Is it Time for Democrats to Fight Obama?

You want to hear something really depressing? If John McCain had won the presidency, there is almost no chance he could have gotten the Bush tax cuts extended for the rich. Think about it. How was a Republican president going to get an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate and House to pass those tax cuts that they hated under Bush?

No, only a Democratic president could get a Democratic Congress to agree to tax cuts for the rich. So, in this sense, progressives are worse off for having a Democratic president than a Republican one.

Then, at least we would have known who we were fighting. Remember, Bush could barely, barely get these same tax cuts passed when the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House!

Funny how the rich and powerful win no matter who is in charge and what party they claim to be from. And think about how much the political spectrum has shifted to the right that Bush had to use reconciliation and then barely got the tax cut through a Republican Congress whereas now a Senate with basically 59 Democrats just passed the same tax cuts with ease. Washington has fallen off a right-wing cliff and the media hardly noticed.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said this about the estate tax provision:

"We had the president--George W. Bush--we couldn't get it done then and we're getting it done here."

Ouch. Their victory is so overwhelming that the Republicans are brazenly bragging about how they couldn't even get Bush to do what Obama has done for them.

Finally, you have to ask why Democrats who were willing to fight Bush are crumbling in front of Obama? He claims to be the leader of your party, but honestly who cares? If he is doing the exact opposite of what you claim to stand for, why does it matter what he calls himself?

Democrats would certainly have fought a surge in Afghanistan if Bush was in charge. They would be complaining about warrantless wiretapping if Bush continued that program instead of Obama. They would have hated the monopoly that drug companies got in the health care legislation (because they went nuts over it when Bush made the same deal). And they would have gone apoplectic over these huge tax cuts for the rich. But under Obama, the defense contractors, the rich and the powerful have gotten almost everything they wanted and nary a peep was heard from the Democrats in Congress.

Here is the new memo - fight him, he's not on your side.

When I asked Rep. Jim McDermott some of these questions last night, he seemed at a loss for what to do next. You can feel his frustration and confusion as to how we got here with a Democratic president. Here are some of his quotes:

"Well, I think a lot of us are, in the caucus, we're not quite sure why this is happening. It doesn't make political sense what he did, and it doesn't make economic sense."

"I think that we are in serious trouble because the president simply does not seem willing to go after some things that I think he's going to have to if he's going to get anything done for the people of this country. He simply has, in my view, given up the willingness to fight for economic justice in this country."

"I think it's going to take us a while to get over what's happened here, and I really think... it is very hard to think how you're going to deal with the next round here, because the president has now shown that he can be bullied, and I don't want my president to be bullied."

"And I think he... we would be all much better if we were able to say, you know, that we're not going to back down, and that there's no excuse for us giving up like this. I mean, that's the hard part for me, is that it's giving up without a fight."

"[W]hen you start giving in on the kinds of things he's giving in on, you really worry that there is no way back from that. And I'm, I mean, that's why I said it was... this was Gettysburg, because it really is... that was the turning point in the war. And it really is a question of how you continue to rally your troops if you keep giving in on things that people really care about."

Until you get to a point where you're not sure he has the same idea of what "people really care about." He might have a different idea, a Republican idea. Or at the very least, a Washington idea of what people care about - so-called centrist compromises that somehow always benefit the establishment.

To watch the interview click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2dida2x3Sw

 

 

Is it Time for Democrats to Fight Obama?

You want to hear something really depressing? If John McCain had won the presidency, there is almost no chance he could have gotten the Bush tax cuts extended for the rich. Think about it. How was a Republican president going to get an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate and House to pass those tax cuts that they hated under Bush?

No, only a Democratic president could get a Democratic Congress to agree to tax cuts for the rich. So, in this sense, progressives are worse off for having a Democratic president than a Republican one.

Then, at least we would have known who we were fighting. Remember, Bush could barely, barely get these same tax cuts passed when the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House!

Funny how the rich and powerful win no matter who is in charge and what party they claim to be from. And think about how much the political spectrum has shifted to the right that Bush had to use reconciliation and then barely got the tax cut through a Republican Congress whereas now a Senate with basically 59 Democrats just passed the same tax cuts with ease. Washington has fallen off a right-wing cliff and the media hardly noticed.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said this about the estate tax provision:

"We had the president--George W. Bush--we couldn't get it done then and we're getting it done here."

