Quietly Seething

Barack Obama has bent over backwards to Republican swine over the debt reduction fight, and right now he looks weak as hell to me. He’s the “adult in the room,” yes, but how I wish he had the courage to be more than just reasonable and mild-mannered. I think of Obama these days and right away I get irritated. He’s a moderate conservative, and I thought I was voting for a guy who would try to be much, much more.

It would be so great if a serious liberal could challenge Obama in the primaries and give him trouble and speak the truth and let some light into the room.

I’m saying this with a presumption that Obama will be re-elected in 2012. As he should be, given the alternatives. He’s a sane, perceptive and highly intelligent U.S. President. Most voters of any education or reasonably adult perceptions will almost certainly choose to keep him for a second term rather than vote in the glib and shape-shifting Mitt Romney or, God forbid, Michelle Bachmann or some other lying, slithering, corporate-kowtowing Republican serpent.

But Obama’s refusal to act like a man — to talk straight and stand his ground like a strong, scrappy liberal and call those deranged, Tea Party-fellating radicals by their right name and most of all to use the bully pulpit of his office to explain what’s really going on and what the right’s agenda is truly about — is infuriating. In his 7.31 piece called “The President Surrenders,” N.Y. Times columnist Paul Krugman noted that Republicans “will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats…and that the reported terms of the deal…amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president.”

If I could clap my hands three times and have a genuinely tough liberal hombre in the Oval Office, somebody who thinks like Bill Maher and talks almost as plainly and who would all but spit in the Republicans’ eye, I would clap my hands three times.

Obama has made the term “adult in the room” seem synonymous with “the capitulator,” “the man with no balls,” “the guy who doesn’t know how to play poker like a man” and so on.

  • C is for cookie

    I’ve had quite a few friends tell me that “Obama is playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers” in his defense, and to those friends I’ve had to snap back “well, then, he’s been checkmated”. The ONLY thing he promised to do when he ran for office that he’s actually done is up the combat in Afghanistan. The rest is all show and no business. Gitmo is still open despite his dog and pony act of signing the executive order to close it down. He breaks his arm patting himself on the back over his healthcare “reform” which is basically a handjob for the insurance companies. He refuses to enforce the financial regulations and consumer protections that have been passed. He is, in short, a republican that got elected on a democratic ticket. It makes no difference if he wins or loses in 2012 — either way, we get a republican in the White House. Again.

  • Robert Cashill

    It’ll take a revoluton to move the country truly leftwards. It’s been at right/center right since Reagan, regardless of the president’s party affiliation.

  • The Hoyk

    I too am fed up with the “chess and checkers” metaphor.

    If Obama is playing chess, the GOP is playing “Let’s See Who Can Hit the Softest.” And we all know how that game ends.

  • C is for cookie

    Cashill, that is spot-the-fuck-on.

  • dogcatcher

    You lefties are stupid, there will be no revolution. If there were you’d get your ass kicked. Liberals have to be smarter about their politics, they have to allign themselves with people that agree with them and stop their incessant whining. You sound like petulant children, that’s why no takes you seriously.

    As for Obama, he’s not a conservative, he’s just a pussy.

  • Owen Walter

    I have many of the same feelings about Obama, but I’m not as sanguine as you about his chances of winning next year. My theory about Americans and human nature is this: dating back to Kennedy-Nixon, you could watch a minute of each televised presidential debate with the sound OFF and predict who was going to win. It’s almost always a matter of looks, tallness, and smoothness, nothing more. Which is what makes Romney, that empty suit, a formidable candidate, and someone like Bachmann not the joke many Democrats think she is. And if a liberal opposed Obama in the primaries, it would be a repeat of Kennedy-Carter with a new, more evil Reagan popping up for the final win.

  • Cadavra

    He’s essentially a substitute teacher: officially in charge, but he has no real power. And the Tea Partiers are the kids who throw the computers out the window while he stands there and mumbles, “Yeah, you really shouldn’t be doing that.”

  • The Criterion Guy

    This country is so fucked.

