Ezra Klein: The real reason Obama pushed House Democrats so hard to pass the CRomnibus

[babylonsister]

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/12/7381393/cromnibus-pelosi-warren

The real reason Obama pushed House Democrats so hard to pass the CRomnibus
Updated by Ezra Klein on December 12, 2014, 9:40 a.m. ET @ezraklein



For all the Sturm und Drang of the bill's passage last night, there's a simple reason House Democrats ultimately provided the votes to pass the CRomnibus, and always were going to provide the votes to pass the CRomnibus: they didn't have a better alternative. If the CRomnibus collapsed, what came next would have been worse for Democrats.

The CRomnibus funds the government — with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security — through fiscal year 2015. But Republicans had a Plan B. If the CRomnibus hadn't passed, they would pass a three-month stopgap spending bill. Then the next Congress could worry about how to fund the government through the rest of the year. It was actually a pretty reasonable Plan B — which is why it scared Democrats. If there was going to be a shutdown over this, it was going to be up to Democrats to cause it, and it was going to be Democrats who took the blame for it.

snip//

For the Democrats negotiating the bill, the coming of the Republican Congress was an omnipresent threat. It's why the White House ended up lobbying House Democrats to pass a bill nobody liked.

But House Democrats did the White House a favor on Thursday. A year from now, the Republican Congress is going to have to figure out how to fund the government in 2016. And Obama is going to be the only Democratic veto point. With the near-collapse of the CRomnibus, Elizabeth Warren and House Democrats gave him a lot more ammunition to tell Republicans there there are deals he simply can't sell to his liberal wing, and so will have to veto.

It's a play Republicans and the Tea Party have been running against the White House for years now. There's a deal on the table that seems like a compromise, but Speaker Boehner says it's still not conservative enough to sell it to his members. The play only works because House conservatives are credible in their defection threats. House liberals just got a bit more credible in theirs.

[fredamae]

1. Heard This Same Line of "Rationalization" Bullshit Before n/t

[KoKo]

3. Yes... its stale and past its shelf life....

[Doctor_J]

5. This whole 12D chess argument depends on the president actually calling their bluff at some point

ain't going to happen. And Klein's implication that there is some point at which the president will stop selling out the liberals has no historical evidence.

[Marr]

23. +1, exactly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. LOL ...

This whole 12D chess argument depends on the president actually calling their bluff at some point

Not if you have gamed it out correctly.

And Klein's implication that there is some point at which the president will stop selling out the liberals has no historical evidence.

Selling out liberals? Well, maybe ... But, then, there is no historical evidence of President Obama (actually) selling out the American people, either.

Hint: Getting the best result POSSIBLE is only selling out to those willing to blow up the spot ... from the safety of their keyboards.

[zipplewrath]

30. Not according to Pelosi

Getting the best result POSSIBLE is only selling out to those willing to blow up the spot ... from the safety of their keyboards.

The two provisions that Pelosi and Warren were trying to fight had been added AFTER Obama agreed to something. Instead of backing Pelosi and Warren (after all, what does Pelosi know about getting legislation passed) he opposed them and supported the last minute additions to the bill instead of giving Pelosi a chance to work it. The House leadership NEEDED the democrats to pass this and they could/can STILL pass it next year. The provisions were removable. But Obama didn't care and thought he knew better than Pelosi.

Truth be known, I'm fairly suspicious that he and his Goldman Sachs appointees didn't really object all that much anyway.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Okay ...

Let me ask something: From your life's experience, does showing the other side (or even your supporters) the playbook, typically, work out well for you?

[zipplewrath]

35. Ask Pelosi

I would think that he could at least show it to Pelosi, and Warren. That presumes he has one. The point of the OP is that he doesn't.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Do you really think that Pelosi wasn't talked to about this? ...

A Screen Pass doesn't work unless the blocking appears to have broken down ... a Play-action Pass doesn't work unless you sell the run.