Ouch. Their victory is so overwhelming that the Republicans are brazenly bragging about how they couldn't even get Bush to do what Obama has done for them.

Finally, you have to ask why Democrats who were willing to fight Bush are crumbling in front of Obama? He claims to be the leader of your party, but honestly who cares? If he is doing the exact opposite of what you claim to stand for, why does it matter what he calls himself?

Democrats would certainly have fought a surge in Afghanistan if Bush was in charge. They would be complaining about warrantless wiretapping if Bush continued that program instead of Obama. They would have hated the monopoly that drug companies got in the health care legislation (because they went nuts over it when Bush made the same deal). And they would have gone apoplectic over these huge tax cuts for the rich. But under Obama, the defense contractors, the rich and the powerful have gotten almost everything they wanted and nary a peep was heard from the Democrats in Congress.

Here is the new memo - fight him, he's not on your side.

When I asked Rep. Jim McDermott some of these questions last night, he seemed at a loss for what to do next. You can feel his frustration and confusion as to how we got here with a Democratic president. Here are some of his quotes:

"Well, I think a lot of us are, in the caucus, we're not quite sure why this is happening. It doesn't make political sense what he did, and it doesn't make economic sense."

"I think that we are in serious trouble because the president simply does not seem willing to go after some things that I think he's going to have to if he's going to get anything done for the people of this country. He simply has, in my view, given up the willingness to fight for economic justice in this country."

"I think it's going to take us a while to get over what's happened here, and I really think... it is very hard to think how you're going to deal with the next round here, because the president has now shown that he can be bullied, and I don't want my president to be bullied."

"And I think he... we would be all much better if we were able to say, you know, that we're not going to back down, and that there's no excuse for us giving up like this. I mean, that's the hard part for me, is that it's giving up without a fight."

"[W]hen you start giving in on the kinds of things he's giving in on, you really worry that there is no way back from that. And I'm, I mean, that's why I said it was... this was Gettysburg, because it really is... that was the turning point in the war. And it really is a question of how you continue to rally your troops if you keep giving in on things that people really care about."

Until you get to a point where you're not sure he has the same idea of what "people really care about." He might have a different idea, a Republican idea. Or at the very least, a Washington idea of what people care about - so-called centrist compromises that somehow always benefit the establishment.

To watch the interview click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2dida2x3Sw

 

 

DADT and the Wall of Whoop

DADT has been studied more than cancer, but the data is finally in. A vast majority of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines said, “big whoop”. The Secretary of Defense and many senior commanders have said – as they have for quite some time – “big whoop”. And the public, which the Tea Baggers and Republicans claim gave them an overwhelmingly clear mandate to do whatever they wanted screamed, “big whoop!” The Republican caucus, a minority of military commanders, and most notably Lindsey “Rentboy” Graham and the world’s most petulant child, John McThuselah, have said, “Not so fast. There’ll be no whooping in my military.”

On this issue – come to think of it, on most issues – McCain has been a major pain in the tuchus. He whined because the 17 gazillion studies that have been done since DADT was enacted just weren’t thorough enough, if by thorough you mean agreed with him. He said he’d gladly go along with repeal once the troops on the ground said, “big whoop”. Not unexpectedly, when confronted by the troops’ Wall of Whoop, his response is, “Whaaaaaaaa! I don’t wanna!”

McCain: Formally Admiral Crybaby
How the hell did such a crybaby survive being a POW? “Wahhh! I want more gruel. Whaaaa! I’m hot, and cold, and hot. Whaaaa! You waterboarded me with a neti pot instead of a towel and bucket. What kind of enhanced interrogator are you?!”

Look, almost every military on Earth, except perhaps Pope Ratzzie’s Swiss Guard, accepts gay people. And like the old saw about masturbation (with apologies to Christine O’Donnell), those that think there are none already there are lying. So far as I know, there has never been a military failure attributable to sexual orientation unless you count drumming out qualified and critically needed translators at just the time we needed them most.

Way to fight the War of Error there Boehner Bitches.

There have been no instances of soldiers running out of the shower tent directly into the groping hands of a TSA agent because someone looked at their junk. Even little old ladies from Pasadena waited until someone took x-rays of their desiccated old vajayjays followed by the most embarrassing crotch grab in history to complain.

