Rick Ungar: Obama’s Character And The Progressives Who Resent It

[dennis4868]

It wasn’t just that the President of the United States drew that proverbial line in the sand by stating his firm refusal to continue the Bush tax cuts one moment longer than legally required. And it wasn’t just Obama’s taking a solid stand when he said “Not while I’m President” to the GOP budget plan that would break the nation’s most basic cultural commitments by destroying Medicare and dramatically curtailing Medicaid, all to provide still more tax breaks to the richest Americans. What did it for me in Obama’s plan to get the nation’s finances in order was that the President took his stand against the GOP effort to take away the soul of this nation while staring directly into the eyes of Rep. Paul Ryan- the architect of the document that would remake this country in the mold of third world nations where there are rich people and poor people with nobody in the middle.

Unlike the taunts, personal insults and barbs that Ryan and his companions lob at the president on a daily basis from the safety of a television studio, Obama took the route that requires character. He did it to Ryan’s face.

Skip....

This reality was never brought into sharper focus than last December when Obama elected to suffer the slings and arrows fired at him by his own supporters by swallowing hard and agreeing to the extension of the Bush tax credits. Anyone who truly understood what was at issue in that fight- and the incredibly difficult choices available to the President – understands that Obama chose to pay the political price in order to ensure that millions of Americans who are out of work would continue to get their unemployment benefits. He was willing to take the hit from those who are supposed to be his friends so that he could protect the already suffering middle class from having to pay for the President’s political safety in the guise of the tax increases that were threatened for those who could least afford them. That took character.

Entire article is here....http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/04/14/obamas-character-and-the-progressives-who-resent-it/

[Vattel]

1. Hysterically funny spin. His courage is truly inspiring.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

4. Hysterically funny rebuttal of Ungar factual observations n/t

[kenfrequed]

8. Either way

I don't think political expediency should be characterized as courage either way. I think he chose the path that would provide the least friction and was unwilling to try to make the republicans eat the mess they created; they bluffed and he folded.

Fortunately he got it right in the recent redo when the tea party, emboldened by his folding in December, decided to ram a horribly regressive budget through. I really wish he had this kind of spine back when the blue dogs were thwarting him. But I don't really blame him for all that.

Evan Bayh is the real villain for cutting Obama's heels out from under him before he even took the oath office by organizing the damned Senate Blue Dog Caucus (how many purely senate caucuses have there actually been anyhow?)in December of 2008. Their expressed purpose was to bottle up legislation that they thought was "too progressive" and it worked. THEY screwed over the party, not President Obama, and They gave us little reform to run on which allowed the republicans to retake congress more easily.

Courage, in my mind doesn't enter into it and courage is doing the right thing despite the consequences, not in gaming the electoral math and offending the people least likely to be able to do anything about it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. "Courage, in my mind doesn't enter into it and courage is doing the right thing ......

despite the consequences". Didn't the author just say that? :shrug: He took a hit with the PL, true?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

11. I think a lot of people don't mind gambling in regards to the republicans supposed bluff

since their own paycheck likely was quite safe in any case.

After all, if your gambling with somebodies salary then your own its a lot easier to go 'all in' as there is no real risk for you to do so.

[kenfrequed]

20. Uhm

I am working class. It IS my paycheck. It is my unemployment insurance, my social security, my medicare, and it will be our collective debt that the repukes use to try to 'Shock Doctrine' us out of our infrastructure and benefits. Giving into them did not accomplish much accept accepting the primacy of tax cuts as an economic solution. I am grateful that he undercut that position this last week and am eagerly awaiting seeing more of that.

Of course I find it odd that no matter how many of these I post on where I defend President Obama by pointing out the idiocy, greed, and nastiness of Evan Bayh in backstabbing him that there is a group of defenders that never comment on that.

I strongly suspect that there are those on this board that could care less about President Obama but do seem to like it when he swings to the conserva-dem side, or lets them get away with it. They conflate their arguments against progressive policy to the point where progressive critques or requests or demands are being made to be 'anti-Obama.' Considering I am pointing out factually who is responsible for bottling legislation I find this odd.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

25. would you have been one of those who suddently would have lost their unemployment benefits tho

if Obama had tried to call their bluff and failed?