[zipplewrath]

45. Yes, I do

Obama's White House has been historically very bad at working with Congress. This goes almost to the very beginning. The White House in notorious for not keeping the House in the loop about their actions. Their negotiations over the ACA were largely done in secret for months and congress learned about significant issues after the fact (like the deal with Big Pharma). They've cut out the congress to a very great degree on the TPP.

There is no reason to believe that Pelosi was in anyway consulted on this. These provisions appeared at the last minute and everyone, including the White House, was caught off guard. Pelosi and Warren were already acting prior to the White House deciding to stand pat.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Okay. n/t

[Doctor_J]

63. Best possible results?

Getting the best result POSSIBLE is only selling out to those willing to blow up the spot ... from the safety of their keyboards.

You need to stop the hero worship and expect a lot more from the people to who we give our votes. TPP is not the best we can do. The ACA was probably the worst we could do wrt health care - so bad that Gingrinch couldn't pass it 20 years ago. Both of those were sellouts of the American people by the way. Extending the Bush/Obama tax cuts was awful. We're back in Iraq, still in Afghanistan. Then there's Arne Duncan and Michelle Rhee and fracking.

You only need to look at the election results since 2010 to understand the damage we've suffered during the president's terms. And what in the world does

from the safety of their keyboards.

even mean?

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. You need to stop characterizing anything I say as "hero-worship" ...

lest, I dismiss what you say as (President) Obama-hate. Both, would (likely) be equally as unfounded. My agreeing with a political strategy is not based on who made it; but rather, the considered judgment that giving on some prevents the loss of all.

TPP is not the best we can do.

You are speculating on want TPP will look like ... the Administration's negotiating position is, and has been, that any agreement include wage protection (i.e., universal minimum wages among the signatories), work condition protections (i.e., banning sweat shop and forced labor, workplace safety rules, etc.) and environmental regulations. I could live with a trade agreement that includes these features, as it will go a long way towards ending the manufacturing job drain to low wage/low regulation nation-states.

The ACA was probably the worst we could do wrt health care - so bad that Gingrinch couldn't pass it 20 years ago.

No ... what we had in the previous 120 years is far worse that what the ACA established. I suspect anyone with a pre-condition, a chronic condition or locked in a crappy job they don't like, just for the healthcare benefits, would disagree with you.

Both of those were sellouts of the American people by the way.

One is not even in existence and the other is not as you have termed it.

Extending the Bush/Obama tax cuts was awful.

Don't tell that to the long-term employed that had they U/C extended ... or the 100,000s of social safety net program beneficiaries that continued to get their benefits ... or the 1,000,000s of middle class workers that also got their tax cut extended ... or the couple 100,000 federal workers that were not furloughed. They probably would disagree with you.

We're back in Iraq, still in Afghanistan.

Yes ... and why is that?

Then there's Arne Duncan and Michelle Rhee

I don't know much about education policy.

{ETA}: You only need to look at the election results since 2010 to understand the damage we've suffered during the president's terms.

Yes, economy improving, Job increases/unemployment decreases, social environment improving (though not with respect to race), and the American electorate keeps voting for the folks that trashed it in the first place. Yeah ... Thanks (President) Obama!

even mean?

{Edited to strike) Did you leave out the "What does" or are you calling me "mean"? If it's the former, I mean ... it's easy to type an opinion on an anonymous message board, or even write an OpEd piece advocating a position because neither come with any consequences should you be wrong in your assessment.

{Edited to strike} If you mean the latter ...

[MFrohike]

67. Gamed it out correctly?

I don't see the value in passing an omnibus bill when there's no penalty for a government shutdown. Given all the insane things a GOP Congress would be sure to insert into such a spending bill, I don't really get the value of shunting derivative liability onto the US Treasury and screwing pensioners with a lame-duck Congress. It seems that it would be better to give them the rope to hang themselves, rather than passing a hideous bill just for the sake of being seen to do something.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. No penalty for a shut-down? ...

