Dear President Obama,
Today I’m even more discouraged with you than I ever have been. And please don’t flatter yourself by thinking, as I suspect you do, that because you made “the hard choices” people were bound to be concerned. Do not smugly say to yourself, well “this had to be done.” It did not. Not today.
This was an artificial situation created by a political party, the barely recognizable Republican Party, itself under control of the Tea Partiers because even the traditional Republicans among their ranks are unwilling to risk that they might not be re-elected if they stand up to these destructive elements.
The result is that the American people have been held hostage, and you, Mr. President, have chosen not just to negotiate with those perpetrating this extortion—setting a precedent for how this can and should unfold in the future—but also to give in to basically all of their demands.
In fact, you put up so little fight that there is serious question as to whether you even disagreed with them, or whether you were really just a plant from their party all along. That sounds like a conspiracy theory when said aloud, and yet when I’ve heard people suggest it, I have nothing to answer. The facts are consistent with such a scenario, and frankly it explains the facts better than the story you're telling. But either way, you most certainly did not ever represent the interests of the American people who elected you, and particularly the Democrats, in any but the most feeble and incompetent ways. You yourself have been heard to say “elections have consequences,” or had you perhaps forgotten. Your energy seems to be 100% spent these days on pleasing the minority because you apparently, and quite arrogantly, assume that you have the Democrats in a position where they have nowhere to run.
The ordinary standard of a “fair deal” is that if both parties are willing to voluntarily sign a contract in a free market, the deal is fair. Either party could walk away, but they choose to sign. They aren’t signing under duress.
But here the Republicans have not negotiated such a fair deal. There was no option to just walk away, and they knew it. They coupled a “must do” action (raising the debt limit) with another action that serves their partisan political agenda, such that the signing of any deal now is done under duress.
It was an engineered crisis that never existed in the first place. The debt needs to be resolved but we have longer than overnight to do it. Credible economists even argue that we should take a while to resolve the debt issue, rather than rushing to cut too much too quickly. But the proof that there was no urgency to solve the spending issue today is implicit in this pathetic compromise, when it’s acknowledged that no decision on how to cut the debt will be made just now anyway; rather, a committee will be formed. Forget what the committee will do for one moment. It's the fact that the committee will not report its results today, but rather by November, that tells you all you need to know. There was time to resolve that matter separately. All that had to be done today was to raise the debt limit.
And you, Mr. President, have the power to do that unilaterally to avoid catastrophe. You do not have to say that the Congress, taken hostage, is the last word on the matter. But you have chosen not to exercise your authority as Executive. Rather, you have chosen to make the White House either subservient to or complicit in the actions of this rogue Tea Party action.
A political coup has been successfully executed because you opened the front door to the United States and put out the welcome mat. You had the option of pushing back, but you did not push back. Rather, you offered more than was asked for and now sound all miffed it was turned down. Now, because it was, you're bargaining down to a plan that is pretty much everything the Republicans wanted and nothing the majority of the American people wanted or needed.
You could have invoked, and can still invoke, the 14th amendment. That would fix the debt limit problem. Poof. One sentence and it’s fixed. Congress usually does the honors, but to protect the Constitution you were elected to defend, you can do it yourself. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that you are prohibited form acting to assure that this is so. And your position as Chief Executive veritably implies that it is your role to act in single-minded fashion to handle emergencies that a slow, deliberative body such as the Congress is not equipped to handle propertly. That is why there is a Chief Executive.
You then could still tomorrow launch the commission needed to do this budget deal. The only difference is that if you launch it tomorrow, when we are not as a nation under duress in the discussions it would have. That would change the balance of power back to the majority of Americans. That’s a good thing, right? You are actually thinking that’s a good thing? Because I see no evidence that you do. I see evidence that you want the triggers and the hard choices. You didn’t lament that this would hurt the economy and jobs, but rather lamented that you wanted even more sweeping change than either party was asking for. You are so caught up in yourself that you have seemed to forget who elected you or what the economy needs.
I hereby call on you to still do the right thing and simply raise the debt ceiling, ignoring this other alleged deal, which is not a proper deal since it was negotiated under duress. If you think it’s a fair deal, ask that the same deal be signed tomorrow when we’re not under duress. Then you’ll see.