  • http://moviebob.blogspot.com THE MovieBob

    Obama with balls would be a great thing, but I don’t know that any outright ’08 Obama supporters (as opposed to any-Democrat-will-do voters) have ANY right to act surprised. This is EXACTLY what was so compelling about the guy to his fans: High-minded, professorial, a complete 180 from Dubya the swaggering cowboy, remember? That’s why it HAD to be him and not Hillary, because she was a big meanie street-fighter type and Liberals had had enough of that. You wanted the nice guy, you GOT the nice guy, this is what nice guys do – they get beat up.

    Oh, and Obama DOESN’T come out of this looking like the “grownup” in the room – John Boehner does. The ONE good thing to come of all this is that the Teabaggers have been clearly defined as the villains of the piece; stubborn little babies who won’t let the adults do their jobs – but the story SHOULD have been about Obama and the Democrats putting the Republicans in their place for inviting these yahoos to the party; and instead it’s all about Boehner as the lovable-yet-exasperated dad having to manage his rugrats. Yeah, he could lose his speakership in the short-term, but in the long term he’s a wholly-viable 2016 presidential candidate (or INSANELY well-paid Cable News analyst) now.

    If nothing else, I hope the public playing-out of just how disasterous the Tea Party has been as an influence MIGHT cure for once and for all this insipid idea that we need “normal people” or “average Americans” or “non-Washington” voices in Government. Bullshit. Governing is complicated, economics are even MORE complicated, and both of them ARE in fact left in the hands of the well-educated, longtime-serving pols and other “elites” because those are the people who actually know how the fuck this stuff works. The Teabaggers are the purest example EVER of why “the common man” needs to be kept as far away from the business of running this shit as humanly possible. We should start holding all important elections on the same nights as NASCAR cup races, UFC title bouts and American Idol finales; so maybe for a change all the dumbass hicks will stay home and we can see what a government assembled primarily by the reasonably-intelligent looks like.

  • Dave

    “He’s essentially a substitute teacher: officially in charge, but he has no real power. And the Tea Partiers are the kids who throw the computers out the window while he stands there and mumbles, “Yeah, you really shouldn’t be doing that.””

    then maybe he should say ‘listen, idiots, i’m going to go nuclear on your asses in the public eye instead of trying to work with you’, and then do it. what’s he got to lose? he’s apparently powerless otherwise.

  • http://moviebob.blogspot.com THE MovieBob

    should’ve been “best left” in there, clearly…

  • Manitoba

    I am not looking forward to reading the details of any forthcoming deal. I wonder what Harry Truman would say about pushing the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67 and dialing down Social Security benefits to keep Republicans happy?

  • Jeff and/or Danny Is Always Wrong

    The man never accomplished anything in his life other than being elected President, why would anyone ever think he would start now?

    He’s not a leader. He wants to be– or, more correctly, he wants all the perks and adulation that comes with the office– but he’s never led anything.

    THE NATION IS BROKE. How come no one here understands this?

    He is, in short, a republican that got elected on a democratic ticket.

    Oh, THAT’S why. You’re blind partisan idiots.

    My sympathies.

  • dayXexists

    Nobody listened to me in 2008. Hillary Clinton has balls. This crap would not be happening if she were President. You get what you pay for … *hope*

  • dayXexists

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbIN3GLynXk&feature=related

    These pundits sure look dumb right now. Ha! Hillary was so right.

  • coxcable

    This debt ceiling “crisis” was another brilliant piece of political theater by the special interests who run the country.

    It had only one purpose: To make it look like there was an actual fight going on in Washington about spending cuts.

    “Tea Party”… “No Tax Pledge”… “financial default”… “hostage taking”… “compromise”… it’s all just scripted dialogue.

    It looks like Bill Clinton is the speed limit for liberalism in the current system. Because that’s who Obama is… Bill Clinton Jr.

    Real liberalism can’t exist in a capitalist system like ours.

    So stop worrying and love the bomb.

  • C is for cookie

    How does questioning the effectiveness and actions of a sitting president make one a blind, partisan idiot?

    How about it makes one into someone who has woke the fuck up and sees both parties as a good cop-bad cop con?

    Oh, but I forget, when one is dealing with Jeff/Danny is always wrong, one is always dealing with an arrogant douche.