Those are the people Obama decided was more important, and its a decision i agree with him on.

I do agree with you on that its a good thing he undercut their position last week tho

[kenfrequed]

30. As long

As we continue this tax break ideology we will be in danger of having our benefits washed away. Attaching unemployment benefits was a win-win for the Republicans. They didn't have to make any hard choices that would hurt them electorally. This isn't just about idealism, it is about actually winning the long race as well.

To me it sounds as though the changes in President Obama's staff might have actually made him dig in and fight more. Of course that is very strange considering that his former Chief of Staff had a reputation for being a scrapper. Perhaps it wasn't really earned.

[Donnachaidh]

36. he didn't seem to have much of a conscience about the 99ers

you know, the ones who were *disappeared* from the discussion and never mentioned again? The ones who lost their benefits and Obama did NOTHING for?

Convenient Compassion is disgusting, and this administration has lots of that - especially in election cycles....

[phleshdef]

50. Two years of unemployment benefits is more than reasonable.

I know 99 weeks isn't a full 2 years, but I'm rounding for convenience. We can't supply benefits indefinately. Newly unemployed people deserve benefits too and we have a finite amount of resources. If you've gone more than 2 years and still haven't found a job, something is wrong.

[Donnachaidh]

56. yet more excuses for the president who drove the bus over the folks who voted for him.

disgusting.

[phleshdef]

57. Its not "making an excuse". No excuse is needed. A 2 year limit is acceptable.

I've been unemployed and collected unemployment. And regardless of who runs the government, there is no way I would expect to get benefits for more than 2 years. Thats just absurd. And if Obama HAD gotten it extended it for the 99ers, then you would be bitching and moaning about the 150ers.

There has to be a limit to how long someone can collect unemployment. There is no mathematical way around that. Two years is an entirely reasonable and acceptable limit.

And if someone really can't find a job after 2 years of trying hard and they have no other source of income, there ARE other aid options they can apply for that aren't unemployment.

Theres liberalism and then theres just utter ridiculousness. Expecting unemployment to last forever does not fall into the category of the first.

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! I admire your restraint.

You're trying to reason with someone who regularly posts "information" from WSWS, a site devoted to trashing both national political parties, whose writers seem to think that our president should adopt some Hugo Chavez style swagger, nationalize the banks, imprison all the millionaires, storm the Bastille, and essentially wipe our collective asses from cradle to grave. Good luck breaking through that. :hi:

[damntexdem]

2. Hmm, "resent."

Goes a bit further than resentment. How about: feelings of betrayal?

But Obama DID draw an important line on Medicare and SS, for which I give him credit. Now I'll watch to see if he sticks to that line.

[Demeter]

3. Incensed, Now that the REAL Obama is revealed for all to see

Talk about your Liar Loans.

[polichick]

5. Problem with this article is, too often he HASN'T "gone to the people" - as in the public option...

...in negotiating drug prices and in ending subsidies to his beloved Exelon and friends - to name a few.

[vaberella]

37. What are you talking about? The people didn't propose the PO.

He did. Why don't you say he hasn't "gone to the people" and mention Single Payer. Then maybe you'd have a point---if single payer wasn't slandered as socialism. He pushed PO. They knew about it because he explained it, in countless news interviews and townhalls. Unfortunately CONGRESS DIDN'T go to the people Congress said fuck it. And HCR's passage would be at risk if it was even in it. Actually the Senate shot it down. So why are you saying it was Obama?! Why?

Negotiating drug prices because as it was seen Snowe-Durbin had no chance in hell even though it was bipartisan. Obama publicly supported it and backed it's passage---which would have been great. Unfortunately, we need a better deal. Ugh...the amount of twisting you've done....I don't know.

[polichick]

61. The people supported the public option in huge numbers and the prez...

...traded it away privately while supporting it in public - do your homework.

The "twisting" is done by people who insist on remaining in denial when the prez screws the people over in favor of entrenched interests, whether they be drug companies or Exelon.

[jaxx]

6. Really good article.

K & R

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. Exceptional article, and what many of us have known all along.

:thumbsup:

especially true:

"I was angry with progressives for their willingness to put someone else’s money where their mouth is.

