More Of This

People voted for Barack Obama because they wanted transformation, a house cleaning, religious uplift, fervor. Instead he became Jimmy Carter — moderately progressive, mild accomplishments, turn the other cheek, currying favor with Republican scum, mildly mellow, Bush lite in terms of Afghanistan, etc. What people wanted (and still want) is the kind of moral clarity and righteous hellfire that Rep. Anthony Weiner let go with on the floor of the House yesterday afternoon.

Maddow Blog’s Laura Conaway posted the following at 10:35 this morning: “The House yesterday voted down a measure to provide $7.4 billion in health care for 9/11 responders made ill by their work. It’s an outrage, and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) stood up and got outraged about it: “It’s Republicans wrapping their arms around Republicans, rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes! It is a shame…a shame!”

The bill 9/11 health care bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass — here are the yays and nays.

36 thoughts on “More Of This

  1. thasos on said:

    Moral clarity, good thing. Righteous hell-fire, dunno. It’d be awesome to see Obama be strong for once. Maybe it can still happen.

    Don’t a lot of people get turned off by the whole screaming and flailing?

  2. If you were expecting Obama to do what Weiner did in that video, then you just weren’t paying attention during the election. And Bush lite? Sure you can complain over the strength of HCR, the financial reform bill, etc., but Bush wouldn’t have done EITHER of those things, compromised version or no.

  3. if there’s too much of it, yes. You have to chill down and get the job done, etc. But a great moral rant like this one can feel like a wonderful hot shower.

  4. This is an outrage and the only way it becomes a positive is if the Dems (and everyone else who is offended by this) makes sure the nation knows about this vote and blames the Republicans.

  5. Wells to sumo-pop: I appreciate and agree with this. Bush wouldn’t have done jack on what needs to be done. Obama has tried to do the right things except on Afghanistan and keeping the bad guys (Geithner, Summers) in charge regarding financial reform. But he is so methodical and low-key and so lacking in presenting an appearance of chutzpah and righteous anger and moral backbone.

  6. No, he’ll be re-elected. Because for the most part the Republicans are reptilian scum who’ve done nothing but try to cut breaks for their corporate-scum benefactors, and it has been their policies of favoring greed and selfishness and an ugly Darwinian view of life that has led this country to the brink of ruin, particularly regarding the de-regulatons that led to the ’08 recession and the Gulf oil spill. But I would love to see a Weiner-type guy run against Obama as a primary challenger in 2012, just to goad him to the left and get his blood pumping again.

  7. I swear, it seems the hyper partisans wish we lived in a totalitarian country where the esteemed “ruler” could do whatever he wanted by a fiat, without ever having to put things to a vote, or ever have to answer to the people.

    Yes, Obama was elected, but that doesn’t mean that all of a sudden America likes broad, sweeping, rapid change. Democracy is slow and sloppy for a reason, cause that’s how things are supposed to get done.

    You want to live under a ruler, go fuck off to some other country. I don’t like or support Obama, but the guy is doing literally as much as he can in his limited means. The President can only do so much. Amazing how the loudest voices know so little about history or democracy or the executive branch and its limits.

  8. Sure you can complain over the strength of HCR, the financial reform bill, etc., but Bush wouldn’t have done EITHER of those things, compromised version or no.

    Well he did get through the Medicaid bill and established DHS, which is useless.

  9. “People voted for Barack Obama because they wanted transformation, a house cleaning, religious uplift, extra-fresh fervor.”

    That’s not why I voted for him. Please, speak for yourself.

    Quite frankly, He was VERY clear what his stance on Afghanistan was during the election, so I am a bit baffled that you would expect a complete flip on his position.

  10. If the other guy would’ve stopped talking, this would be a minute long. He literally needed a minute to make a very clear, impassioned point.

    I think most of our “leaders” could learn a lot from this.

    There are other clips circulating with Rep. Weiner explaining the bill, his position, defending it, and taking questions. Also short, 3-5 minutes. Pretty good stuff.

  11. Jeff: There is a potential, bright side to him getting re-elected. He might end up being more liberal then, given his lame duck status, which is probably why Republicans really want to shut him down right now. They’ve only got until November 2012 before being officially sweeped into the dustbin of irrelevance.

    Thunderballs: “but that doesn’t mean that all of a sudden America likes broad, sweeping, rapid change.”

    Yes, because the majority of Americans for a public option and the exit of Iraq and Afghanistan need to be balanced out with the views of those against it. And if they don’t like broad, sweeping rapid change, then why are the Republicans insist we’re happy with unemployment and social security getting fucked with, even though the voters feel the opposite?

    shanana: I think people expected a guy who would to the Afghanistan thing responsibly, i.e. via coalition and with a sense of planning, not just dumping money on a CIA puppet with drug ties to appease war-mongering voters.