  • JKill

    “It would be so great if a serious liberal could challenge Obama in the primaries and give him trouble and speak the truth and let some light into the room.”

    Unless Obama finds some way to triangulate, an event like that would basically be rolling out the red carpet for President-elect Romney. So for me, that would not be great.

  • actionlover

    Anyway.

    I got roped into “Crazy Stupid Love”. I can’t remember a Wells review that I so COMPLETELY agreed with him all down the line like I did with this shitfest.

    I even quoted him.

    Read his review if you’re even SLIGHTLY inclined to see it. A great cast, for sure. AWFUL screenplay.

    It’s like it was written by someone who spent their entire life locked in a basement with no contact with real people or the outside world other than sitcom re-runs.

    Ugh.

  • Rashad

    C for Cookie: He’s calling you partisan not for criticizing Obama, but for saying he;’s a Republican on a Democratic ticket. You have to be naive to still think either party actually cares about solving problems

  • BobbyLupo

    Here’s the thing…

    When Republicans have the power, they ram everything through. They refuse to even have conversations with the Dems, let alone compromise on anything. And the Dems get scared and compromise by voting for things they don’t want.

    Then the Dems take over. And the Repubs refuse to have serious conversations with the Dems, let alone compromise on anything. And the Dems get scared and compromise by voting for things they don’t want.

    The good news about 2012 is that the Tea Party will never vote for Romney and Bachmann is unelectable, and the saner Repubs seem to know this, so it seems likely that there will be a huge split in the party. The Dems may have to step up simply because there will be no strong party left to compromise with.

  • Super Soul

    coxcable: “Real liberalism can’t exist in a capitalist system like ours.”

    Real liberalism requires well-regulated capitalism. Make no mistake….when the revolutionaries rise up, they will go after the liberals as well as the conservatives. If you ask the honest ones, they will tell you what they really think of liberals.

  • Kakihara

    Jeff: The problem is, it’s not about background or attitude that could cause Obama to lose. All his opponent has to do is invoke Reagan’s “Are you better now than you were four years ago?” mantra, and he’s in.

    Anyway, here’s the thing about that chess argument. I’m not sure how losing most of your good pieces in exchange for not having to play to win qualifies as a good game of chess.

    dogcatcher: “You lefties are stupid, there will be no revolution.”

    Just like there wasn’t going to be any revolution in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, and/or Morocco? :)

    Owen: “Which is what makes Romney, that empty suit, a formidable candidate, and someone like Bachmann not the joke many Democrats think she is.”

    Huh? If you’re going to argue that people vote by looks and mannerisms, then Bachmann comes off like a dried-up crack-whore version of Palin. Romney can play the same “bipartisan” game as Obama, but not look like he’s on the defense or offense. If anyone’s got a shot, it’s him.

    Bob: “This is EXACTLY what was so compelling about the guy to his fans: High-minded, professorial, a complete 180 from Dubya the swaggering cowboy, remember? That’s why it HAD to be him and not Hillary, because she was a big meanie street-fighter type and Liberals had had enough of that.”

    Yes, but we thought he only superficially play it “safe”, yet act if pressed hard enough, or when he realized what was at stake. We didn’t expect to be getting another “Malaise”-style Carter who lets fundies-in this case the tea-baggers, instead of the Ayatollah-make him into a joke. He was a lot more assertive in his campaign than he has been since then. I am afraid you might be right on Boehner, though. That guy played the same game as Obama, but he actually (mostly) believed in what he was doing, so he’ll come off “consistent”, compared to Barack.

    JAODIAW: “The man never accomplished anything in his life other than being elected President, why would anyone ever think he would start now?”

    He went to Harvard and became a Senator, in spite of coming from a broken home, and growing up in an era where his parents could be arrested for having him.

    Lupo: “The good news about 2012 is that the Tea Party will never vote for Romney and Bachmann is unelectable, and the saner Repubs seem to know this, so it seems likely that there will be a huge split in the party.”

    Yes, but the bad news is the tea-baggers don’t *have* to help Romney or Bachmann win, as there will no doubt be a lot of dissatisfied Dems and Independents willing to cross the aisle, unless the economic situation significantly improves by then, or unless Obama pulls off one hell of a political hat trick.