As I wrote at the time, it’s awfully easy to demand that the President stay true to his progressive roots and go to the mats with the Republicans as you sip a fine glass of wine with your friends inside a cozy bistro. Meanwhile, as you enjoy the conversation and drinks, you don’t even notice that poor fellow outside the bar who is offering to shovel driveways to make a few bucks so he can put a cheap dinner on the table for his children. He’s the one who lost his job and, if progressives had their way, would have been cut off from the only financial lifeline he had -all so that the liberals could feel more righteous in their willingness to battle the GOP using the snow shoveler’s money-not their own.

That is not progressive behavior- that is elitist behavior.

The wine drinkers were not the ones on the President’s mind last December. It was the cold guy on the outside who was the focus of Obama’s attention-and that is precisely as it should have been."

:applause:

[dennis4868]

10. I agree with you....

It took a hell of alot of courage for Obama to do that tax cut deal with the repubs back in December....he is president and has an obligation to look after those who need the most help, not the PL who whine and bitch about everything not being perfect by yesterday....Obama has INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF CHARACTER....He is the only adult in the room!

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Indeed. The PL has a lot to answer for, not least among them, the 2010 midterms.

:thumbsup:

[Armstead]

26. Wotta bunch of bullshit

Talk about elitist.

This character assumes that everyone who supports liberal and progressive goals are all fat and happy and sitting around coffeehouses-all day.

Sometimes this place feels like Republican Underground.

[treestar]

31. It's fair to assume that anyone who wanted to trade the

benefits for the tax cuts would accept the consequences to poorer people or people who needed the aid that was part of the deal didn't need those benefits. If someone said they were on unemployment but were willing to do without it so the rich couldn't keep their tax cuts, they'd have a leg to stand on there, but one doesn't find such people.

[Armstead]

38. I would counter that Democrats did not have to be in that position...

My point is that engaging in such stereotyping of everyone who is fed up with Democratic capitulation is Not just Trust fund epithets or latte liberals.

The GOP have realized that the Democrats can be rolled, and al, they have to do is let situations slide until their backs are to the wall...Like the tax cut situation, which the Democrats allow to deteriorate to the point where they had to accept a bad deal.

It is not much of a leap of imagination to envision the GOP continuing to mug the Democrats.

So what happens if the GOP decides to block unemployment benefits unless the Democrats are willing to rescind all of Obama's health care plan?

Or if they refuse to extend unemployment unless Obama agrees to adopt to the GOP Ryan budget plan in it's entirety?

In other words, where would YOU draw the line?

And if they do go a bridge too far, would your belief that their blackmail has to be resisted make you a spoiled latte sipping elitist?

Your positions would be a lot more constructive if you actually focus on the subject at hand, instead of stereotyping those who have a different view.

[TheKentuckian]

59. False. I was unemployed as were many others. Those tax cuts are not free, we will all pay for them.

for a very long time, especially the unemployed and the poor as a strapped government that is allergic to revenue cuts services and programs and those that are being funnelled all if these resources continue enjoying a huge incentive not to invest.

Some of you folks need to grasp this isn't about soaking the rich but a serious resource distribution issue and I suspect why this obvious piece of the picture is missed is that lots of folks dodging the point want to keep the toxic cuts.

The entire purpose of an economy is to distribute resources and these cuts systemically force more and more into fewer hands. They all need to go, certainly for the top 20% we can't function like this and we all know it.

It is absolutely garbage policy.

As far as unemployment benefits, the entire thing is our fault. The extensions should have been indexed to the UI rate and never be allowed to be a point of further contention. Certainly, we shouldn't have been trying to use the cuts as a political club by having a vote on extensions every few weeks instead of a serious effort.

[paulk]

63. well said

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Not all of us, just some of us. We progressives/liberals have been wrong,

and at times, we ARE elitists looking down on some people on the other side who are simply ignorant or don't know. But I saw a lot of it in the city (Washington, D.C.), when I attended cocktail parties with the progressive activists and lobbyists. Although many of them are still my dear, dear friends, their sanctimonious, self-righteous attitudes don't sit well with a lot of people. It's easy to sit back, sipping on your glass of wine and bitching about how the president isn't "pure enough." It's another thing to acknowledge the difficulty of governing in these times.