We must restore balance to the political debate and send a strong signal to the Tea Party and the Republicans it holds hostage that these strong-arm tactics are not going to be tolerated in a political system that is intended to be driven by majority rule. They are not the majority, and it your job to make sure they know it.
I’ll close with a discussion by Senator Tom Harkin on Saturday. It’s a little over fifteen minutes of your time, but it’s a worthy speech. You should take a moment to listen. Really.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.


Salon.com
Comments
You're absolutely right when write this: "It was an engineered crisis that never existed in the first place."
We got what we all voted for.
No jobs, student funding cuts, cuts to the poor and needy, and total control of the reins by the corporate/industrial/military complex.
Get out the begging bowl. Even the crumbs are gonna be slim picken's. We can now b lame each other and begin the ripping out of each other's throats. It will be child's play.....
The cuts are only cuts in Washington. They are not to normal people. Inflation last year was less than 2%. This year it looks to be about 4%. These cuts are based on government growing 7%. So if you raise spending by 7% then reduce that to 6% you didn't cut anything. The amount spent next year is bigger than the amount spent this year. That makes it an increase.
There are no hard choices made here by either side. The "cuts" are to be figured out later by a group that can only make suggestions. They have no power. What happens if they make suggestions and Congress won't pass them? Triggers. That is political speak for CYA. After the the cuts are reported and not passed both sides can blame them other then blame the results on triggers. Why risk reelection?
I really hope Hillary run a primary against Obama.
Sometime between now and then, the exact cuts will need to be identified, and then the idea of wasteful spending will quickly shift to howls as rhetoric becomes reality.
The blowback from the Republican scorched earth approach should and will get worse rather than better.
Most importantly, the Bush tax cuts will expire.
The 'NO' option is now belongs to the Democrats.
The Republican 'victory' is largely rhetoric.
And, fwiw, Wall Street was appalled by this stunt.
Obama is trapped in a constitutional crisis. Invoking the 14th amendment would surely have led to is impeachment and, while the Republicans don't have the votes to convict, the mere act of bringing impeachment proceedings would bring the entire Obama government to a crashing stop. Even if he were found not guilty, his chances of winning re-election after an impeachment are nil. In the meantime, his actions under the 14th amendment would have brought a court challenge, during which the entire government would have been in limbo.
I don't think Obama is a great president. I don't know where his heart is, but I am damned sure that his actions are constrained by the reality of the situation. Had he not knuckled under to the Republicans, true chaos might well have ensued because the Republicans are well aware of the fact that their seats and thus their majority are secure because of demographic factors that are immune to argumentation....and therefore might well have pushed the crisis past that tipping point.
We are all well and truly screwed. My only hope is that he wins a second term, turns his coat, and undoes what he did in his first term....but I am not holding my breath.
Since the president could not see fit, to stand up against the bullies. It is high time we act like the rest of the world, and take to the streets. Oh yes, we are Liberals, and Liberals don't do that sort of thing. No we sit on our fat behinds, and let the bullies take over. Well, I guess I can't call myself a Liberal!
The right talks about what it will do with the victory it wins in 2012...the left is obssessed with whom to blame for its loss in 2012.
The problem is not with the leadership of the left...it is with the unreasonable expectations and unwillingness to support leaders...of the base.
The left is rushing headlong into defeat...anxious to get there...proclaiming their intention to get there. And they have the audacity to blame their silliness and short-sightedness on Obama.
The left does not deserve any better than they erroneously suppose Obama to be.
This involves pushing a fragile democracy onto the ropes and forcing it to make choices that kill it and its principles, in order to "survive." It is difficult to orchestrate, tactically, and you really need to think ahead, during the opening moves of the "game" in order to maneuver your opposition into such a position where they are forced into these "horns of a double dilemma."
The essence of the Exception, though, is that the right wing is able to force liberal democratic leaders into making tactical choices that weaken democracy and strengthen the right wing, and they do this by threatening national emergency situations, economic, environmental, military, criminal, etc...