  • elzilcho

    It doesn’t matter in the end. The Republican and Democratic parties are in agreement on the most important point. The economic crisis that erupted in September 2008 will be paid for, not by the people responsible for it, but by everybody else. This isn’t just in this country. This is happening internationally. Investment firms and banks were bailed out at the expense of the working class.

    This policy is supported by all parties whether they are Democratic, Republican,Conservative,Labour,or Social Democrat.

  • dogcatcher

    actionlover is reaching deezee levels of retardation.

    Jesus.

  • dogcatcher

    c is for cookie,

    I don’t always agree with ‘Jeff/Danny is always wrong,’ but in this instance he is 100% correct. The only post I agree with completely in this thread is his.

    Manitoba,

    “I wonder what Harry Truman would say about pushing up the medicare age to 67?”

    He would say, “Holy shit, people have medicare? And another thing, people live to be 67?” After all, medicare was established by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 (Truman left office in 1953) and when they established 65 as the age to recieve Social Security, the average life expectancy was 64.

  • Kakihara

    dogcatcher: “After all, medicare was established by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 (Truman left office in 1953) and when they established 65 as the age to recieve Social Security, the average life expectancy was 64.”

    Yes, but that doesn’t mean the people who established SS wanted the elderly to be working at McDonalds instead of being able to retire, just because they eventually lived ten years longer.

  • BobbyLupo

    “as there will no doubt be a lot of dissatisfied Dems and Independents willing to cross the aisle”

    The only thing there’s no doubt of, DZ, is that you’re not paying attention to anything except your own opinion. The Tea Party is somewhere around 40% of the traditional Republican base, and that base as a whole is somewhere around 40-45% of the country. Without the firm support of both sides of the Republican aisle, no Republican candidate has any chance at all.

  • actionlover

    What the fuck, dogcatcher?

    Oh, I didn’t like “Crazy Stupid Love”. What, did you work on it or something?

    Not sure how my above post warrants that bit of pith. Unless you’re personally offended by my opinion on that shitty movie.

    And fuck you.

    Wait, I get it. I didn’t contribute to this Vidal vs. Buckley-worthy political discourse. Excuse me for not adding to your and other’s contribution to solving the debt crisis on the Hollywood-Elsewhere discussion forum.

    Christ, what an asshole.

    Pick a ball.

  • Super Soul

    If only DZ can fall under some “Groundhog Day” type of spell, where he can practice his posts every day like Bill Murray practiced the piano, maybe he can live long enough to finally land a cogent thought.

    ‘Cuz it’s gonna take at least 300 years at this rate.

  • dogcatcher

    actionlover,

    My side, your side. That’s the larger problem here. I support what’s right. I don’t have a side, that’s why I call myself an independent. Fuck Democrats, fuck Republicans. Oh ya, fuck you too.

  • 62Lincoln

    “Governing is complicated, economics are even MORE complicated, and both of them ARE in fact left in the hands of the well-educated, longtime-serving pols and other “elites” because those are the people who actually know how the fuck this stuff works.”

    We are $14.5 Trillion in debt. Fuck the “longtime-serving pols and other “elites””. Their wonderful expertise got us here, according to this gem of widsom, so fuck them all.

  • actionlover

    Did you even READ my post? Are you mixing me up with someone? My blurby semi-review of “Crazy Stupid Love” was not some cryptic, metaphorical argument in favor of supply-side economics or an underlying endorsement of Tea Party-supported members of the House of Representatives.

    I get accused of constantly commenting on every political topic that comes up here. This time I didn’t. And yet you still through a bitch fit. “I support what’s right”. Oh, okay. May we all bow to your moral superiority. dogcatcher….man of the people. If you were that spoiling for a brawl you could have at least waited for me to say something partisan. That is, unless you feel as though an across the board pan of “Crazy Stupid Love” is a call for fewer entitlements and lower taxes on corporate jet purchases.

    What a complete dumbfuck you are. And I’m not going to give you a choice of ball anymore. That’s how mad I am. You’ll have to suck my right one. Now get on it, fuckstick.

