Obama outflanked the wingers

[Bgno64]

http://lancasteronline.com/blogs/smartremarks/2011/04/15/sucker-punched/">Smart Remarks:

The buzz, leading up to the speech, was that Obama was going to cave to the cause of conservatism – he too would announce that it was time to rein in entitlements, that this country could no longer afford this type of commitment to its citizens. Many on the left had steeled themselves for this – and then Obama surprised everyone by coming out swinging on behalf of the liberal aesthetic – i.e. declaring that Medicare, Medicare and Social Security are part of what makes America great; by making a moral case for these programs.

Well. The right has its collective panties in a major twist over this, not just because Obama sucker-punched them but because they realize that they now have to defend not just Ryan’s cuts but the ideology behind them on moral grounds.

And they sense they’re going to lose that argument. And it pisses them off. ...

<because> however Ryan couched his plan, the fact is that the right, as a matter of ideology, detests the mere notion of “redistribution.” And Medicare, Medicaid and even Social Security, really, are classic examples of redistrubution.

Conservatives hate (and that is indeed the correct term) these programs not just because of their cost, and not even primarily because of their cost – but because the mere existence of the programs offends them ideologically.

But now, we’re gonna put that ideology to the test. We are now going to talk about these programs from a moral perspective, and conservatives find themselves in a position where they are going to have to argue that these programs are immoral.

And that’s the kiss of death, right there.

Oh, your cannier conservatives will never concede this, will even feign OUTRAGE!!! that anyone would dare suggest it. But you know how these guys are – they can’t help themselves. Rush and the rest of his lesser imitators fervently believe in the immorality of “redistibution,” and will continue to pound that party line ad infinitum.

As someone who indeed believes in the moral case for these programs – I couldn’t be more thrilled with that.

[Frances]

1. A lot of people at DU

insisted that Obama was giving in on Medicare and Social Security even after the speech.

[Bgno64]

2. I think he did a tactical retreat

And from a cost perspective, I don't have a huge problem with that, so long as the moral commitment entailed in these programs remains intact

[PATRICK]

5. When morons beg to be hit

and jam their glass jaw into your fist, you might want to reconsider treating them as an equal partner with ideas to mutually defend against the Constitution, economic reality, basic morality and reason itself.

The retreat comes in letting these political incompetents regroup and raise their false flags and goofy shouting again. Defense of life, country, reason, political survival? When do these qualify for reexamination of overall enabling policies of assured destruction? When do these ideals trump mercy toward the merciless as one would expect, but strangely rarely see, in the high clubs of power?

I am from New York, but in spirit also from Missouri.

[Jester Messiah]

3. But, having gained the advantage, will he press it?

Obama has been entirely too callow up until now. He needs to keep at it, never letting up for a moment. If he falters, he will fail.

[Bgno64]

12. But this just shows that

if he not only FRAMED the issues from a liberal perspective, but fought for them on that basis, that he could f*cking win a few things on his terms rather than on THEIR terms.

There is a fundamental moral argument to be made for liberalism and this president and too many in his party run away from making it. But I tell you, that argument resonates, or WOULD resonate if it was framed the way he did it in this speech.

[bif]

4. I don't think they'll argue that they're immoral

They'll just keep on yammering that we can't afford them. It all started with Reagan. Trim a few million here and there from social programs. Then run up the defense budget by billions upon billions of dollars. And the great unwashed won't know the difference. The average American is clueless. Just take a gander at the comments in the Yahoo forums.If you can stomach it.

[notesdev]

6. Wishful thinking

seems I use that subject line a lot these days


Obama didn't do anything with that speech. He basically announced that he will kick the budgetary can down the road into the next Presidency.

Only he doesn't control the purse strings, and it's no longer Nancy Pelosi who does. So basically the end result here is that he pretty much guaranteed that he will get zero cooperation from the House for the rest of his term (and probably, Presidency). He may possibly have also stoked the fires of impeachment proceedings as well. If the GOP has nothing to gain from bargaining with him, there's little incentive for them to restrain themselves.

Doesn't get better for him from here either; in the case that he actually wins re-election in 2012 he'll not only have a GOP house, but a GOP Senate as well, and possibly veto-proof GOP majorities in both.

The weakest President in living memory just made himself weaker and more isolated.

Oh, and in other news, his transformation into George Bush III is nearly complete, now that the goal in Libya has once again morphed into "regime change".

[SecularMotion]

7. I must say I'm very impressed with your ability

to fit so many right wing talking points into a post of that size.

[notesdev]

8. Which points do you dispute?

Do you dispute that Obama's plan pushes all the cuts until after 2017, when his second term will be over?

Do you dispute that the GOP is going to end up with a strong majority in the Senate as a result of the 2012 elections?

Do you dispute that the GOP is going to maintain if not strengthen its majority in the House as a result of the 2012 elections?