I suspect those having to go without their government benefits, those facing furloughs, and the down - stream businesses that rely on government cash flow would beg to differ.

Ohhhh! You're more concerned with making Republicans pay than whether poor people pay. Huh?

[MFrohike]

69. Ease off that high horse

I was responding to your argument, your purely political argument, about "gaming it out correctly" in the context of an Ezra Klein article that celebrates the avoidance of a shutdown in exchange for a set of absolutely horrendous riders. In that context, only a fool doesn't note the lack of political penalty for the party that forces a shutdown.

Additionally, I have to wonder at what is being "gamed out" given the results of this bill. Millions of pensioners will see their guaranteed benefits cut, in bipartisan fashion, and Morgan, BofA, etc. no longer have to worry about the FDIC opposing their efforts to make it the guarantor for their insane gambling. These are not minor sacrifices. We have a full-fledged precedent to begin destroying pensions and yet another blank check for financial fraud.

I guess I want to know: what exactly is being "gamed out"? From where I sit, the answer looks like the majority of the American public.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Well ...

Isn't/aren't/shouldn't the people a part of any political calculation? If my response was taken as being from a high horse, it's because too many here seem to have extracting a political price/punishing/standing up to the republicans as an important goal, no matter the cost to the people, least able to afford it ... after all, it will only be "a one or two week convenience." (actual DU quote)

I guess I want to know: what exactly is being "gamed out"? From where I sit, the answer looks like the majority of the American public.

As you, correctly note:

Millions of pensioners will see their guaranteed benefits cut, in bipartisan fashion, and Morgan, BofA, etc. no longer have to worry about the FDIC opposing their efforts to make it the guarantor for their insane gambling.

So, I offer you, as the next move:

Democrats take advantage of the swell of republican/conservative/teaparty opposition to the derivative push-out roll-back and write individual legislation re-establishing the rule (and removing all the other horrible stuff the spending bill contains; but could only pass as part of the must pass spending bill. All (most) Democrats (and a significant number of republicans) will support the individual legislation, as who, without the cover/lack of transparency of the spending bill, will come out against it?

[MFrohike]

73. Sounds great

Two problems: who writes it and how you do the neutralize the Rubinites, and their fellow travelers, who worship at the altar of finance? Without a fairly unified Congressional majority, which really means the citizenry needs to yell loud and clear at them, and/or an administration utterly unwilling to compromise on the key issues of such a bill, it will end up as a band-aid. I think that was the essential problem with Dodd-Frank, as well as the fact none of the players moved quickly to pass it. Earlier movement on a re-regulation bill, combined with speed, would have almost certainly produced a better bill. That's a criticism, but a constructive one. If you let legislation linger in Congress, it turns into an unrecognizable mess. Speed is life for effective legislation.

The people are, or should be, most of the political calculation. It's an idealistic view. It's also a moral view. If you're not in a legislature actively working to either do the best work or least harm to or for the people, why the hell are you there? I suspect it's possible to both enjoy being an elected official AND do good work. I often wish that I thought my representatives, at all levels, thought the same way.

I don't believe in simply screwing the other major party for its own sake, unless it's on something minor. When the actual stakes are low, it's probably permissible. People's livelihoods, hell their lives, are not low stakes. If it'd been me, it would have been damned hard not to vote for this monstrosity if it was in danger of failing. I do think the pension screwing and the derivative giveaway will be extremely bad for the country, but I wouldn't want to face myself after making it so others couldn't eat. Food stamps don't give a person much as it is, so it's bit harder to weather an interruption when you're not starting out with a full pantry.

Maybe the Democrats should have all just voted present and let it pass with only GOP votes. The president could have not signed but not vetoed it (assuming the pocket veto could be avoided). It opens you up to charges of not doing your job, but it makes the entire mess the other side's fault and doesn't jeopardize necessary programs. I can't say it would produce the best results, but it would probably confuse the issue less than Democrats voting for it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Whowould right the legislation? ...