AAAAAHHHHH! Look, It’s a Dick
Are you saying that accidentally looking at an underwhelming, soap-lathered dick will cause a top notch military to take up arms and resist the legal orders of Congress and the President – who ought to stop pussyfooting (no pun intended) around and issue? If you do, are you not saying, “These colors never run!” but, “These colors will always run from a comrade they never even knew was gay before they were allowed to ask”? You’re not describing a world class military; you’re describing an extremely well-armed gaggle of unpatriotic, cowardly traitors.”

As a veteran, I for one am as insulted as those in uniform should be.

John Boy, Graham Cracker, Boehner Boys, Senate Leader Yertle, stop turning an issue with as much import to the country as your last 27 anti-flag burning amendments into a holy crusade that allows you to stomp your little wingtips and whine whenever the Democrats’ chiropractor accidentally finds a spine.

I believe you’ve been bragging about that massive mandate you got from the public. A public, BTW, that rates you several points below your craven Democratic colleagues and that sorry excuse for a President across the aisle. Quitcher bitchin’ and do as the vast majority of voters have commanded.

Your behavior is just so, um, gay (apologies to the LGBT community for the insult).

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

 

 

Napolitano, Obama and the Congressional Budget favor the DREAM becoming a reality

From the Restore Fairness blog-

Almost a decade after it was first introduced, the DREAM Act, a bill that, if passed, would give young undocumented adults who came to the U.S. as children and have lived here for an extended period of time and fulfilled certain criteria, a chance towards citizenship, is in the running to be passed once again.

In an effort to bring the DREAM Act up for a vote before the Senate while the Democrats still have a majority, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Richard Durbin filed a new version of the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act late night on Tuesday, November 30th. This new version of the DREAM Act,  S.3992, contains revisions to some key points that immigration restrictionists have had issue with in the past, in the hope that the revised version will address these issues and win the support of moderate lawmakers from both parties. An article in the Politico outlines some of these changes-

The latest version…would bar illegal immigrants from receiving in-state college tuition; drops the age of eligibility to 29 from 34; would not grant permanent legal status to anyone for at least 10 years; would restrict eligibility for those who commit certain misdemeanor crimes; and would limit individuals from being able to sponsor family members for U.S. citizenship, among other changes.

While there has been a mixed response to this conservative version of the DREAM Act, it is clear that the major compromises it offers are designed to win the 60 votes necessary to get it passed when it comes up for a vote. According to Jenny Werwa, the outreach and communications manager with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the passage of this particular iteration of the DREAM Act bill would be a political “win” for immigrants rights advocates-

If they’ve put together this to create a new version, they must think they are going to get votes out of it. So for me, I’m optimistic about that, in terms of politically pushing the ball forward.

Since the first signs began to emerge that Sen. Reid would make good on his election campaign promise to introduce the DREAM Act before the end of the lame-duck session of Congress, a wide variety of people have spoken out in the support of the DREAM Act.

The first major move of support came from the White House, when President Obama, who has always been a supporter of the DREAM Act but has never publicly committed his support, told Democrats that he wanted it approved before the end of the 111th session of Congress. Moreover, he put forth a commitment to work “hand in glove” to ensure that the bill is passed, including a promise to call Senators himself, urging them to vote to pass the bill. Following this important avowal of support, the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan has also been advocating for the passage of the DREAM Act in a number of public appearances. Speaking to the New York Times last Monday, Mr. Duncan said-

I think we are fundamentally wrong on this as a nation. (Undocumented students) have played by all the rules, gone to school, worked hard, full attendance. Then they graduate and the doors of opportunity basically slam shut.

Hundreds of educational institutions and educators from around the country think that the thousands of young adults who were brought here as children, and have been through the school system and want to make something of their lives should be given a chance. They too have extended their support of the DREAM Act.

An extremely important public statement in favor of the DREAM Act came from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano who said that the implementation of the DREAM Act would actually help the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforce immigration law more effectively. Speaking on Thursday at a conference call with the White House, Napolitano urged Republican lawmakers to see the DREAM Act as a complement to enforcement rather than an “amnesty” bill for undocumented immigrants. Emphasizing the DREAM Act’s relationship to smart enforcement, she said-

From where I sit I think it’s important to point out that it fits into a larger strategy of immigration enforcement and complements the Department of Homeland Security plan to prioritize enforcement resources to remove dangerous criminal aliens from the country…The DREAM Act is one thing that Congress can do right now to help the Department of Homeland Security do its job of enforcing immigration laws in the way that makes the most sense for public safety for our national security.