  • The Thing

    In that address to the nation, he seemed pretty exacerbated by the situation, and I was caught thinking he was going to blame House Republicans towards the end, instead of saying Congress. However, while I would like to see a bit of balls give to him (he has shown some by not allowing a 6-month deal and proclaiming he would veto any bills without tax increases), I would like to see more.

    What I don’t get is the fact that Democrats aren’t coming out and saying “Cutting taxes doesn’t create new jobs. We’ve had lower taxes for 10 years now (and the Bush Tax Cuts were even renewed last year), and no new jobs were created. It doesn’t work, and to keep insisting it does is idiotic.”

  • Nate West

    It’s so easy to “fuck you all.” Very grown-up.

    I like President Obama. He’s a bulwark against the insanity and radicalism pouring forth from the right. His most important job right now is to get re-elected in order to cap off the horrors that would follow the election of a new Republican president. That’s it. That’s enough.

  • George Prager

    I was going to write something about how the Democrats just don’t have the votes, but I think this explains it much better:

    http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/02/25/your-mumia-sweatshirt-wont-get-you-into-heaven-anymore/

  • Ray DeRousse

    Obama would’ve been a great President 60-100 years ago when people were more intelligent, thoughtful, dignified, and righteously indignant.

  • Krillian

    Cut to Bob Schieffer: “And on that note…”

    Each party is controlled to a degree by its delegates. Delegates are the passionate ones. Passion tends to bleed to extremism. But the Democrats have this SuperDelegate system set up so no one too weird gets in there.

    Republicans meanwhile got fed up with Bush and split. You have the Tea party wing and the “not Tea Party” wing. The TP wing wants Bachmann or Perry or Palin. They want someone who will never compromise on anything and will cuts trillions in spending on Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc., everything but defense. The NTP wing wants Romney. The job market sucks and he’s their guy. To the Tea Partiers, everyone in the NTP wing is a RINO.

    Obama had his chance in his first two years. He could’ve pushed to raise taxes on everyone in the $250k-or-higher bracket. He could’ve got the single-payer option in Obamacare. Would’ve required leadership (strong-arming) but he could have done it. Post-2010’s election though, he has no shot. And if unemployment is still high (and all indications are it will be), Obama is very beatable. Maybe Obama gets lucky and somehow Bachmann gets the nomination, but even then I don’t see the House going back to Democrats, and I don’t see the Senate having much movement.

    When you look at the past century, most of the presidents who did bold things in their first two years were re-elected.

    Now a year and a half is a century in politics, but the Tea Party could wind up sabotaging as many races as they put over the edge. Harry Reid was quite vulnerable, but they nominated Sharron Angle. Delaware was there for the taking, but they nominated Christine O’Donnell. I see more of the same happening in 2012.

    By the way, we haven’t three presidents in a row win two terms each since Jefferson/Madison/Monroe.

  • Kakihara

    Lupo: “The Tea Party is somewhere around 40% of the traditional Republican base, and that base as a whole is somewhere around 40-45% of the country.”

    Yeah, that’s why the Senate still has a majority. Bullshit. They represent 20% of Americans at best. The reason they even got a landslide last year was because the typical Dem demos mostly sat it out this time around. The Independent voters were the only ones who pushed the tea-baggers over the top.

    Nate: “His most important job right now is to get re-elected in order to cap off the horrors that would follow the election of a new Republican president. That’s it. That’s enough.”

    Too bad, at this rate, the most the Dems can hope for is taking back the House.

    Ray: “Obama would’ve been a great President 60-100 years ago when people were more intelligent, thoughtful, dignified, and righteously indignant.”

    You mean like that Congressman who beat an anti-slavery pol?

    Krillian: “Maybe Obama gets lucky and somehow Bachmann gets the nomination, but even then I don’t see the House going back to Democrats,”

    I do see the House going back to the Dems, because of how bat-shit insane the tea-baggers are. Though the party might lose mainstays like Pelosi in a general “throw the bums out”-style revolt. Look what happened to Waxman, after all, and he didn’t do anything wrong.