You have to force the liberals to "do special things" and "sell out" and do this in a way without prior precedent and you keep creating/manufacturing crisis after crisis after crisis, and eventually, you get the liberals to compromise and negotiate all of the basic building blocks of a republic away, which they do, in order, ostensibly, to "save the republic."
Hitler and Mussolinni studied this man, in depth, and admired him greatly. Pinochet and Perron also learned much from him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception
The goal is to cripple the deliberative process through mini, artificially created, "states of emergency." You do this enough, and you are able to crush the liberals very easily, Schmitt realized, because they keep compromising and are so "good natured" they don't realize you really want to gut them and their gvt.
But didn't Grover Norquist say he "doesn't want to eliminate the gvt, he just wants to weaken it enough so he can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." ?
These are the kind of people we're dealing with. Liberals lose sight of this all the time.
Meanwhile, liberal historians study the history of winemaking in Burgundy and how this impacted women's rights in French history...
The left made him increase the military budget.
The left made him offer up social security and medicaid during the budget cuts.
The left made him fly more drown strikes in two years that bush the lesser did in eight.
The left made him expand two wars into six.
The left made him capitulate every time the repugs pushed right.
The left made him stay in Libya even after his own lawyers said he coudn't.
The left made him file to take any meaningful action on the job.
crises.
How delusional.
And folks like you who supported each and every move he made are blameless!
Ha, what a joke.
Back to Roosevelt:
"this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public"
"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star"
May 7, 1918
-R-
As far as I can tell if they sign this then they may put it off until after the election then the default will be to slash and burn programs for the public without touching the corruption or taxing the people that caused this corruption. This should be a major wake up call to the public. There is, of course, an election between now and then; if we don’t elect people at the grass roots level that actually represent the public they will almost certainly sell us all down the river. Ideally we need to boycott all the corporate candidates which just about rules out most if not all candidates that the Mass Media considers viable. Sincere candidates can never get past the corporate gauntlet that involves collecting campaign contributions that can only come from the corporations and getting media attention that can only come from the corporate media.
None of the so called viable candidates are willing to take on corporate welfare, planned obsolescence, and epidemic of false advertising, an incredibly corrupt consolidated media that appears more like a propaganda machine, and environmental destruction juggernaut, the military industrial complex and other corporate corruption.
RFK ran for president and intended to finish what his brother had started. He was assassinated.
The real owners of this country (as George carlin called them) will annihilate any politician who tries to conduct himself ethically.
Obama is playing along, at least for now.
Jeanette, see my article The “Two Unprincipled Parties” System. Leveling between the parties is supposed to be what keeps parties in check—the fear that people will run to the other. But, largely, when you make parties a matter of ideology (“principled” in the somewhat whimsy parlance of my article), you make that much harder.
FLW, it is indeed extraordinarily frustrating.
Mission, yes, how things have changed.
Catnlion, because of the filibuster and how often it was used, it's not entirely fair to say that the Democrats did control Congress in the time you're talking about.
Lefty, good metaphor. I heard someone on the radio referring to an article I've not yet tracked down where someone was saying “This is the adminstration smart enough to figure out they could invade Libya and not call it a war. They clearly have smart lawyers. They're just not tasking them to do the same kind of clever thing in this case. The 14th amendment was easy to make a case for, as an example. Obama didn't use it (or hasn't—I keep hoping he will) because he didn't want to use it, not because he couldn't.”
You know he had a super majority in the Senate and could instantly override any filibuster. He never ever needed a Republican vote for his first 2 years. So you can't blame the Republicans. He could have done anything at anytime.
You know, I have some thoughts about this. I have no idea if they are useful or not, but my main one is we forget about the White House for now. We need to concentrate first on Congress. We need to get pretty much everyone out of there. I know that's a tall order, but I'm wondering ... how do we do that? A new party?
You hit the nail exactly on the head in this piece.
rated with appreciation for your view
My only hope is that enough Democrats refuse to go along with this "deal" so that it can't get through the Senate or House, forcing Obama to choose the 14th Amendment option. I'm not holding my breath.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, describing the debt ceiling deal:
"A sugar-coated Satan sandwich."