Do you dispute that our mission in Libya has become "regime change"?

Do you dispute that Obama has adopted and pursued many policies identical for all practical purposes to those pursued by George Bush?

Please be specific.

[SecularMotion]

9. I dispute your right wing framing of the issues

and as long as you continue to use right wing talking points, having an honest discussion of issues with you would be futile.

[notesdev]

10. Cut out the name calling

The only right wingerism going on here is you denying that Obama has turned into George Bush.

[SecularMotion]

11. Name calling?

Where did that occur?

"Obama has turned into George Bush" is THE MAJOR RIGHT WING TALKING POINT!

[notesdev]

15. Since when?

I've been pointing that out here for quite some time and I'm definitely not the only one who's noticed.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that we're in a reprise of Iraq now, in Libya? It's now officially "regime change" - a term created by the Bush admin? Another war for oil can't get it through your head how similar Obama has become to Bush?

Why would a right winger equate Obama to their hero, anyway?

[creon]

16. No

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

[creon]

14. well played

More RW talking points.

Again, No.

[BobbyBoring]

21. I really don't see the GOP gaining anything

I bet a lot of the newbies wish they had stayed in their mundane jobs instead of embarrassing themselves in the national spot light. I can't think of one newbie that hasn't proven them,selves to be anything but a horses ass~

[DCKit]

18. Better spelling than average, though.

But really, talk about a "glass half-empty" perspective... for a supposed (D), anyway.

[notesdev]

22. The glass is more than half empty

I heard the same "oh you're so negative" complaints before the 2010 elections. They turned out almost exactly as I'd predicted them (I was within 5 seats of the final House total).

It's called being realistic.

Here's an ugly fact for you: Out of 34 Senate seats up this year, the Republicans need only win 11 of them to make gains in the Senate. If they capture half, they've got a solid majority. If they repeat the performance of 2010 they will have at least 60 seats!

Here's another ugly fact: The 2010 Census is going to result in a number of Congressional seats being lost in Democratic states and gained in Republican states.

And another: Thanks to the catastrophic losses in 2010, the GOP is in charge of the decentennial redistricting process in 3/4ths of the states in this country, which, due to the gerrymandering that has long become standard, will virtually guarantee the loss of another couple of dozen House seats above and beyond the Census adjustment.


That's the context.

Now let's talk about what voters want.

Voters don't like the influence of big banks and bailouts for banks and other companies. Thanks to Obama, the Democratic Party stole the mantle of bailout funder from the GOP, who properly deserved it.

Voters are watching gas and food prices skyrocket. The Democratic Party is offering no solution whatsoever to these problems.

Voters are concerned about the loss of jobs and degradation of the standard of living. In response, Obama has appointed teams of aristocrats as his economic advisors and pursued additional free trade treaties.

Voters are concerned about the offshoring of jobs and industry. In response, Obama has appointed the King of Offshoring to his economic council and went on a high-profile trade mission to India where the main topic was giving US business to India.

Voters are outraged that megacorps get away with paying no taxes, while small businesses pay the full rate. In response, Obama appointed the King of Corporate Tax Evasion to his economic council.

Voters are sick and tired of endless wars and extreme military spending. In response, Obama has started a brand new war with no public debate and done nothing to wind down the existing two.

I could go on and on and on and on and on. Any of this sound "right-wing" to you? If it does, you got a different definition of that term that I ever heard before.

[SecularMotion]

24. The Obama=Bush right wing talking point is getting old

Since President Obama took office, the right wing noise machine has made great efforts to transfer the blame for the disasters created by the Bush administration to the Obama administration.

[notesdev]

25. Oh those devious Republicans!!

They made Obama vote for TARP; they made Obama sign more "free trade" treaties; they made Obama start a new war in Libya; they made Obama stay in Afghanistan and Iraq; they made Obama reappoint Ben Bernanke, and they made Obama appoint Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and now Jeff Immelt! They made Obama go to India to stump for more outsourcing and offshoring; they made Obama help BP cover up the effects of their catastrophic spill and strictly limit their liability!


Listen, if you believe that you may as well give up now, because you are facing an omnipotent opposition able to mind control our leadership.

[SecularMotion]

26. Your opinions are in sync with the republican noise machine

and aren't shared by many progressive Democrats.

[notesdev]

27. That's nonsense

I know they're quite widely shared among liberal Democrats. Where they are not widely shared is amongst those who have a specific investment in particular leaders who have done us wrong. Republicans don't care about any of these things.

[SecularMotion]

28. I don't accept your claim

that your opinions are "widely shared" by liberal Democrats.

[notesdev]

29. And I don't accept yours

that any of these sentiments are expressed by Republicans.