In addition to the thousands of advocates and young people who have taken part in rallies, sit-ins, protests and hunger strikes in all corners of the country, hoping to urge Members of Congress to vote in support of the bill, inter-faiths religious leaders have also raised their voices in support of all the young people who stand to benefit from the DREAM. On Tuesday, leaders from the Jewish, Islamic and Christian faiths banded together for a coordinated day of action, calling on Congressional leaders to pass the DREAM Act.

An important point in favor of the DREAM Act came from the Congressional Budget Office who released the long-awaited cost estimate of S. 3992, the latest version of the DREAM Act. Their findings showed that putting thousands of well educated, young, undocumented immigrants on the path to legalization would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over ten years.

Despite the numerous factions and argument in support of the DREAM Act, and the fact that a recent poll conducted throughout the country by First Focus found that 70% of adults were in favor of passing the bill, a number of Republican lawmakers are reluctant to get behind it. Although the DREAM Act has always enjoyed an element of bipartisan support, even those Republicans who supported the DREAM Act in previous years, have now rescinded their support. Jon Kyl (Arizona), John Cornyn (Texas), Bob Bennett (Utah), Sam Brownback (Kansas), Susan Collins (Maine), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), and John McCain (Arizona) are some of the Republican Members of Congress who supported the DREAM Act in the past.

The DREAM Act might come up for a vote early next week, and with it, the lives and dreams of about 2.1 million young people in the United States could change for the better. Take action NOW by calling your Members of Congress and urging them to vote for the DREAM!

Learn. Share. Act. Go to restorefairness.org

 

 

 

Kudlow: You Can Hug and We Won’t Ask, If You Don’t Tell

First, it was the terrorist fist bump between the POTUS and FLOTUS. Then came that scandalous bow to the Saudi King. Now, we have the bro hug between Rahm Emanuel and Obama. Could these complaints GET any dumber? It’s like a freakin’ dispute over flag pins … on steroids.

CNBC goob, Larry “Loud Suit” Kudlow, has found it inexcusable that the two shared a hug when Emanuel left the White House. His complaint was that the hug was somehow unpresidential – unlike the double-cheeked smooches every other potentate in the world unloads onto a shocked worldwide audience.

Was it as unpresidential as the time the Pretzel Choker-in-Chief locked himself in a room during a trip to China and then mugged it up for the cameras? Or, how about the time he gave the unwanted back rub to Angela Merkel or carried on discussions with his willing dupe, Tony Blair, while open-mouthed chomping a dinner roll in a blizzard of French bread crumbs? Bush had the manners of a cowboy – a cowboy born in a barn in a cradle of horse apples at that. I heard rumors he farted at state dinners and followed up with the old, “the one who smelled it, dealt it” gambit too.

Remember folks, you heard it here first.

Now I know that Big Screaming Heads like Kudlow aren’t subject to the same stringent rules under which Presidents labor. If they were, the markets would collapse every time they screamed their inane “financial” analysis over top of every guest the crapweasels host.

Hey, wait a minute! They did collapse! KUDLOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!

As long as we’re going with the insulting stupid, what about Kudlow’s clothes? Bravo needs to reprise an episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy to get the sartorially challenged asscake some help. Those horizontal striped ties go so well with his Mafioso striped suits. He looks like a damn TV test pattern.

Have you seen him in HD? It’s a truly frightening experience in the same way IMAX theatres make people bilious.

Kudlow, it’s time for you to learn to luv the hug. It’s time for you to troop over and visit that other offensive CNBC jackwad, Jim Cramer.

Here’s my boffo idea for ending each segment. When Cramer stops his crack-induced diatribes, and after he’s shut off the bull grunts, bear growls, cowbells, and explosions – hug him. Just a little. Maybe a hug combined with a manly handshake or perhaps an NFL-style butt grab. Then, glory in it. Feel the freedom? Feel the tender moment of true friendship? It’s OK even if you feel a little wood – a twig really, nothing ostentatious that would clash with your suit.

If you try it just once, I know you’ll like it.

Then again, humanity isn’t your game, is it?

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Diaries

Advertise Blogads