Lezlie
"A political coup has been successfully executed "
is putting it mildly.
Jeffersonian violent thoughts spin in my head,
the stuff about when the guv mint
is no longer viable.
obama still has the military, i hope.
a coup in the usa
is not front page news,
the front page got news of a nearby murder.
a few blocks away.
domestic violence, they say.
mistercomedy, thanks for visiting and for the kind words of support.
Kenny, perhaps Dean or even Kucinich. I've wondered if Bloomberg might do it, especially being now independent. Kind of a wildcard. I don't know. But we don't have to decide who can win. We have to decide it's worth having the discussion. The primary process is supposed to crank out a winner. Let it begin. And let's see what candidates the other (“3rd”) parties are running, too.
RW, thanks for offering the historical insights. You generally have some very good intuitions on such matters, so I look forward to tracking down those references.
That's four out of five, but that's four more seats than the Democratic National Committee would have had to defend had these incumbents stayed the course for one more term. Scrolling down the list of Democratic incumbents. If you scan down the list of Democratic incumbents, remove the Jews (because no Jew is electable in the present political climate), and you are left with a paltry few who qualify by my requirement, none of them appetizing. I think that's why we ended up with Obama, because he seemed the best of a bad bunch.
More sound from the left trying to insure a victory for the right.
I withdraw that as “bitterness.”
The right talks about what it will do with the victory it wins in 2012...the left is obssessed with whom to blame for its loss in 2012.
This is a rather significant difference, I would say. They (the right) are talking about what they intend to do with the mandate they see coming their way. They will, as I interpret them, make sure that the rich have more, since they seem to think the rich do not have enough. They also will see that the poor has less, since they seem to think the poor has more than enough and would probably benefit from having a bit less (they seem to think it may stimulate them to become rich!)
On the other hand, the left seems to be doing lots of finger pointing and assigning of blame for why things are going so badly for them.
POSITIVE SUGGESTION: Can the blame game…and focus on unity. Support the president the way the Republicans were able to support people like Nixon, Quayle, Cheney, W, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and the others. Stop helping the obstructionists by savaging Obama…and demanding that he do things that obviously cannot be done. (He was unable to get concessions from the obstructionists in the debt ceiling battle. Neither were the many Democrats in the House and Senate. Keep the eyes on the prize…and let the opposition do the savaging.
The problem is not with the leadership of the left...it is with the unreasonable expectations and unwillingness to support leaders...of the base.
POSITIVE SUGGESTION: : Can the blame game…and focus on unity. Support the president the way the Republicans were able to support people like Nixon, Quayle, Cheney, W, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and the others. Stop helping the obstructionists by savaging Obama…and demanding that he do things that obviously cannot be done. (He was unable to get concessions from the obstructionists in the debt ceiling battle. Neither were the many Democrats in the House and Senate. Keep the eyes on the prize…and let the opposition do the savaging.
The opposition, by the way, is doing one hell of a job. They really do not need the help.
The left is rushing headlong into defeat...anxious to get there...proclaiming their intention to get there. And they have the audacity to blame their silliness and short-sightedness on Obama.
Okay, let’s withdraw that last part as bitterness. But the first part…the headlong rush to defeat…anxious to get there…proclaining their intention to do it…all should be canned. The left should focus on unity. Support the president the way the Republicans were able to support people like Nixon, Quayle, Cheney, W, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and the others. Stop helping the obstructionists by savaging Obama…and demanding that he do things that obviously cannot be done. (He was unable to get concessions from the obstructionists in the debt ceiling battle. Neither were the many Democrats in the House and Senate. Keep the eyes on the prize…and let the opposition do the savaging.
The left does not deserve any better than they erroneously suppose Obama to be.
Well, I recognize that this could be construed as bitterness, but I suggest that there is a more nuanced interpretation that might be considered. If the left is courting disaster by being bullheaded…and if they suppose Obama is selling them out to the right…and if the left is willing to take a victory by a tea party vetted Republican in preference to supporting Obama…then THEY DO DESERVE what they erroneously suppose Obama to be. They deserve to have agency working for a Republican victory.
