 360 slam dunk on these sorry fools. But it’s painfully obvious that this was just another diversion to help boost Obama’s "grown-up" meme. We just spent the last decade living the Republican Wet Dream. Massive tax cuts for the rich, massive give-aways for the corporations, gargantuan bailouts for AIG, Goldman Sucks on taxpayer dimes no less, two illegal wars and counting, illegal torture and rendition, douchebags like Bush and Cheny living like kings instead of in prison, and shit for the poor and middle class. So no it wasn’t going to be hard to debate a group of retarded morons about the best policies for america.
My dog could take a piece of crap in response to a Republican talking point and that piece of crap would be as good as a response as anything Obama said.
Let’s put it another way. Why do football teams stack their pre-season schedule against lower division crap opponents? So that they can get some good competition and learn something? Or is it so that they can destroy the opponent, win by 70-14, and look really good for their BCS rankings? Duh. Obama is like the Ohio State of politics. Play crappy teams to look good, but can’t handle the snuff by having real debates.
How about debating all of the progressive groups that have been eating shit since getting him elected? How about debating why the hell Guantanamo still isn’t closed? Why the Iraq War is still going? Why the defense budget is growing and not open for discussion? Why he took single-payer off the table even before the debates were started? Why he dropped any public option? Why he negotatied in secret with Pharma and dropped the Dorgan reimportation amendment? Why he still allows rendition, torture, illegal wiretapping, immunity for telecom domestic spying, why he’s authorized assasinations of US citizens, why he’s freezing domestic "discretionary spending" e.g. social public services, why he wants a douchebag like Bernanke to continue helming the Fed? Why is Obama such a 180-degree douchebag?
Try debating some grown-ups like Jane Hamsher. Now that would be a real debate.
14 Comments
I would be more impressed if he shamed the bluedog, rather than republicans or progressives. They are the biggest obstical to progress in Washington.
I would like to see that, not the bluedogs, because they’re essentially the same things, but say, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, or Alam Grayson? Obama would have a much tougher time swatting away their questions, since they’re based in fact, not FOX-created fantasy. It will never happen. of course.
Ooo NOW you’re talking! That would be a win-win. I would love to see Obama up against Kucinich &/or Grayson. (I’m still miffed at Sanders for caving on HIR). I’m not saying that to be mean. It could be the only way that people might get to see these guys really shine. It wouldn’t hurt the president a bit to hear it from his own (which is debatable, I guess) side- maybe he’d feel some shame. :-( You’re right, dammit, it won’t.
add Senator Sherrod Brown, Whitehouse, Leahy,
What I would really like to witness is a blog conference with Obama. Fill that room with Marcy Wheeler, Bmaz, Jane Hamsher, Jon Walker, Arianna Huffington, Katrina, Glenn Greenwald, Larissa, Justin Raimando, Professor Juan Cole, Professor Norman Finkelstein…..Amy Goodman, then we would watch the conference of our lives. Serious in depth questions shaming the White House press corps.
Oh yeah put Helen Thomas, RAy McGovern, and Micheal Scherer in that room. The truth would be set free
For all the fanfare and whoopity doo, The left might have some constructive ideas the president should listen to! First clean your house Mr. President!
We could start with Summers, Rahm, Axlerod, Bernanke, etc. These folks are part of your problem and not the “open bipartisanship” you appear to seek.[and it certainly is not the change we the voters voted for] The left does not need a debate, [though I am sure we would welcome one] Equal consideration [even within our party] would be most welcome!
Righteous f***ing rant! I’m right there with ya!
Obama is begging the GOP for “bipartisian” political cover… he needs to pass a bunch of tax cuts, cap and enrich big coal, a sham of a looting spree for big pharma and insurance… heck maybe even fork up social security.
Dog help us all if they give it to him… which they did once this week with Bernake.
Great piece in NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/weekinreview/31stevenson.html?ref=weekinreview
talks about a Prez who is ill defined.. to say the least.
Yes, it would be nice if progressives recieved as much attention as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans. But that doesn’t seem to be in the cards with this administration.
The real 2008 Campaign slogan seems to have been “Stay the Course”.
But that’s no reason to give up or give in. Our elected officials now know that the administration is not the keeper of thier hopes for reelection. For that they are going to have to talk to us, the public.
From your link.
“The president, whose hallmark has been ideological eclecticism, would clearly like to think the answer is yes. But a year into his presidency, Mr. Obama has lost control of his political narrative, his ability to define the story of his presidency on his own terms. And the main reason is that his story is no longer so simple or easy to tell.
That is no small thing. Since George Washington, presidents have cultivated thematic definitions of themselves to shape the way their choices are perceived. A strong, clear narrative helps a president connect with voters and explain the journey he is leading. The lack of one invites opponents to craft a less flattering portrayal. ”
Sounds like a true liberal to me. Hasn’t this always been the problem. Liberals defining themselves. It’s complicated. It can’t be placed on a bumper sticker.
It’ll never happen, mac, but it’s nice to dream, no?
Because if it did, that would reveal that the DFH’s actually have workable, efficient, and I dare say revelatory ideas on governing, and that would cripple the meme that we’re all a bunch of crazed anarchists/socialists.
I gotta say, I’m not terrible interested in giving Obama more chances to triangulate away from progressives. But debating blue dogs sounds like a good idea…
Both the event with House Republicans and the SOTU were carefully structured to ensure that the Dems can put video on the air during election season that allows Obama to say, “See? I tried to reach out, but they’re not willing.” That might put a smile on the faces of true believers, but it won’t win elections. Unless the president uses his mandate by coming out loudly in favor of sidecar reconciliation and pushing through health care with a strong public option, he will continue to lose progressives – just like he did in Mass.
I sent an e-mail to the WH and said that he did well with the Rs but that he wouldn’t have the guts to speak and answer questions with the Progressives. Requested a reply but certainly don’t expect one.