    “Now a year and a half is a century in politics, but the Tea Party could wind up sabotaging as many races as they put over the edge. Harry Reid was quite vulnerable, but they nominated Sharron Angle. Delaware was there for the taking, but they nominated Christine O’Donnell. I see more of the same happening in 2012. ”

    Yeah, but those “success stories” had more to do with the Latino voter turn-out than whether or not people liked O’Donnell and Angle.

  • George Prager

    Tea party hot shot Kakihara is the life of the Tea Party. HOT SHOTS VHS

    HOT SHOTS VHS

    HOT SHOTS VHS

    HOT SHOTS VHS

    HOT SHOTS VHS

    HOT SHOTS VHS

  • Manitoba

    Note to Dogcatcher: Harry Truman did live to see Medicare. He was present as Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill on July 30, 1965 at the Harry S. Truman Library in Independence, Missouri.

  • Kakihara

    Actually, now that I think about it, isn’t there a more perfect metaphor for our current political system than a box office duke-out between cartoon shrimps and gun-toting red-staters?

  • Bryce H

    DZ Says…

    “Lupo: “The Tea Party is somewhere around 40% of the traditional Republican base, and that base as a whole is somewhere around 40-45% of the country.””

    “Yeah, that’s why the Senate still has a majority. Bullshit. They represent 20% of Americans at best.”

    40% (% of Repub that are TP) of 40-45% (% of Americans that are Repub) is 16-18% (% of America that are TP), which is less than your 20% (the upper limit you listed, the % of Americans that are TP).

    How fucking stupid can you be? Who taught you to read? Who the fuck taught you math?

  • Kakihara

    Bryce: You’re failing to make a distinction between Americans and American voters. You take the latter into account, then the Repubs are actually a minority party in this country.

  • SpinDozer

    Tu-fucking-Shay

  • The Thing

    I just thought of a great analogy for Obama. He’s the scientist in the disaster movie who predicts the impeding doom, but is railroaded by everyone else. Once that massive disaster strikes, he’s left to protect everyone and clean up the mess, because he had his shit together.

    I’ll admit, not perfect, but servicable.

    @Lupo

    I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers (other than out of your apparently magical ass), but the registered Republicans make up roughly 30% of America. The rest are either Democrat (about 36%, give or take) or Independent (the rest, or 34%). The exact numbers are only a few clicks away (that I’m too lazy to do, but these are certainly close enough). Tea Partiers make up about 80% (if not more) of the Republican base. And as DZ said, albeit in a much more convoluted way, the Republican base is maybe 20% of America, if that. People overall who vote Republican in any given election probably make up about 40-45% of America, but there’s no way to say to 40-45% of Americans are the Republican base.

  • stanley

    The Poker metaphor is so right. He’s the new kid invited to the game without the benefit of knowing the “neighborhood” rules. Hopefully he’ll get another 4 years to figure them out and then just when things are getting back in order someone else comes in and changes it all around again. Hate the 2 term limitation. What is the point? How can anything really get accomplished by a president? He’s just a visitor in a house full of veterans. To bad Obama didn’t have a few more years in congress prior to the presidency.Then, maybe that explains how he came into the job with such a fresh idealistic viewpoint. Tough spot.

  • Rod32303

    Um…the man did REPEAL DADT, and that whole Defense of Marriage Act. No “moderate conservative” would have the “balls” to do that.

  • Kakihara

    Crap. Steve Martin did the same joke as me, but better. :( “Cowboys & Aliens. Congress?”

    Rod: He repealed DADT. He has no power to mess with DOMA. He can just choose not to enforce it. And those times only happened after he defended them in court. Besides, that’s not going to help his campaign when women still got screwed on health care “reform”.

  • Movie Watcher

    Obama should have given a deadline. If a deal didn’t get done, boom. invoke the 14th amendment. He could have avoided this whole mess. Still, he will be re-elected, even though I think it will not be good if the repubs win the senate. Four years of stalling. What a fucking disaster.

  • Kakihara

    I think Obama secretly *wants* to do more, but keeps holding himself back, because he also wants to live up to the so-called “uniter” image he campaigned on. For example, as someone pointed out, he ended DADT, and that was admittedly brave, because the Repubs could’ve included it in their demands for lifting the debt ceiling. But when you analyze it, he probably rescinded it, because he figured they were distracted, anyway, so they’d overlook it. Still, he *is* going to find himself in a position where he can’t avoid confronting Blue Dogs and the GOP head-on on an issue. And if he waffles, his political career is over.

