You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘betrayal’ tag.

The tax cut deal was signed in a ceremony and they have shots for their rich family albums

Those who were there. Politico starts the account

President Barack Obama celebrated the spirit of compromise Friday as he signed a controversial $858 billion tax-cut and unemployment insurance extension into law — but warned that bipartisan comity could be fleeting.

The most interesting part is just coming

Noticeably absent were Speaker-to-be John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who were all cut out of initial negotiations between Obama’s staff and McConnell.
Or as Politico headlines yesterday,
Unity Pony

Ha! They’re all PUMA now!


Today’s quote comes from Paul Begala and it’s about Obama shoving the Reagonomics up a Dem congress

First shotgun wedding I ever saw where the groom held the gun to his own head.”
The full quote is

“Imagine what he could have done to sell a position he wholeheartedly believed in,” Begala said, adding that it “confirms my own belief that if President Obama had chosen to fight he would have won.

“He could have forced the GOP to cave, created more jobs and done less damage to the deficit. First shotgun wedding I ever saw where the groom held the gun to his own head.”

Of course, the question would be, what makes Begala think Obama, the Reagan worshiper, did not believe in this trickle down/vodoo economics?

and no, it’s not a cartoon this time

For reference, this is an earlier graphic – showing Rs got way more than they asked

Considering Ds control both houses at present, the question would be: WHY?????

I found this graph on DU in this thread

Yes, let’s all adopt the Obama plan; it’s brilliant!

Wonder why you haven’t heard a peep from the usual ranters (and you know who I’m talking about) about the socialist Muslim Kenyan’s scheme that can’t be changed, can’t even be negotiated (sort of like some famous letters of transit, signed by Gen. DeGaulle himself). Cast your gaze upon this analysis:

Isn’t that peachy? The wealthy made out like bandits under the Republican proposal. They make out even better under the Obama/Republican plan. Let’s just empty the Treasury into the pockets of the affluent, because the rest of us are going to get an extra $25 or $100 a month! And it doesn’t have to be paid for, because . . . Well, never you mind about that!

The blue circles are the proposals by each party. The black – it’s the postpartisan wonder worked by Obama. He managed to secure $36,000 more tax cuts to the wealthy than the R even wanted!.

The graph comes from here (somehow Ezra Klein uses it to prove that the deal is worthwhile). His comment on this

All groups are getting more under this framework, but on an individual level, the wealthy are getting much, much more. The question, at the end of the day, is whether stopping them from getting it is worth cutting benefits for the unemployed, and tax cuts for middle-income Americans, and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Of course, for us this is deja vu. I remember Stupak and friends being similarly surprised

“It’s more than what we thought we would get.”

As someone tweeted recently:

If I am ever in a hostage situation, please, don’t let Obama negotiate my release

Now back to Bernie Sanders fillibuster.


It seems the more one looks at this disaster, the more instances of “more than we hoped for” are revealed. Check this headline

Estate Tax Bill Introduced, Containing More Pleasant Surprises for Rich

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has introduced legislation implementing the tax-cut deal that President Obama struck with Congressional Republicans. As expected the legislation restores the estate tax for two years with an exemption of $5 million and a 35 percent tax rates for estates over that amount, but the bill also contains several unexpected provisions that would make it easier for the well-off to transfer their wealth tax-free


Of course the actual news in this AP piece is Dean declaring he won’t challenge Obama in the primary.

While he has frequently criticized the president, Dean announced through a spokeswoman earlier this month that he would not mount a primary challenge against Obama in 2012.

On the title subject he is quoted as saying

“clearly upset members of his base” on issues including tax cuts and allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Obama stands to lose both the presidency and his party’s credibility if he doesn’t reverse course before 2012, Dean said.

“You take care of the people who sent you to the office,” he said in an interview. “There are hundreds of thousands of people under 30 who slept on floors for two years to make sure Barack got elected. You can’t turn your back on those people because if you do, it’s going to be hard to find any friends.”

Funny that he doesn’t even mention Social Security or the pay freeze.

Dean (who was Obama 1.0) has still retained the glow of sainthood among his naive followers, because, unlike Obama he didn’t have time for betrayal.

Of course, people who paid attention, heard him declare “of course I’ll move to the center in the general elections”. Not even in office. In the general elections – and he was declaring this in the primaries, drunk with the feeling that he was selected by the establishment.

As to his advice to Obama, it surely looks good on paper, if not for the fact that it comes a bit late.

To use W’s immortal words: Fool me once, I’ll never get fooled again.

And neither will many of the Os who slept on the floors (and accused me of racism)

Hear them now

Hear, hear!
The 2012 primaries will be Obama’s last days in the public spotlight. After that he’ll have a nice guaranteed corporate job waiting for him –after all he’s done for the right wingers he will definitely never want for money the rest of his life. Too bad the rest of us Americans can’t say that. Permalink


7. You are right

That window is closed. Time to move on. Just when I think…. “Maybe tommorrow (sic) I will wake up and Obama will be a completely different leader”, he does something else that shows that he just doesn’t get it.

Technically that is not true, really. Two years ago he gave an interview to Rolling Stone where he pretty much predicted exactly what happened. The right will say no to everything and say “Look, he accomplished nothing”!”. So I guess we can not even say that it took him by surprise.

So sad. Immeasurable opportunity costs here. Permalink

and somewhere in the CDS blossoming on the thread for some reason someone says

29. Bill ran as a liberal? That’s news to me and I worked on his campaign.

He ran as a Democrat. Big and little D/d. Back then it meant something. It suggested a set of core values re: policy and positions.

Obama ran as a “personality”. Not a liberal, not a progressive, not even as a Democrat. Just him. That is what we got. Permalink

So, on the bright side, they finally figured Obama up. There was no multi-dimensional chess after all. On the other hand, they are still dumb as dirt and up for grabs to the next charlatan the establishment will waive in front of them. After Jeb is done. One loyalist predicts it

31. Oh, what you think is the “base” will come flying back

It’s just a question of when they realize it. Nader voters similarly said they were not going to vote for Democrats, until they had a nice little meeting of the minds with reality. 4 years later, they flocked to the polls to vote for pro-war Kerry.

The actual base (as distinguished from what you think is “the base”) is solidly behind him. (86% approval among liberal Democrats.) Permalink

Not Your Sweetie

December 2019
« Nov