I swear that if we give the president MORE progressives, not only in the halls of the federal government, but at the local levels, too, he'll have enough political capital to do what we want. But, as long as we sit back and ridicule what he has or has not done, rather than getting out and working hard to elect more progressives, then we need to assume some of that fault, too!

We are proud liberals who have been right about a great number of things. But, sadly, there aren't enough of us in government to have an impact on policy. We need more Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingolds. But, sitting at home in November did us no favors. And now, we have the gall to demand that Obama do more. How can he do more when he has fewer progressives in Congress? How can he do more when faced with the Teabaggers/Republicans not wanting to budge on anything...aided by a recalcitrant Corporate Media?

[Armstead]

43. I beg to differ on a couple of things

1) Yes, of course there are wine sipping elitist snobs who are liberals and progressives...But there also such snobs who are "centrists" and conservatives...Just as there are down to earth progressives and liberals, as well as centrists and conservatives.

It does us no good to automatically associate a lifestyle or temperament with an ideology. One may strongly disagree with an ideology or strategic position, but that is a separate matter.

2) It wasn't so much that the progressives stayed home in 2010...The problem was that many moderates stayed home, as well as the Obama supporters who were not committed enough to political change...And that the Democrats failed to make the case to swing voters.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. The first sentence in my post stated that "NOT ALL" of us behave this way.

It doesn't negate the fact that too many of us--yes us--as well as the moderates and the independents stayed home in November. The bottom line is that if we continue to work hard at the grassroots level to elect more progressives, we will have more political capital, and Obama would have more leverage to do some of the things that he ran on.

[mkultra]

51. Its damn clear that anyone bitching about the tax/UI deal isnt unemployed

Wanting deficit reduction over UI is pretty clealry elitist.

[Armstead]

58. Not that simple

Here's how I look at it.

I don't necessarily disagree that the tax cuts for the rich should have been extended considering the circumstances.

However, the Democrats created those circumstances by failing to propose a bill to extend the middle class tax cuts long before that, and calling the GOP's bluff...But instead, the Democrats chose the path of political cowardice, and therefore allowed themselves to be backed into a corner -- YET AGAIN.

That is not an elitist observation.

The problem is that Democrats are ALWAYS going to find a reason or excuse to avoid tackling the very ANTI-ELITIST challenge of reforming economic policies and the political culture to stop this increasing concentration of wealth and power -- and the systematic gutting of the working and middle class majority. And the dismantling of government -- INCLUDING THE SAFETY NET.

So WHEN do we start pushing to stop those capitulations? I can guaran-damntee you that unless the Democrats start dealing with these issues damn soon, the GOP and the Robber Barons will have acquired enough power to absolutely make it impossible to reform and change things. And the issue of UI compensation will become irrelevant because the entire working/middle class will be completely at their mercy, and will be forced to rely on whatever crumbs are thrown their way.

Rather than repeating this pattern of a downward slide, at some point the Democrats have to combine a much greater degree of both backbone and strategy to start regaining some ground for the majority....That also must include some thinking ahead, so that we are not always caught in the traps.

That's not elitist.

[mkultra]

60. Actually it is

Political ideology aside, it was either right or wrong. It was the right thing to do.

Your intellectual contortions don't make it wrong.

[Armstead]

62. No intellectual contortions at all

As I said, given the circumstances, it was probably necessary.

HOWEVER, it is not an "elitist" position to recognize that somewhere along the line we have to stop letting the GOP and Corporate Oligarchs continue to roll us.

AND whenever we start to actually push back, there is going to be problems and consequences involved. That's the nature of it...I am not suggesting sacrificing people for ideology, but there is never going to be a time when there will be no consequences or risks involved in fighting back.

Unless you prefer that Democrats continue to look for excuses to further empower and enrich the GOP and wealthy exploiters, which is a defacto form of elitism.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. This reminds me of the so-called "progressives" here on DU and elsewhere yelling

that the government ought to be shut down.

It was the one thing that united them with the Teabaggers...oh, and their hatred for the president.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. "the government ought to be shut down". These are the ones I've completely...

tuned out, and given up on. They want the government to shut down for fun-sies, with no clue about the real life impact of a "government shutdown". And I agree that some have moved the goalposts so far to the left, they've now become as harmful or more, as the teabaggers.

It's easy to play political chicken when your paycheck won't be affected.