In the House, Pelosi (a co-sponsored by the Progressive caucus). In the Senate, Warren or Sanders.

I agree with everything you've written here.

[MFrohike]

75. You know what I wish?

Give us a new Abe Fortas. Sam Rayburn used him to write the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, well at least the death penalty section. Long story short, it wiped out the byzantine structure of power companies until that point and was the foundation of affordable electricity in America. Fortas would screw his reputation later in life, but he would be a godsend for this type of situation.

[sabrina 1]

78. Republicans shut down the Government twice airc. It didn't stop them from taking

the House and Senate. Dems LOST because they simply won't put up a fight. When are they going to stop listening to moronic 'political strategists' like Ezra Klein, I remember him well from his blogging days, and start listening to the PEOPLE.

It's hard being a soldier in a war when the Generals are always raising the white flag and you know your army, given the chance, could WIN THAT WAR. So after a while, the troops just leave, fed up with Generals who lead them to defeat when they have the ability to win.

Just listen to the people! THEY are the ones you have to count on to keep you in power.

All these political strategists should be banned from Washington. Nowhere in all these calculations do I see anything about the PEOPLE.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Okay, how about this ...

Passing the spending bill (that everyone hates) funds the government through September 2015. This means those of the people that rely on government to eat, be housed, be clothed, receive healthcare subsidies, are facing deportation, are not hurt; failure to pass the spending bill (that everyone hates) shuts down government, cutting off funds to the government programs that feeds, shelter and clothes folks ... even if the program interruption is for only the "one or two weeks (of) inconvenience" (as one DUer put it), before congress passes a stop-gap that expires in late January/early February, when the republicans have control of both houses of Congress ... when they could/would write a spending bill that has everything we hate and much, much more.

On the other hand, Democrats could have voted against the spending bill because ... "STAND UP! THE (demoralized) TROOPS DEMANDED OF THEIR GENERALS" and government shuts down, cutting off funds to the government programs that feeds, shelter and clothes folks ... even if the program interruption is for only the "one or two weeks (of) inconvenience" (as one DUer put it), before congress passes a stop-gap that expires in late January/early February, when the republicans have control of both houses of Congress ... when they could/would write a spending bill that has everything we hate and much, much more.

Both of these scenarios includes "the people", one protects "the people", the other protects the ego of the people that won't be affected by the course of action they insist must be done.

[99Forever]

52. Yet ...

... they keep trying to sell that same stinking pile to us time and again.

And then they wonder why people won't show up to vote for their lackeys.

[KaryninMiami]

2. That's been my question all along.

Why in the world would President Obama be pushing so hard for this to pass? Knowing how smart he is and how skilled he has become overall in dealing with the repugs (admittedly only to a point), I could not imagine what his reasoning was. Hopefully no big bank will fail in the next year, DC will fight back and win their clearly earned marijuana fight and the rest of potentiL disasters will remain at bay for a while. But the bill still stinks and is very bad for our country.

[2banon]

14. People keep saying how intelligent O is..

It's a lingering question mark in my mind. Not suggesting that he's "stupid".. but I'm not impressed with his legal acumen (for instance) given how highly he has been lauded in his chosen field, pre-political career)

I'm not impressed with his "communication" skills, again given that he is so highly praised for his "oratory" acumen, etc., etc. I had much higher expectations on a wide range of subject matters and issues of concern.

But I guess compared to dumbya - he seems "brilliant"

I think that's part of the problem with the electorate in our camp. Dumbya is the basic point of reference when taking the measure of political leadership. the bar is set sooooo low..

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. I'm pretty certain President Obama will sleep tonight, despite your misgivings regarding his acumen.

[NaturalHigh]

31. I'm quite sure President Obama will sleep fine tonight.

Unlike a lot of the people that he has consistently sold out, he doesn't have to worry about where his next meal will come from, how to pay the rent, medical bills, etc. At one time, I hoped that he would be a fighter for the people who really need a champion in the White House, but I gave up on that a long time ago.