Not being a wiseguy here, Kent…just trying to present a different perspective of what is going on. No bitterness intended...although I am sure you understand a bit of anger (with a smile) is almost a given.
I hope you have enough substance here to give a reply now.
obama was presented with this choice: submit to the tea party demands, or destroy the american economy today. he decided to put off collapse for another few years.
americans are political cattle, barred from participating in the management of the nation by the constitution. if they had an ounce of self respect they would tear it up and establish democracy. but they don't.
one consequence is that they imagine the people in office are god-like beings who could realize the fantasies of the children who vote for them, if they only would.
well, sorry. politicians are in office to make the world a better place for politicians. quite like other humans, when you think about it. if you are unwilling to be a citizen of a democracy, then learn to submit to the will of your masters without whining. whining suggests you have some dissatisfaction but are too ignorant, lazy, and selfish to do anything about it.
I've said before and it bears repeating that I'm willing to support Obama if he supports me. If I thought even for a moment that he had tried in good faith to negotiate something like single payer universal health care and been pushed back after expending some effort to where he ended up, I'd feel very differently. If I thought he had even tried to push the Republicans into a corner by taking to the bully pulpit and talking about (a) how callous their agenda was and (b) how he does have options (e.g., 14.4) and put some heat on the Republicans to not expect they get a free pass, then I'd feel less bad if we had to bargain back. The Republicans were able, with complete confidence, to remove 14.4 from the discussion and hence did not have to worry about playing poker because Obama said to them “hey, guys, I like playing with all my cards showing even if you don't.” That's a little hard to unconditionally rally behind. Honestly, if you just told me he was a sleeper candidate working for the Republicans, I'm not sure how that would be either a shock or even inconsistent with anything I see going on. So asking me to unconditionally rally behind him is like asking me to unconditionally rally behind Cantor, for example. To what end? He is not leading our party. He is taking orders from the Right. Rallying behind him right now would be like rallying behind the Republicans, but just indirectly.
1) President Obama and the Democrats did not concern themselves with the budget when they had the majority in both houses. Those like Paul Krugman will tell you deficits don't matter.
2) When the President lost control of his stimulus and Health Care plans he created an opening for the GOP to regain their voice, which led to the GOP gaining control of the House, and for Scot Brown to win Senator Kennedy's Seat
3) Angry and Scared white American became pawns in the building of the tea party (I assert with Barack Hussein Obama in the White House - the Tea Party would be a footnote in American Politics)
4) Once the Democrats lost the House, it was all but a certainty that unlike other debt ceiling increases in the past that were passed with little fanfare, the House Republicans were going to extort this President to get what they wanted
5) Everything else was theatre
…you are a decent person and I appreciate your response.
Like you, I am not a Democrat. I tend to support progressive agenda items…and I think progressive agenda items ultimately are needed in order to make our Republic a better place in which to live…which, for me, means I am going to support Democrats more readily than Republicans…and liberals or progressives rather than conservatives.
I also am not a liberal. But I think that the people who do identify themselves as Democrats and who identify themselves as liberals…would learn a very valuable lesson from the Republicans…and I that is what I am trying to share. I may not be doing a very good job of it, but I recognize my debate/exchange shortcomings…and I intend to try despite them.
I am not convinced…not nearly convinced that Obama has not tried to get lots more than you are giving him credit for. I am working, however, under the assumption that he is an intelligent, pragmatic individual…and that he recognizes the limitations of what he can and cannot do in the political climate in which he is working. I am willing to suppose that many of the concessions he has made, were made under the assumption that they would eventually be made anyway…and there is value in preemptive concessions.
Kent, the nut cases in our society hold the good cards right now. Many people in our country are in love with simplistic answers…and there are politicians on the right willing to feed that crowd. The people on the left have to be more realistic…and “realism” simply does not play well with the masses.
I’ll close this for now…you can read between the lines of what I’ve said. I hope you can see value in what I am advocating…and that although you already show some inclination toward it at times, that you head in that direction even more in future posts.
You have the bully pulpit here in OS. Use it wisely, Kent.