[ipaint]

44. That's funny because taxes went UP on the working poor. Maybe he shouldn't think about us so much.

It does us no good.

[Youth Uprising]

46. What the fuck?

Where did this idiot come up with that characterization of progressives? I'M the guy who is outside offering to shovel driveways just to make a few bucks, while the wealthy elite in this country celebrate and sip their champagne over their obscene tax cuts. Some neoliberal apologist who writes for Forbes has the audacity to call me 'elitist'? That's rich.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Yeah right. And what other roles do you play on the internet?

Unless one of them is a professional "progressive" journalist/blogger, I don't think he was talking to you. And, FWIW, I completely agree with Mr. Ungar's characterization.

[bvar22]

13. Great Campaign Speech...The Obama we all remember from 2008!

...and the added Drama with the Staring into the Eyes part....NICE touch!


but I seem to remember that NOT extending the Bush Tax Cuts was a BIG part of another Campaign Speech.

Maybe THIS time he really means it?:shrug:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

18. might want to take a look at the last section of the OP

since i think that points out why he did it.

Also a few lines lower in the full article is this part.

I was angry with progressives for their willingness to put someone else’s money where their mouth is.

As I wrote at the time, it’s awfully easy to demand that the President stay true to his progressive roots and go to the mats with the Republicans as you sip a fine glass of wine with your friends inside a cozy bistro. Meanwhile, as you enjoy the conversation and drinks, you don’t even notice that poor fellow outside the bar who is offering to shovel driveways to make a few bucks so he can put a cheap dinner on the table for his children. He’s the one who lost his job and, if progressives had their way, would have been cut off from the only financial lifeline he had -all so that the liberals could feel more righteous in their willingness to battle the GOP using the snow shoveler’s money-not their own.

That is not progressive behavior- that is elitist behavior.

[bvar22]

21. and I'm sure ...

...that there will be a wonderful excuse for next time too.

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

Who will STAND UP and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
"By their WORKS you will know them,"

[Vattel]

41. That part about the guy shoveling driveways

to make a few bucks so he can put a cheap dinner on the table for his children really makes me tear up. Thank God Obama had the courage to stand up for that guy and suffer the consequences of capitulating to the Republicans. He stood his ground in the face of a shower of latte-laced verbal assaults hurled at him by the cold-hearted, elitist progressives. He deserves a freaking purple heart.

[mkultra]

52. why do you hate the unemployed?

[CakeGrrl]

14. Great points. For example, the selective view from some corners of the Left that

the President simply decided to go along with extending tax cuts because he's a corporatist Republican lover.

That's naive and simpleminded on its face.

Those who choose to ignore what actually happened are setting themselves up for more deep disappointment if they think a 'real Progressive' will just get in there and get things done because they'll want to more than President Obama does. It's as if some people really believe it's just a matter of putting a more staunch Progressive in there to turn the tide.

[dennis4868]

16. That's right....

It's as if the PL and many bloggers believe that Obama could pass any law or tax the wealthy without having to deal with congress or getting their approval....they believe a "real" progressive will get in the WH and will ignore congress and fillubusters and can simply put in place progressive policies just like any king could do....it's as if congress does not exists to these people.

[eomer]

24. No, that's not right.

It's as if progressives (this one, anyway) believe that Obama should have used the opportunity when it was available, specifically the budget reconciliation process. Under that process he could have pushed through much of his campaign blueprint with only 50 votes in the Senate. Instead he pretended (and continues to pretend, as you do) that reconciliation did not exist.

Now, of course, it is too late since the House has a Republican majority. Essentially Obama managed to run out the clock through the period when he had a chance to get something done. He's like a hockey coach who stalls when his team is in a powerplay. The only coach who would do that is one who has been paid off to take a dive. Just sayin'.

[dennis4868]

34. You seemed to forget that....

Obama never had a fillubuster proof senate...not since day one of his presidency....the Blue Dogs are not dems!

Again, you think Obama can ignore fillubusters and pass any law he wants....get with reality!

[eomer]

45. You seem to not know that...

a bill cannot be filibustered when it is a budget reconciliation bill. It is guaranteed to get an up or down vote requiring only 50 votes in the Senate.