President Obama is undoubtedly a decent person, but he seems more beholden to banks and corporations than to the people who elected him.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Well ...

those people "he has consistently sold out" won't have to worry about where their next meal will come from, how to pay the rent, medical bills, etc., because the government shut-down has frozen program funds. His "sell out" got those programs funded through the next fiscal year.

[zipplewrath]

36. Which presumes Pelosi couldn't succeed.

Pelosi knows how to work congress, and there was a very good chance in her opinion that these two provisions could have been eliminated. The GOP need to get this out of the House and they needed the dems to do that or the GOP gets blamed for shutting down the government. The GOP could wait two months and pass this without them attached to some other bill.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. The amendment was offered and it failed. n/t

[zipplewrath]

46. Because the White House opposed it

They actively worked to ensure that it did not pass.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Okay. n/t

[Robbins]

39. He will sell them out some more

to pay for endless war.He was elected because he was suspose to be against Iraq war.

1:we only pulled out because iraqi government wouldn't sign deal giving immunity
2:We have been on our way back to iraq since june
3:Like ebola notice you have heard a lot less about isis lately

At some point the GOP Is going to want to cut programs that help and you can't count on Obama to veto.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Okay ...

He's really gonna do it this time! I'm sure of it! Never-mind the last dozen or so times I was sure. His really going to do it THIS time.

[zipplewrath]

47. You mean he hasn't?

He's not back in Iraq?
He hasn't agreed to keep additional troops in Afghanistan?
He hasn't agreed to keep killing American Citizens through extra judicial means?
He has closed Gitmo?
He's started prosecution of "rouge" torture programs that WEREN'T within the "four corners" of the existing policy?

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Is your world a static place ...

where postions must be kept, regardless of what is actually going on in the world?

[zipplewrath]

58. Situational ethics?

Are you asking if I believe in situational ethics? It's an oxymoron.

These things are wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. No ...

I'm not talking about situational ethics (but we can have that discussion is you wish ... all ethics are situational, in the real world).

No ... I'm talking about changing your position based on attaining new information.

[zipplewrath]

61. In this case

It's not a case of "new information". It's the same problem as when he was elected. It's the same problem that he said we had to stay in and finish Bush's SOFA because that would be the solution. It was the same problem that he campaigned about. He just now believes that violence is the answer, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Yemen, and Syria, and Libya......

Kinda like he campaigned against a healthcare mandate, but now he's for it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. Okay. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

40. How many will still have to choose...

between buying food, paying mortgages or rent, getting medical care, things like that? In the meantime, bankers will get seven-figure bonuses for screwing over the poor and middle class.

Oh well, at least President Obama can start making those $100,000 speeches in a couple of years and also cash in his memoirs for a few million. Nice work if you can get it. He's also been so kind to let us know that it's no big deal that we tortured some folks.

Like I said, President Obama is a nice guy, but he's hardly a champion of the people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. You're talking about "what if" ...

I'm talking about "what IS."

[NaturalHigh]

48. Actually, I'm talking about "what is" too.

The "what is" we're talking about is that the American people are stuck with a horrible budget bill because the president not only didn't fight against it, he actually pushed for it. Sorry, not matter how much you like President Obama, you can't polish this turd.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. It's not a matter of whether I like President Obama ...

or not (which I do); but rather, an ability to see strategy that protects against greater loss.

[NaturalHigh]

54. It's sad that our president, supposedly the most powerful man in the world...

is just trying to keep the score close. As far as strategy goes, President Obama is not the chess master that his cheerleaders want us to believe. I'd like to think that he's just tired, but he's frankly never tried all that hard.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. ...

As far as strategy goes, President Obama is not the chess master that his cheerleaders want us to believe.

Because??? ...

[NaturalHigh]

56. Because??? ...

Seriously? His most significant accomplishment, the ACA, is a gift to the insurance industry. He is supposedly in favor of universal health care, but he hasn't done a thing to push for it. Hell, he doesn't even bring it up any more.