"it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star"
May 7, 1918
PS - thanks for teaching me some html, Kent.
PPS - You don't reward a misbehaving child by giving him second bar of chocolate. You don't reward a malfeasant president by re-electing him. Kucinich, Bernie Saunders, perhaps, but anyone but more obama.
Jane, although I think a lot of what Obama has done is disappointing, if there isn't a credible other Democrat or super-credible third party candidate (the bar is higher from them because before I throw away my vote there, I have to believe everyone else is planning to do the same), I'll be forced to vote for him again. Every single Republican candidate I've heard talk of would be way worse than Obama, so don't even think of a protest vote with the Republicans.
The biggest flaws in what you wrote:
> It is silly to think that Obama is a plant for the Tea Party. The Tea Party only exists because Obama overreached with the stimulus spending and then focused all his efforts on an unpopular healthcare bill... all the while, the economy was stagnant and long-term unemployment was existing.
> The Tea Party is not dictatorial at all. They are elected representatives and have a right to vote for what they believe. Just as the 2008 Congress led by Pelosi and Reid did. If the word dictatorial would be used at all, it would be to characterize a move by Obama to claim Presidential authority to increase the debt ceiling. That would have been a case of one man claiming to be the primary authority rather than just one branch of a three-branch, checks-and-balances government.
> Your use of the term "political coup" implies that voters who elected Tea Partiers are somehow not valid voters and the representatives not valid Congress people. I doubt you really mean this but it is wrong-headed and disrespectful at minimum to say that duly elected representatives voting for what they believe is somehow a "coup."
What I think you touched on that is right is that this basically shows Obama to be incompetent, regardless of his beliefs. He had control of both houses of Congress with super-majorities and yet still never did anything to remotely structure government spending in a rational way. After all, they could have voted to extend the debt ceiling back before the 2010 elections when they had plenty of votes. And, he could have had a better deal for him a week ago but misplayed his hand and lost control of the process.
This is what you get when you vote emotional hope and change and believe that some people are special enough to change a whole society simply by existing. Obama was always an empty suit who would be out of his league as President. We are living with that now.
The answer comes in two parts, one to do with policy, one to do with procedure.
In terms of policy, Obama has made really lame progress on addressing Climate Change. He has returned Science to the EPA. He has, in fact, kept the EPA alive. He has a number of specific policies that are anti-environment, but he hasn't gotten rid of the watchdog. That matters. The Republicans tell us that if allowed to, they will disempower and/or dismantle the EPA, whatever they can get away with. That really matters to me.
Obama has allowed creation of an office to protect consumer financial issues. That Republicans have blocked attempts not only to get that organization created, but even to put limits on interest rates at levels like 75% tax, even suggesting that they think that Payday loans are a good thing.
Obama has not created single payer universal care, but he did improve health care for a lot of people in measurable ways. I think it would have been cheaper and better to do different, but no matter how you count it, the Republicans want to undo what Obama has done. They will replace it with market forces. Market forces? There is no price elasticity of demand in health care, which is to say it doesn't respond to market forces; if you make an iPod cost twice as much, fewer people will buy it and the market is given an incentive to make price go lower, but if you make health care cost twice as much, people will just try to continue to pay.
I haven't seen any effort on Obama's part to help out the unions he promised to help. He said if they were threatened, he'd come stand with them, which he didn't. But he didn't do anything active to hurt them. The Republicans are actively filing legislation to dismantle labor protections.
I'm sure there are many other examples of ways in which Obama has made plodding progress forward and Republicans would actively seek to take us back.
The second issue is procedural. A president tends to give some favor to their own party. So if a Republican comes to office, we get a lot of Republican judges, we tend not to get Republican bills vetoed, etc. If a Republican appoints the next Supreme Court justice, that would be very bad since the Court is already unbalanced. If a Republican decides vetoes, that gives enormous voting advantage to Republican bills. So it matters there, too. It matters because of all of those examples I gave above about what the Republican agenda is, which is apparently to cut working Americans off at the knees in terms of workers' rights, health care, education, and the environment.