  12. Weiner sounded like Howard Dean … which obviously isnt a good thing.

    BTW: What jewish mother names their kid ‘TONY’?

  13. If the point here is that politics is an ugly game then point taken. However, there was a time in the first year of the Obama administration where they could have passed anything they wanted to but saw fit to gloat then spend the greatest part of their momentum to bang healthcare through. Now the GOP has a momentum and it’s going to be a dogfight for every bill that comes up regardless of “right” or “wrong.”

    I’m not sure that this type of outburst helps the Dems. Frankly, makes them seem a bit desperate.

  14. And who made it so that the bill required 2/3rds before passage? Here’s a hint: t’wasn’t Republicans. They don’t control jack s**% in the House.

    Weiner SHOULD be mad at those that are politicizing the issue. But he’s aiming in the wrong direction…

  15. Jeff,

    I wouldn’t put money down on your “Obama will be re-elected” prediction. Just because YOU can’t imagine a Republican getting elected doesn’t mean it can’t happen. In my lifetime there have been more Republican presidents than Democrat presidents.

    “But I would love to see a Weiner-type guy run against Obama as a primary challenger in 2012, just to goad him to the left and get his blood pumping again.”

    Guys like Weiner (Howard Dean, Dennis Kusinich) have run in the past and have had their asses kicked… too liberal to get elected on a national ticket.

    Let’s be honest… Barack Obama ran an INCREDIBLY seductive campaign. He ran as a ‘centrist’, but he was able to convince those on the hard left, i.e. Jeff Wells, that he would govern as a hard lefty. He also managed to convince those on the center that he would govern as a centrist.

    We all know now that he hasn’t been able to please anyone, hence his falling poll numbers. Heck, he even lost Paul Krugman.

  16. Jeff,

    The problem is, the MINUTE Obama speaks like this, he becomes “an angry black man” and will lose even more support among so-called “swing-voters,” i.e. nominally-liberal soccer mommies in the rural suburbs. Nobody wants to say it out loud, but there it is. Either way, reelection doesn’t look good right now, but there’s plenty of time for the Republicans to screw up by letting Romney get out ahead… where he’ll be destroyed by the Bible Belt bigots who hate Mormons. Thanks to the Tea Party, the Right may yet get as good at cannibalizing itself as the Left has been :)

    Big, sweeping change stuff doesn’t happen at the bill and law level anymore. You want to see radical change, look to the stuff on the margins: “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” or whatever they want to call it, would almost definitely end up with a net gain of Hispanic newly-legal citizens who’re almost certain to be reflexive-Democrat voters for a generation or so – that would be HUGE and it’s definitely on the table.

    Hell, google up the various states who’re voluntarily scrapping their electoral college setup in favor of one-man-one-vote for their federal elections: If that went through enough states (less than 30 even would “do it”) it’d mean that in certain key areas the only voting bloc that would matter would be densely-populated urban centers, aka big cities, aka Democrat territory. There’d be NO WAY, mathematically, for a full-bore social/political “conservative” of any party to get elected again, ever.

  17. No, he’s not Jimmy Carter, and yes, Wells again has no idea what he’s talking about.

    This is such tiresome magical thinking: if only Obama were more FORCEFUL, then he could will Senate into passing any and all liberal legislation without 60 votes! If only he could scream more FORCEFULLY, then Republicans wouldn’t line up constantly in opposition! (By the way, did Carter pass the Affordable Health Care Act? Did he pass major financial reform? Did he inherit a depression and two wars? Bullshit bullshit bullshit.)

    And I’m glad you have such moral clarity on the war in Afghanistan, as though it were some cut-and-dry question of righteous surrender…as though leaving the country couldn’t possibly have dire consequences for us, for Afghanistan, for the middle east, etc. As though there were no reason for us to be there in the first place.

  18. Jeff, you know as well as anyone that if Obama talked like this, he would be compared to Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael and not in a good way. Yes, he will get reelected. If there’s one thing he knows how to do, it’s running a campaign for President. The Republicans have a lineup of candidates as pathetic as they did in 2008.

  19. “…Because for the most part the Republicans are reptilian scum who’ve done nothing but try to cut breaks for their corporate-scum benefactors, and it has been their policies of favoring greed and selfishness and an ugly Darwinian view of life that has led this country to the brink of ruin, particularly regarding the de-regulatons that led to the ’08 recession and the Gulf oil spill.”

    Mmmm. I see. Would you like another oat paste cookie with your soy latte, Prof. Wells?

    (for the record, I agree with Tony on this one)

  20. @John M – exactly right, especially about Jeff’s razor thin understanding of US politics.

    As long as the Republicans are in love with the Tea Baggers and the Tea Baggers are in love with Sarah Palin, Obama is assured of a second term. No matter how low his numbers with Independent voters fall, there’s even less love of Palin in the most important voter bloc of the American electorate.