Again, that's his biggest accomplishment. Not exactly a record to write home about. It's been mediocre at best.

[zipplewrath]

57. What is

Here's what is:

There is no Public Option despite two speeches in front of congress insisting there had to be.
We're still in Afghanistan even though he said we'd be out.
We're back in Iraq
Rick Warren was STILL honored at the first inauguration
Baucus is STILL the ambassador to China even after having single payer advocates arrested.
The bankers STILL have their bonuses.
And they get to do MORE derivative trading on our dime now.
He signed the law permitting guns in national parks.
There are still no negotiations over drug prices by medicare.
There are still no people being prosecuted for "rouge" torture operations despite being "outside the four corners of the policy".
The 1% can now give even MORE money to the political parties.
We're still killing innocent people with drones because it's safer than torturing them.

[NewDeal_Dem]

76. +100. I'm one of those people. I was doing OK, no great shakes, but OK, until I

got a serious disease that affects about 1000 people a year.

Now I don't know if I'll ever be able to get back to even 'no great shakes'.

I no longer think Obama, or any of the political class, are 'undoubtedly decent" -- because they ARE more beholden to the monied interests that keep them in power than to ordinary people -- particularly the poor and powerless.

[world wide wally]

4. "Took blame for it"?

Yeah. That hurt the Republicans so badly that they now have both the House AND the Senate.
We better not ever do anything like that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. heh.

[progressoid]

6. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[Blue_Adept]

7. It's too bad that the really better plan...

was to motivate the fucking base and independents to come out for the midterms and vote. Not suppress and depress turnout to one of the lowest midterm turnouts out there.

THAT should have been the big play that wasn't made.

[Oilwellian]

8. LOL...yes, when Republicans threaten to shut down the government

it's the Democrats fault.

[Brickbat]

9. It'll be better the next time around...they'll be in a stronger position next time...no, the next

time...no seriously, the next time we'll be able to make it back...no, the next time after that I mean...

[Autumn]

38. No, it will be the time after that.

Seriously that time. I'm amazed that they think people will keep falling for that Charlie Brown move.

[n2doc]

10. Obama took ownership of the whole thing

People don't care about shutdowns. But they damn well will care when their pensions are cut, when the next bank bailout happens, when their benefits are cut, etc., etc.

And Obama became the point person pushing this pile o crap.

[kydo]

11. Of course if people would have voted in the mid-terms ....

We might have had a better hand to play.

For Dem's I see it as more the lesser pile of crap then anything else.

[daredtowork]

13. So how do you actually subtract bad cuts?

Like to WIC and Pell grants?

Seems to me once something has been cut, it's eternal. Or some deal/sacrifice has to be made to get it back.

[genwah]

15. I don't care about why; I care that the Senate hasn't passed it yet.

Enter your state in this link and it leads you to your 2 senator's websites and email forms.

We have less than one day.

[cry baby]

16. Hadn't thought about it in that light...

I'll think on that some more.

[Tatiana]

17. Is this more three-dimensional chess?

I'm sorry, I don't buy this logic. I wish there was a Democratic leader that understood how to play hardball.

Or maybe I'm looking for someone who cares enough about the interests of "Main Street" enough to muster up the effort to play hardball.

[Cha]

18. It would have been worse.. And, we got a few things..

Did cromnibus kill Wall Street reform? (updated)

Now...if all you care about is sticking it to Wall Street, the current battle among Democrats over this bill might be worth having. But - if you also care about enforcing the critical aspects of Wall Street reform, Obamacare, the President's actions on immigration, early childhood education, climate change, job growth, and national security - all this hysteria is simply a distraction.

snip//

UPDATE: I just learned that the "push-out" rule that is eliminated in the cromnibus was the brainchild of former Senator Blanche Lincoln. So excuse me if I'm a little skeptical about how important it is. Apparently it doesn't affect all derivative swaps - not even most of them.

