Monday Night Discussion

How do you make a party that impeached a president over a fucking blowjob look "crazy"? Discuss. Because that, apparently, is Obama's huge, Earth-shattering "victory".

Bill Maher Sets Off Obamabots

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bill Maher's appearance on The Last Word sent the Obamabots into a frenzy on Twitter. Maher told Lawrence O'Donnell that Obama was arguing about the debt ceiling on Republican terms. Which is absolutely true. Maher also said he likes Obama and the president is dealing with an unreasonable opposition party. The Obamabots reacted like Maher accused Obama of treason.

Obamabot Alert: Joy-Ann Reid

Joy-Ann Reid wrote that she was extremely dubious that President Barack Obama would cut Social Security and Medicare.

When that “unnamed source”-laden Washington Post story came out earlier this week, claiming the White House was putting Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table, I was extremely dubious.

The Washington Post and Politico versions of the story quoted no one, cited no “unnamed administration officials” — only “sources with knowledge of the White House’s thinking” — always a sketchy concept. And the reports claimed that the White House was dangling entitlement cuts in front of cut-happy Republicans in exchange for ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. But that made no sense, because everyone knows Republicans will never, ever go for it. Besides, Democrats don’t need to deal that hand, since those cuts will expire at the end of 2012, after the election is over, when regardless of the outcome that November, Democrats can let all of the Bush tax cuts die (including the ones Democrats want to keep, like the child tax credits, but there you go…) by simply refusing to bring them up for a vote in the Senate.

The problem is I tweeted to Reid instances when President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden said that Social Security and Medicare were on the table. Reid was defending Obama. She didn't care about Social Security and Medicare. Reid is now defending cuts to Social Security.

@mygirls3333 not just Clinton. Tip O'Neil and some Dems who are still in Congress, voted for that 1983 plan that raised the Soc Sec ret age.

This tweet is laughable.

@ClarissaW no, I don't think he's proposing that. He did propose slightly increasing the existing means testing in Part D in his budget.

Means testing is a Republican talking point for cutting benefits. Means testing is reducing the number of people that qualify for Social Security. The current program is that any American can receive Social Security benefits when they retire. John Rother of the AARP points out how stupid means testing would be.

The notion that the benefits are an earned right separates Social Security from means-tested income-support programs. Social Security can help everyone. Means testing is a feature of taxpayer-funded welfare programs designed to help the poor. A means test would inevitably erode the universal and contributory nature of Social Security and some of the popular support that has sustained it for nearly 75 years.

We also should remember that Social Security already makes distinctions based on income. Lower-wage earners get a higher return on their contributions. Higher-income retirees pay income tax on a portion of their benefits. Given these progressive features, it's not logical to add a means test. In fact, Social Security is far more progressive than any other retirement program.

Social Security has a payroll tax that Americans invest into the SS system. These people are entitled to their benefits. There is no short term Social Security crisis. If Congress was really worried about Social Security they would stop raiding the fund and eliminate the $250,000 tax cap.

Reid went from Obama's is not cutting Social Security to means testing isn't cuts. What a joke.

"The Middle"

I lovingly loathe this comment from Jack Archer, left on Paul Krugman's blog after a post where, in part, the professor accused most Americans of not paying close attention to the news.

If voters (especially independent voters) are as clueless as you claim, and only react on the basis of their "gut instinct", and not what one side or the other says and does, then why insist that Obama should champion Keynesian economic policies in his public appearances and speeches? I understand that you would prefer that he actually implement such policies, which to a degree he has, against massive opposition, but what good would he accomplish at this late date, just before the election year, by hammering home points that make him appear to be as intransigent as the Republican Tea Partiers? Isn't it clear that Obama has moved to what he thinks is the middle of American politics, at this time, in order to win another term? He appears to be doing it quite well -- much better than his opponents are doing, and that is a winning strategy, I think. One question you and other progressives must consider, and that is, do you prefer that Obama wins another term or are you ready to accept Republican control of Congress and the presidency? Having an effective economic policy is one and very important thing. Winning the election, without debilitating compromises along the way, is quite another. You may think that Obama has already made such compromises. I don't.

Let's dissect it, shall we? Starting from the top...

If voters (especially independent voters) are as clueless as you claim, and only react on the basis of their "gut instinct", and not what one side or the other says and does, then why insist that Obama should champion Keynesian economic policies in his public appearances and speeches?

Or, perhaps, Obama should practice Keynesian economics, with the end result being improved wallets for the middle class; and improved infrastructure for the rest of America. No matter what anyone says, more Americans will notice the size of their wallets before the news -- that's where they vote from, as well.