Abrawang, check out the Rachel Maddow show tonight (or see it on their web site at rachel.msnbc.com). Chris Hayes was sitting in for Rachel and was making a point that I want to rewatch when it rolls back around (they rerun several times in the evening) about how a nation can be at serious risk when it no longer commands the power to effectively tax its citizens. He didn't seem to make the obvious link to the Tytler quote, of which that seems an ironic variant (since the rich seem to suggest that the risk is the opposite, that the citizenry will tax them too much, something that was likely never a risk).
Odette, there are a number of other parties. And though I don't think they have much chance normally, maybe this stuff will inspire people to go after them more seriously. The Green Party, the New Progressive Alliance, and Americans Elect are places to start, though I haven't seen their candidates.
Anna, yes, it's disorienting and I think there are a lot of of people feeling like they wish they could wake up just about now. Even though you feel like your thoughts were wandering aimlessly, I think many of us can relate.
Poetess, thanks for visiting and offering support. It's sad indeed that the public doesn't have more control over the agenda of questions to ask. The media doesn't always represent us well. Sometimes they have a pretty cynical view of what would interest us.
Scanner, his history is that he's very savvy about a lot of things but has some big blind spots, and I do think he thinks that he can count on that Democratic support. I think through some weird cognitive dissonance, he thinks it's really done well by his base. I don't think he acknowledges the degree to which many of his own party feel abandoned.
Lezlie, I'm never sure if those marches help. Maybe they do, so I won't try to dissuade you. I tend to think such actions are dissipative of political energy at a time when we really need to capture and use that same energy. But I think the commonality between what you're saying and what I and others are thinking is that it's certainly time to not just sit still. We need to find something to do to energize fellow voters, support candidates that can make a difference, etc.
Sage, I don't think Powell could succeed. We'll leave aside the fact that the whole racism issue would come up and stick straight to politics: Many people, myself included, think he could have and should have stood up to Bush better, and should not have allowed himself to be duped as he was. He may have been a good leader of men in the service, but I don't think he has it in him to be a political leader.
I keep wondering if maybe Bloomberg could do it, or if that was even a good idea. Heck, I've been thinking Jimmy Carter might have another term in him—heh. At least he was right on Climate Change. I just don't know, but I think it's right to think hard on this issue.
al, I've seen it suggested that people only vote if they are dissatisfied, and that the lack of engagement in US politics by the citizenry is something that speaks to the fact that basic needs are being met. I think in the future, as these cuts run deep, you'll see a lot more people who once wouldn't have voted or followed politics will suddenly care.
McGarrett, hi there. I wrote the piece in a hurry precisely to capture the moment, but I have no regrets so far. To your points:
• I didn't mean to imply he was a plant for the Tea Party but I did mean to say some have accused him of being a closet Republican. Does that make it OK now? He's basically the ideological twin of Romney, as far as I can tell, and if he called himself Republican, I don't think it would do much beyond making it easier to understand why he does the things he does.
• I didn't use the term dictatorial. That concept comes up in one remark by Sagemerlin. You speak of the Tea Party having a right to their vote. Sure. But political advocacy is not the tricking of a rep not to exercise their rights, it's the persuading that they should change their mind on a vote. And it's hard to see how a President sworn to protect and defend the Constitution would be overstepping by choosing to invoke part of it.
• Actually, as to the use of the word coup, you should understand that I would portray elections as an overthrow of government on a scheduled basis. Coup, however, portrays an element of intrigue and political or tactical maneuvering. That's what I meant to convey.
I agree partly with what you say about Obama and competence, though in fairness to him, it is the Constitutional duty of the Congress to get the budget right. Obama could have meddled, but he wasn't obliged to. He should, however, have demanded to get the debt ceiling out of the way when we were discussing extending the Bush tax cuts, since he had a 100% upper hand then and could have dictated terms. (There's that pesky dictator metaphor again.)
Frank, I appreciate you clarifying your remarks as you did. It helps me make sense of what you're saying.
libby, thanks for the support.
sickofstupid, while I don't agree that he's scarier than Dubya, I certainly understand your point.
It never went anywhere.
I assume it's the hacker.
`
I had to re-sing in again.
Who boots me all day?