In brief, the Pushout required federally insured banks to move-“push out”-some swaps dealing activities to separate subsidiaries that do not have access to federal deposit insurance. This does not apply to all swaps, mind you. Not even to the bulk of them (interest rate swaps, many CDS). But just to commodity derivatives (other than gold), equity derivatives, and un-cleared CDS.

MOre..
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2014/12/did-cromnibus-kill-wall-street-reform.html

[Demsrule86]

21. Sen. Walmart a Dem in name only

Are you kidding . she is the worst.

[Demsrule86]

24. Bankster greed will destroy economy

They are using FDIC insured money so can gamble big...and lose big. As for only a few banks, read about how they fixed that up for themselves....probably a trillion dollars will pass though those banks...we may very well bankrupt the world.

[Doctor_J]

25. your subject line is the de facto slogan of the dc dems

Which is why turnout is so awful

[JEB]

70. "It could have been worse."

Now that is inspirational to a bit more than zilch.

[NewDeal_Dem]

77. Inspirational indeed. Let me just shoot myself now.

[SMC22307]

59. Does DU take economic analysis by someone named "I'm a Smarty Pants" seriously?

But just to commodity derivatives (other than gold), equity derivatives, and un-cleared CDS.

"JUST."

[Cha]

65. If you're smart you're smart.. don't be a snob.

[SMC22307]

66. I'm not convinced the blogger is *smart*...

what are her credentials?

And I'll be whatever I want to be!

"If You Want To Sing Out, Sing Out"

Well, if you want to sing out, sing out
And if you want to be free, be free
'Cause there's a million things to be
You know that there are

And if you want to live high, live high
And if you want to live low, live low
'Cause there's a million ways to go
You know that there are

You can do what you want
The opportunity's on
And if you can find a new way
You can do it today
You can make it all true
And you can make it undo
you see ah ah ah
its easy ah ah ah
You only need to know

Well if you want to say yes, say yes
And if you want to say no, say no
'Cause there's a million ways to go
You know that there are

And if you want to be me, be me
And if you want to be you, be you
'Cause there's a million things to do
You know that there are

Well, if you want to sing out, sing out
And if you want to be free, be free
'Cause there's a million things to be
You know that there are
You know that there are
You know that there are
You know that there are
You know that there are

~~Cat Stevens

[Hotler]

19. The real reason is that Democrats have no spine and no fight. n/t

[Demsrule86]

20. I don't like Ezra at all

Total crap...it was bad for the country since when did a political party's well being trump the country's well being. When our economy falls, and it will from the greedy banksters with nothing to lose as we pay for their losses...what is your plan then Democrats...more bailouts...you have totally screwed over America, and I for one can't even see a worthwhile reason to come out in 16...this is not a game Dems...I lost my college fund in 08...hubs spent two years unemployed ...it costs us much of what we had worked for but you don't care now do you.

[spanone]

22. well, the republicans shut down the government last year and were rewarded with the senate.

[Ykcutnek]

26. Defanging Wall Street reform wasn't worth anything we got.

For normal, average everyday Americans CRonybus was a disaster.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. LOL ...

Explained, clearly, and succinctly ... calls for Democrats to pull the tea party move from the left is met, and it somewhat works, and DU still isn't happy!

BTW, do you think Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, and the rest of the Democratic team, might ... just, might ... have gamed this out?

[zipplewrath]

37. No

Nor is there any reason to believe so. We heard the same crap about the Public Option, right until it was actually gone.

[Robbins]

33. Bullcrap

Shuting down domerment in 2013 did nothing to hurt republicans.They were rewarded for it in 2014.

Obama was justing wall street's bidding in weaking dodd-frank and allowing them to rid pensions and give more money to republicans.

[brentspeak]

71. Ezra Klein: New Dem/Obama sycophant

Note that Klein's benign predictions about ACA turned out to be mostly wrong. He's as pathologically sycophantic and mendacious as any Republican congressional staffer.