I understand that you would prefer that he actually implement such policies, which to a degree he has, against massive opposition, but what good would he accomplish at this late date, just before the election year, by hammering home points that make him appear to be as intransigent as the Republican Tea Partiers?

This portion of the comment is curious indeed. Obama shouldn't espouse economic policies that, quite frankly, make sense and saved us during the Great Depression (which, by the way, is pretty much an empirical fact that one cannot reasonably argue -- anyone who denies this is either a liar or a dupe) because they "make him appear to be .. intransigent". Really. How? Why? Who constructed the notion that solid economic policies which have been proven to work now amounts to crazy jibberish? Could it be the Republicans who are now holding our economy hostage? Could it be their control of the news cycle to determine the talking points for DC politics, hence the national agenda? Shouldn't it be the job of our "progressive" Democrats that control the executive branch and the Senate to counter these lies with talking points pumped into the media that get DC headed in the right policy direction? Are all these questions rhetorical?

Or we could jump off a cliff. For example:

Isn't it clear that Obama has moved to what he thinks is the middle of American politics, at this time, in order to win another term?

Define "The Middle".

No, really, I'll wait... Think about this question for a second (because unlike my other questions, it's not rhetorical). Define it. What is "The Middle"?

"Progressive" Democrats who support the president like to pretend that the almighty, all-fabled "middle" of the American electorate is an immovable force. To win elections, you must get the majority of votes from "the middle". But what do they believe in? Unchanging, midwestern/heartland of American beliefs, right? All that fucking bedrock bullshit.

But do those values change over time? Of course.

Who changes them? The media. What's the most watched cable news channel in America? Fox News. Are most small town newspapers either A) Conservative, or B) publishers of the crappiest wire "news" stories and nationally syndicated conservative columnists? Yes.

So when conservative/tea party media organizations like Fox News and syndicated conservative columnists push their agenda into talking points for the news cycle, and other media agencies are forced to react to the conservative's BS "news" rather than actual news, what happens? Conservative viewpoints are the only ones discussed.

Therefore, "The Middle" shifts to the right.

If you doubt me, just look at what our president -- as Jack Archer mentions somewhat glowingly -- is doing right now to win a second term: putting entitlement cuts on the table. How, uh, fucking progressive.

Why has he done this? Because the Republicans are holding are economy hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And why is Obama playing to "The Middle", hence playing along with the Republican-led game? Because Republicans are screaming that our national deficit is holding this country's economy back? Does that even make sense? No, but since the Republicans are screaming it loudly enough and there's absolutely no counterbalancing voice in the media from our "progressive" leaders, suddenly exchanging entitlement benefit cuts for tax increases on the rich to solve the deficit "crisis" is now the opinion of "The Middle".

This is so crazy that it makes my head 'asplode.

Anyways, carrying on.

He appears to be doing it quite well -- much better than his opponents are doing, and that is a winning strategy, I think.

Great, so we have no determined that Obama has shifted to the right. Take pride, "progressives"! But of course, Obamabots such as Jack Archer insist that we just have to shut the fuck up or else Obama will lose.

One question you and other progressives must consider, and that is, do you prefer that Obama wins another term or are you ready to accept Republican control of Congress and the presidency?

And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? The Republicans have done everything they can to prove they're insane, to the point of their willingness to throw the US economy off a cliff in order to fuck this president over. This isn't like the election of 2000 where Gore and Bush both played so close to the middle, and the differences between them appeared so minuscule, that Nader appeared to be the only popular candidate who was different. Democrats and Republicans are showing sharp differences right now, and anyone who cares about their country beyond the surface "Rah rah sis boom bah goooooo America!" level doesn't want power hungry Republicans sniffing power.

But Obama just isn't a leader. We're living through the failures of Obama's "leadership" right now.

Congress stalled over a debt ceiling vote is simply unprecedented. Additionally, everyone who takes an objective look at the situation knows that the debt ceiling must be raised, otherwise our economy will take a huge hit. And the fact that the notion of America absolutely needing a balanced budget now isn't questioned is ridiculous -- totally, utterly ludicrous. Students need to take out loans to goto college and graduate into a better position for employment. Businesses need to take out loans to reinvest into product creation, which leads to job creation. Families need to take out loans to live in a house and for the breadwinners to drive a car to their jobs. Debt leads to prosperity, but an unwillingness to take on debt leads to a halt. Indeed, if our government refuses to take on debt while unemployment is at 9% (and real unemployment is much higher), that rate of unemployment has now been institutionalized.