Regardless - I am under no illusions that people will suddenly wake up. I'm putting this here in part to get the brains of the few who think moving, and in part so that when the disaster election of 2012 is over, I can tell those of you, who persist in denial of incontrovertible facts, in big bright red letters

I told you so

and maybe then there will be a little bit better reception to the ideas we'll need to fix our party's problems.

So bookmark this and let's reconvene in November 2012.

[SecularMotion]

31. Did you have ideas to fix our party's "problems"?

I must have missed those in your litany of blaming President Obama for the disasters of the Bush Administration.

[notesdev]

33. I expound on them all the time

Just read through my journal, in addition to the cataloging of the various depredations of the banking industry I point to many positive things that could be done.

And you'll get to see plenty of past stuff in which I was shouted down just like you and others are doing right now, where I turned out to be absolutely correct... as I will again, this time.

[SecularMotion]

34. I didn't think so

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SecularMotion]

36. Your need to SHOUT your opinion displays the weakness of your positions.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[creon]

13. No

It looks to me that you are indulging in wishful thinking.

Keep talking the way that you are talking and you just may get that veto proof GOP majority that you say that you do not want.

[notesdev]

17. It's practially written in stone already

Between the census and the inequity of seats up for re-election in the Senate, the only question left to be resolved is how many more gains they make.

And they will make them, because we have completely failed to face up to the fact that we lost bad in 2010 as a result of failing to meet the needs of the electorate. Instead of facing those issues, the political animals in this party have doubled down all on the things that caused us to lose in the first place - provincialism, kowtowing to special interests at the expense of the general public, continuing many Bush policies (bailouts, war, corporate handouts, corrupt practices, etc.) that were wholeheartedly rejected by voters twice (2006/08).

Guess we'll have to wait until the 2012 elections smack the delusional among us with a clue-by-four. I was hoping people would wake the fuck up before that happens, I really really really don't want to see another unified GOP government.

[E_Equals_MC2]

19. Yes

Very good speech from the POTUS. I think it was about time he
states his principles whether you agree or not

[Bgno64]

20. Speaking of the moral argument

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-073.shtml">chimes in on Obama's side:

The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources. A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.

Listen man, when a Democratic president gets the Catholic Church on his side - he's doing it right.

[bertman]

23. I was thrilled with the President's speech and his first ever Kiss My Ass to the

Right wing. Now I'm hoping that he will back up that attitude with action.

As many have pointed out, there is lots of dreaded 'wiggle room' in how he left open the debate for REFORM of these valuable social programs. That could be a good thing to get all the ideas on the table. Unfortunately, past experience has shown us that negotiating and saying NO is not President Obama's strong suit.

What pleased me most about the speech is that he has energized many folks who might otherwise have just given up under the force of the Right wing onslaught. Yes, it was his first major campaign salvo, but it could also turn out to be a change of direction.

I'm going to give it some time to see how this plays out. But, I'll be letting my congresscritters know that I support no meddling with SS, Medicare and Medicaid unless it's strengthening them.

[tucsonlib]

30. James Kenneth Galbraith Once Eloquently Summed It Up:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

[louslobbs]

32. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are examples of Republicon talking points promoting these

as examples of "redistribution" of wealth and "entitlements" downward. "Rush, and the rest of his lesser imitators fervently believe in the immorality of “redistibution,” and will continue to pound that party line ad infinitum".

First off, Rush Limbaugh is the lesser of his imitators and the "redistribution of wealth" in this country, is truly immoral, but it has nothing to do with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Why don't Republican Psychos like Rush, find the "immorality" in their own continuous upward "redistribution" of wealth through corporate welfare, continuous tax cut bonuses for the millionaires and billionaires, tax loopholes for the rich and powerful to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, low capital gains taxes (where most of the filthy rich including Rush get most of their wealth), farm subsidies to the rich who own acres of land but do no farming (but simply keep a few cows on the land) to steal more for themselves, deferred compensation for millionaires and billionaires who can afford to defer income to a later date so that they can pay lower taxes on that money in the future? How about all of the other immoral ways in which the Republicons and corporations steal wealth from the majority and "redistribute" it up wards to the entitled rich and (themselves)?

Almost all of the "redistribution" of wealth has been upward to millionaires and billionaires, not downward to those who played by the rules, while Republicons, millionaires and billionaires cheated and rigged the system to benefit themselves.

Where is the immorality of corporations, millionaires and billionaires who have purchased our government to do their bidding, increasingly stealing from programs that assist the suffering poor and middle class and "redistributing" that stolen wealth, through tax cut bonuses, up wards to further enrich themselves?

Republicons, and most of the millionaires and billionaires, have a lot of nerve when they utter the word immoral to describe anyone other than themselves. If they "fervently" believe in the immorality of wealth "redistribution", then they must also believe that they themselves, Republicons, are the most immoral of all beings.

Thanks for your post, I know that you don't think of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as a "redistribution" of wealth downward, I just see all of those words together in a sentence, and it forces me to comment.
Lou