Betrayal is discernible.
I return the gadget on.
We people learn here.
Thanks for Speaking.
Mission etc., got me:
Maybe I'll post? sigh.
Look at the most recent Congressional election in South Jersey, the Third Congressional District, to be exact. Here, John Adler was a DLC, pro Corporate Democrat, but was pro identity politics (this gave him inroads with blacks, jews, gays, hispanics, etc...), but was very much pro corporate. He was a model for a certain type of Democrat who is liberal only on identity issues, because they don't hurt his corporate contributors. On economic, labor, employment issues, he's no different than a Republican.
Anyway, Adler's campaign directly funded the local Tea Party candidate, Peter DeStefano, in an effort to siphon off votes from the leading Republican candidate, John Runyon, a former NFL player.
Although Runyon still won, and defeated Adler hands down (why support a faux-democrat, when you can get a "real" republican), one side effect was that the Dems inadvertantly gave funding, organization and local presence to a Tea Party that was, prior to this election, almost totally non-existent in South Jersey politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_Jersey,_2010#District_3
Great letter, Kent.
I've just listened to Boehner et.al. in their self congratulatory tones of triumphantly being able to get a handle on their own Congressional spending. It sounds like an AA promise by a bunch of rapists who've just figured out how to put a condom on. But I fear what values and hopes we've held for dear, are now about to be lifted on to the abortion table. Ironical, huh? We can argue amongst ourselves as to who was wearing the surgeon's mask, and they would probably prefer it if we did. But does it really matter? The moorings are being cut, and the transparent fences will soon advance their encroachments. But a mass national run on the banks beginning on the day the vote goes down just might shovel bang someone up there hard enough in the head to cause them to hear what we are really saying, and not just what they are mouthing in front of the cameras, and saying that that's what they've heard us saying. Bull Shit.
Nancy Pelosi brought the House to a standing applause three times when she laid out the complete "absurdity" of Boehner's scheme. "Absurd" she passionately named him. And as absurd as it may be, we can get to him publicly with the national ratings. Monday I called eight Representative's offices with my concerns about this whole thing and how they were voting. Speaker Boehner's was the only number with no one on duty - just a medley of weepie patriotic music that made me want to puke.
If someone is giving the store away, this is one way to take it back and hold on to it.
This may be a bit rosy of me to say, but I suspect one of Obama's problems was that he thought too much about the American people. If he was more of a hard-core pragmatist about it, as opposed to an ethical one, he would have unblinkingly kept the debate open until the righties eyes cracked from lack of moisture. They had him and his party's collective balls to the wall, and he knew it.
It is interesting to watch Obama betray his true feelings via his micro-expressions. During his address, I registered complete disgust on his face as he spoke of compromise, Boehner, et al. For what it's worth.
While I love your passion and your wit, I see a lot of connecting dots here that aren't there. After working in politics, I can say that most of the decisions of this nature are not made by the executive branch, but the legislature. I do agree there is a fatal error in both major parties right now, but we can't expect a president (that we didn't even know when we elected him) to be who his party says he's supposed to be. Love your writing, your style and your boldness...and usually you bring a delightful perspective to a weary world. This time I disagree, but still rate you for your voice, which I love and need to hear. It is what makes this country great, in the long run.
It hurts. I'm sad, but not dissolute. There is HOPE- just its so small and marginalized. I worry about people without jobs, people without basic education and recently born to minorities. Margins are thin and hard to live full lives in, but...
I have my vote, and I'll vote every little, medium and BIG election. My vote will go for pollies who think of margins.
Insurance man, people differ in opinion on this, but I think anything that keeps Republicans from being elected while there's this tea party mean streak going on is worth having. Given a choice between ineffective goodness and active badness, I'll take ineffective goodness. And sadly the choice is between good/bad right now, not between policies for achieving goodness. The Republican agenda is actively hostile to the majority of Americans right now. I look forward to the day when we again have two or more political parties working for similar common goals of the average American, just from different points of view. There is no sense in which I can construe the present Republican approach as in the best interest of the US. It's a thin veneer over the dismantling of the US and preparing it for wholesale purchase from without.