Many major pieces of legislation over the last few decades have been accomplished through the budget reconciliation process during times when they would have been otherwise impossible to pass if they had been subject to the filibuster.

Here is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)">Wikipedia page that explains what the budget reconciliation process is, how it works, and when it has been used.

As you can see from the list there, Obama has used the reconciliation process just once, to pass the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. This bill was not subject to the filibuster and would not have passed had it been.

While the reconciliation process has limits on the types of bills that can be done under it, one that certainly could have been done is to raise taxes on the wealthy and/or lower them on the middle class and poor. Obama could have done that with only votes of Democrats and needing only 50 votes in the Senate, which he certainly could have done if he had only tried. There might have been a couple of Senators who would need some massaging but that is the job that Obama needed to do and certainly could have done if he had been sincerely working to do the right thing for the people who elected him. Instead he chose to do what the corporate masters wanted and he was counting on people being poorly informed and capable of being fooled -- much the same as the way Republicans work it.

Edit to add: and Obama could bring the troops home anytime he decides to, without any act of Congress whatsoever. So Obama could have reformed the tax rates to more fairly tax the wealthy and he could have ended the wars -- probably the two most pressing needs that would solve our fiscal crisis without imposing austerity on the middle class and poor. It is now too late to do the former (since the House as a Republican majority) but he can still do the latter anytime he merely decides to.

[Armstead]

23. No, some on "the Left" realize that Obama and the Dems in Congress...

...backed themselves into a corner where they became vulnerable to GOP. Extortion because they did not fight that fight a lot sooner because they were scared of having to actually stand for something before the election.

That why the Democrats often get rolled by the GOP.

Who's naive and simpleminded?

[mkultra]

53. They are unable to stand because we lack unity

which is caused by people like you. I fail to see how anyone how puts personal views over general progress can complain about a group of politicians doing the same thing.

[girl gone mad]

15. So now selling out your ideals and supporters is brave?

The corporatists can't sink much lower than this.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Obama realizes he can't spend his time playing to you guys, unless he wants

nothing but paralyzing gridlock. I know the PL loves that, because it makes for great headlines & political theatre, but it sure doesn't help Joe Blow who's rent won't be paid if his unemployment is suspended. The GOP is finding out right now that you can't cater to a slither of your base, and not suffer politically for it.

The ability to compromise is described as "caving" by the PL, and concensus building has apparently become a bad word. Thank goodness that between the teabaggers & the PL, there's still an adult in the room, and his name Pres. Barack Obama. :hi:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

54. why do you hate the unemployed?

[guruoo]

19. To all the astroturfers, trolls, and ez-chair quarterbacks...

Ungar sends his love.

[Armstead]

27. Oh someone o. The Forbes website doesn't like Progressives...Shocking

Consider the source

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. Lots of wailing & gnashing of teeth. Must've struck a nerve?

:rofl:

[CakeGrrl]

32. Must have. Some don't like the idea that

the President may NOT be a spineless wimp who just needs to fight harder.

:crazy:

I almost wish, just to compare the response, that you could somehow get a Kucinich type in there, see what kind of roadblocks he hits, and then see if he would be regarded as a rollover failure or a valiant hero meeting unfair opposition.

I think I can guess the answer, though.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. It would definitely have to be a "Kucinich type". The man, himself, is a loon!

The narrative of a super-dooper majority in 2008 was a lie, created out of whole cloth, by the PL & the teabaggers. You can't ever count Joe Liebermann among a Democratic majority as he represents some weird third party in CT. That, coupled with the blue dogs, it's amazing that this president got as much as he did.

[AtomicKitten]

49. It's a full court spasm.

[Cowpunk]

29. Unrec

Just one more variation on the "Obama is powerless" fallacy.

Weakness is strength.
Caving takes courage.
Blah Blah Blah.

[Enrique]

35. "chose to pay the political price"

Obama got a huge boost by extending those tax cuts. His poll numbers went way up and all the pundits on TV showered him with love.

Some political price.

This Rick Ungar is making an assumption about Obama, that he cares what the left says about him. In fact, there's evidence that he likes being criticized by the left. It certainly helps his re-election chances.

[Jakes Progress]

42. Warm and fuzzy words, And a very fuzzy analysis of events.

But go ahead and bask in the glow if that is what you need.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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