    That said, watching Weiner blast the GOP over an issue of 9/11 is pretty damn cathartic on several levels. It’s a shame their most ardent supporters won’t appreciate the irony of the party that raised so much money on the blood of all those killed that day are obstructing payments to those heroes they so freely used.

    In other words, SSDD for the GOP.

  21. ray: The only way a Republican can win the 2012 election is if anything they said during the Bush years actually came to pass, because they sure as fuck can’t campaign on their own party’s merits at this point.

    John M: It’s not major financial reform, nor is it actually affordable health care. And there’s a difference between taking down the terrorist networks in Afghanistan and blowing billions to prop up Karzai.

  22. I think Deathongue’s got it right. As long as the Reps back people like Palin, they have no chance. But there are some Reps making headway and have more intelligence. The Dems better watch out.

    I think Obama was an experiment by the American people. Lots of voters not necessarily inclined to vote for a black man or for a Democrat or for a “socialist” voted for Obama just because he was so different from any candidate we’ve ever had before. Then he turned out to be just like the rest, and now those fence-sitting voters are turning against him. I don’t think they’re going to be so favorable toward Obama in 2012.His disapproval rating right now is around 57-60%; that’s comprised of the group that voted against him plus the fence-sitters, basically. That number would lose the election for him in 2012.

    Also, the “angry black man” argument is racist. Obama needs to show more fire, and also more empathy. His calm reassuring words about improvements in the economy don’t mean shit to the five friends who have lost their jobs in the last couple of weeks. He can smile, wave to the cameras. and smack Michelle on the ass all he wants … he was put in there to get stuff done, and so far he hasn’t done that.

  23. “As long as the Republicans are in love with the Tea Baggers and the Tea Baggers are in love with Sarah Palin, Obama is assured of a second term.”

    Brilliantly insightful, thorough, political analysis, Deathtongue. See you on the “Meet The Press” panel this Sunday!

    (and you’re making fun of JEFF’S “razor thin understanding…”?)

  24. Ray: “Lots of voters not necessarily inclined to vote for a black man or for a Democrat or for a “socialist” voted for Obama just because he was so different from any candidate we’ve ever had before.”

    Had nothing to do with Barry being “different”. The economy sucked, the war was endless, and he just seemed like the most realistic win for voters looking for someone who didn’t come off as Beltway as his competition. I’m sure if Kucinich had a real shot, though, he’d have won by a landslide.

    “I don’t think they’re going to be so favorable toward Obama in 2012.His disapproval rating right now is around 57-60%; that’s comprised of the group that voted against him plus the fence-sitters, basically.”

    Remember Clinton’s approval ratings in ’93? Obama might be a disappointment for people who didn’t expect it, but no one’s going to cut off their noses to spite their faces after what happened with Bush. They might work to make more third party candidates viable for 2016, but they’re not going to forget, especially given how long it’ll take to get us out of this mess.

  25. DZ, or Reagan’s for that matter. His approval from his second year was about the same if not worse, and control of the house returned to Democrats after only two years of Republican majority. The only President in 30 years who didn’t have a bad first term off-year was W, for obvious reasons.

  26. Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth…

    Sorry, whenever the echo chamber of unreality sparks up in here, I grow misty for Lou Gehrig.

    Get out of L.A. and NYC, Wells.

  27. “No, he’ll be re-elected. Because for the most part the Republicans are reptilian scum who’ve done nothing but try to cut breaks for their corporate-scum benefactors, and it has been their policies of favoring greed and selfishness and an ugly Darwinian view of life that has led this country to the brink of ruin, particularly regarding the de-regulatons that led to the ’08 recession and the Gulf oil spill. But I would love to see a Weiner-type guy run against Obama as a primary challenger in 2012, just to goad him to the left and get his blood pumping again.”

    This is very stange analysis. You may even be right, but for none of these reasons. It will be based entirely on what candidate is fielded against him. If they come at him on fecklessness and spending, they have a real shot.

    Your conception of what the Republicans are, even if it weren’t simplistic and hyperbolic, really overestimates the degree to which people would pay attention, and the idea that Democrats are in any way better.

    As for a primary challenge from the left 1) not going to happen, because everyone is going to be positioning to move past him in 2016 regardless of the outcome and doesn’t want to piss off the establishment, and 2) that would prevent him from solidifying his standings while the Republicans duke it out for 15 months. But whatever.

  28. His Excellency is unable to make a speech, or recall the Constitution without the teleprompter.

    Over four hundred of his “fellow” graduating peers at Harvard don’t recall his being there.

  29. kenyan, you’re a racist moron. and whenever you chumps like crabtree try to pul the ‘what tea party racists’ there’s you and the birthers with guns to prove what dipshits the gop have become.

    that teleprompter myth died when obama schooled a roomful of withered repubs without a note

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y04g6OPLnQ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>