  • Owen Walter

    Obama seeks to build consensus, which is idealistic and moral, but doesn’t work when the opposition sees human discourse and give-and-take as weakness. He tried the same tack with the Chinese government for a year or two, then realized you can’t bargain with rigid ideologues; his people eventually ended up calling the Chinese the very undiplomatic term “truculent,” which actually improved relations with them. He needs not only to call the Tea Party truculent but to do what they’ve tried to do to him, demonize them. It wouldn’t take much work. But the switch that needs to be turned on in Obama is a moral not a political one. He needs to see that, sure, partisanship has sunk our politics to reprehensible gutter levels, something he campaigned against, but that the state of the union depends on a more reasonable opposition party, and that won’t happen until there is massive, relentless, and coordinated pushback from the Democrats.

    (I may have posted this before, but it disappeared, and I accidentally had a copy that I could repost. If the disappearance was intentional, my apologies for reposting.)

  • http://moviebob.blogspot.com/ THE MovieBob

    @Owen Walter,

    “He needs not only to call the Tea Party truculent but to do what they’ve tried to do to him, demonize them.”

    Trouble is, the Tea Party is made up primarily of people who believe that “truculent” is either the name of one of The Transformers or a shorthand for “that is an excellent truck.”

    A slightly smaller percentage of them actually KNOW what it means; but consider it to be the kind of word that only “fags” use ;)

  • punchdog

    Obama is a good guy, but not a very strong leader. He’s a better person than Dubya, but probably a worse leader. I agree with Jeff — if he had more John Wayne swagger, the vitriol of Bill Maher, and the ability to use favors and play “the political game”, get more down and dirty…shit, he’d have more success. This is politics after all, not a college forum.

    I wouldn’t underestimate Ron Paul in this coming election. I think he could come in and edge out the Republican nomination as Bachmann is getting creamed in the media and Romney is backpeddling on all the bullshit he caused in Massachusetts.

    We’ll see. Obama makes Ron Paul look like a flaming liberal on most broad topics. (ie. legalizing and taxing marijuana, pulling out of all Middle East wars, dismantling the FED, etc…) He’s more states’ rights on abortion and gay rights, but on the bigger topics like economics, I’m a huge supported of Ron Paul.

  • Abbey Normal

    punchdog @54: A person who doesn’t believe in evolution and/or a person who is willing to say they don’t believe in evolution just to score a few more votes from primitive idiots is simply unfit to be president in my book.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron_paul_on_evolution_the_last_straw/

  • poseidon72

    Ray DeRousse says …

    Obama would’ve been a great President 60-100 years ago when people were more intelligent, thoughtful, dignified, and righteously indignant.

    Well said and I totally agree. Life in 2011 is just one big reality show. Nothing of substance really matters. How sad!

  • dogcatcher

    Abbey Normal.

    That’s the problem with liberals in my opinion. They have this knee-jerk way of supporting someone who says something they agree with. They don’t think through what they are supporting and end up with buyers remorse when things don’t go as they thought it would (see: Barack H. Obama).

    Anyone who thinks that Ron Paul is a liberal because he opposes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (solely for economic reasons BTW) isn’t paying attention.

  • Kakihara

    dogcatcher: “They don’t think through what they are supporting and end up with buyers remorse when things don’t go as they thought it would (see: Barack H. Obama). ”

    Yes, because Repubs totally thought it through when they voted for the son of the guy last associated with the shitty economy which preceded Clinton.

  • rahulwodki

    Superb article mate but how do get your rss feed? Please sending us an e-mail with instructions? Ta

    Alpinism utilitar Bucuresti

    buy facebook friends

  • http://www.visconusa.com Kelvinroger

    This looks absolutely perfect. All these tinny details are made with lot of background knowledge. I like it a lot. This was a useful post and I think it is rather easy to see from the other comments as well that this post is well written and useful

    Fuel Treatment Services

  • http://www.emulberry.co.uk mulberry bags
  • http://www.monsterbeatsu.com dr dre beats