It's amazing that we're even debating the debt ceiling limit -- this used to be common sense. But unless our president is willing to effectively counter Republican talking points in the media and policies in Congress, "The Middle" is going to shift farther to the right -- and so will any "progressive" president.

Of course nobody in their right mind wants Republicans controlling all branches of the federal government again, but if entitlement benefits are cut because our president doesn't know how to fight for them, then let's not parse words here -- that's a Republican victory. And if Republicans win victories as monumental as that while a "progressive" president is in office, perhaps it's time for that president to ask somebody else to be the Democrat's nominee for president.

Unless you're content to sit back and take it, like Jack Archer. Then Republican extremism will take over in a few decades rather than a few years. The end result is still the same.

Quote of the Day

"Riddle me this: if Prez Obama was proposing Medicare/Soc Sec cuts, why wouldn't Republican, rather than Dem sources leak, hell, shout it?"

Blogger Joy-Ann Reid, on Twitter.

Really Joy. You are now floating conspirary theories. Obama talked about cuts to entitlement in his Twitter townhall meeting. I blogged my reaction.

Obama offers entitlements for cuts. Republicans are willing to let country default to protect corporate jet breaks. Obama again sounds delusional.

Can Reid explain how Obama doesn't support entitlement cuts that he has publicly offered. Vice-President Joe Biden offered Medicare to the Republicans. Entitlement cuts isn't a fiction being spread about Team Obama. It is their long stated policy goal. When the entitlement deal is made Reid will come out in support of it. I guarantee that.

Tas has shared is feelings about "Obamabots."

"Obamabots", the "Professional Left", and total fabrications

Lately, I've contemplated returning to political blogging. (I haven't told Michael Hussey this, and I'm sure my return would be much to his chagrin because it means I'd end up causing a lot more trouble here.) For some reason, I find the Left's current split between Obama partisans and detractors intriguing and I wanted to spend a few months, during the beginning of the 2012 campaign cycle, exploring this issue.

Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of Obama and much of my criticism would be viewed under the light of me being a member of the "Professional Left". I don't think Obama is a fighter, and he doesn't have the vision to use the bully pulpit provided to him by the Presidential Office to change the job description of that office; as well as public opinion.

Many of those called "Obamabots" deride my opinion, and claim that the Presidential bully pulpit does not have the power to influence Congress. I'm not sure what rock these people lived under during the Bush Administration, but it must have been a really, really large hunk of granite -- Bush (or Bush's cabinet, if you opt not to give the man credit) knew how to use the Presidential office to display leadership, influence the public, and eventually get their agenda rammed through weakened Democrat opposition in Congress. The Obama Administration, quite frankly, is clueless on how to use the bully pulpit to achieve progressive victories.

Regardless though, when push comes to shove in November, 2012, I'll likely give Obama my vote again. I remember the mantra on the Naderite hard left in 2000 that there wasn't a difference between Bush and Gore, and, well, they were wrong. I'd rather have a weak Democrat in office than a Republican of any stripe.

But I would not like to get involved with political writing again because I can't take the stupidity and dishonesty of politics. Case in point, let's look at a tweet from Dan Choi -- who would be one of my allies if I chose to go back into political blogging and throw my lot in with the "Professional Left":



Perhaps this tweet was sarcastic -- Choi doesn't mention such in the tweet, nor does he note the intent of this tweet elsewhere on his Twitter feed -- but that doesn't matter. Choi attributed a quote to Obama that the President never said. In case you missed this class in first grade, this is called a "lie". And people who willfully tell lies to defame their opponents are "dishonest". And you should not trust a dishonest person.

I no longer trust Mr. Choi.

Whenever I express my opinions about our president's actions, and how disappointed I am during his occupancy of the Oval Office, I do my best to stick to the facts. And when I say "our president", this counts for both Republicans and Democrats -- I defended Bush from lies, too. And I fucking hated the guy. But when you build a case against a politician, if you veer away from facts and base your opinion on fabrications, then you really need to step back, assess your actions, and ask yourself if you're a fucking asshole.

I don't trust fucking assholes.

Unfortunately, the political game is full of frustrating fabrications. Choi's statement is a small drop in the ocean of dishonest politics. So, regarding the future of my career as a political blogger, I'm still opting out of it because I don't want to spend countless hours countering the endless parade of lies. There is nothing gained intellectually from this charade. Personally, instead of returning to political blogging, I'd rather expand my base off knowledge by researching other topics.

But, while pondering a return to the blogging realm, I thought it best to highlight the dishonesty of one who I should naturally be allies with to tell myself that, you know, perhaps it's best not to return.