OBAMA SHAMES CENTRISTS

[kpete]

"If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/obama-calls-out-conservat_n_447697.html

MORE CAPS!!!!

Middle class Americans, Obama said, "are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us."

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/3/833483/-Obama-SLAMS-Sen.-Lincoln-and-centrist-Dem-Senators!-About-frikkin-time

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. THAT'S what I want to hear from him.

Now, let's see him back it up with action...

He needs to shame the centrists into doing whatever it takes to fix the outcome.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. You said it for me.

[donheld]

27. +1

[happygoluckytoyou]

39. SAME ACTIONS SAME RESULT.... to believe otherwise IS insanity

[Vincardog]

2. Has Obama found out you can not COMPROMISE your way to reform?

[NYC_SKP]

14. He knew this all along. He was in the senate, after all. Strategy:

Strategy: Give them, Rs and Ds, one year to do the right thing.

This first year provides the clear evidence that the system is broken.

Year two: use evidence to shame them all and push the agenda.

This, IMHO, is far more effective than had he pushed right away and failed.

It's analogous to how he won the candidacy and the office.

:patriot:

[Vincardog]

18. Well I HOPE you are correct. I am waiting to see his progressive agenda

[Ardent15]

24. Agreed entirely nt

[Marr]

29. Really. Here's what I think the strategy is:

Year One: Hand money to Wall Street as fast as possible, continue corporatist policies. Sell insurance industry handout as "healthcare reform".

Year Two: Election year. Need to re-energize the base, which will be angry and disaffected after a year of repeated betrayal. Play liberal again, but nothing too substantive. Pretty words, a little kabuki theater, political WWF stuff. Maybe a social wedge issue or two.

Delay the really overt economic screwing until after November (Debt Commission).

Year Three: Repeat Year One.

[SemperEadem]

38. that's what I've been saying all along

he let this all fall out in experience before the eyes of everyone so now he can come to the people and tell them about the cooperation he was led to believe he had from them and then they turned around and instead delivered treachery.

[T Wolf]

4. STILL just pretty words until (if) he produces something of value. DO SOMETHING - don't just mouth

platitudes.

[MrsCorleone]

12. You obviously did not watch this morning.

BTW, what's with the GOP talking point? Just curious.

[T Wolf]

13. No, I didn't watch - I'm working. All I have to go on is the words I read here. And they ARE

just words until he delivers something of value.

Criticizing Obama for talking the talk but not walking the walk is not a "GOP talking point" - it is an observation that words are cheap. And not to be trusted if the past year is any criteria.

NOT vetoing Lily Ledbetter is not enough.

[MrsCorleone]

17. Let me get this straight. You didn't watch the discussion, yet your knee jerk

reaction is to discount Obama's specific solutions & explanations of Senate gridlock as merely "pretty words" based on secondhand sources?

Please do tune in for the rebroadcast of the discussion on C-Span 2 (8pm ET / 5pm PT) and take the time to listen.

And, yes, your talking point is all over RW radio and has been for a long time.

[Number23]

22. Tell 'em, MrsCorleone! There are a few around here who always spout the "it's just words"

and "where's the action??!!" meme in a very transparent attempt to minimize this President's achievements.

[Mithreal]

37. It's not a meme. It is something each of us lives with. Words versus actions.

Some here act like hypocrisy is something only Republicans do.

There are real memes used all too frequently but I do not think this qualifies as one.

I'll add that you want action too, don't you?

So some are less enamored and won't settle for words. Do you really blame them?

You might be in the same situation yourself some day, calling for action not just words. Many of the people who ask Where's The Action? fought to get that man elected but get scolded like petulant children.

We have lost a lot of good DU'ers because people pushed them away asking others to be quiet, suck it up, believe like they do. Do you prefer the voices pushing back just go home, stay home?

If this President pivots it will be because of the pressure that came from the left. I am suspicious of anyone who says don't push, not because I think they are closet rightwingers, but more because they are just another speed bump preventing this President from transitioning to one of the great ones.

[Political Heretic]

47. That's because for poor people, its not about racking up a list of intangible accomplishments.

For people like me, its about critical severe problems ruining our lives, making us ashamed of our country and destroy our future.

The White House cut and paste of administration accomplishments seems tragically disconnected from the life we live, and the critical need we face. That is why cries of "where's the action" or "its just words" happen. Because all of these wonderful "achievements" have had little impact on easing the suffering or addressing the critical problems of poor and working class individuals and families.

I can't speak for everyone who writes on DU, but I can speak for myself. And that's where I'm coming from.

[Number23]

52. So saving the economy is now an "intangible achievement?"

Does that also include providing billions for the homeless and pledging $100 billion for jobs?

As I said in this OP (one of HUNDREDS on this site highlighting the action that this President has taken to try to improve things and get the country back on track): "On DU, I'm seeing the same names post over and over and over again "we want action and not words!!ONE!!" as if Obama hasn't done anything except sit in front of a damn podium for the last 13 months. I don't know about y'all, but I'm sick of the lies and mischaracterizations coming from BOTH sides."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x15932

[Toasterlad]

54. Two Friends Of Mine Lost Their Jobs This Week Alone

Obama's "pledge" hasn't helped them one bit.

You DO know that "pledging" isn't "DOING", right?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

56. lol And I was trying SO HARD to be nice

and I still got deleted! Oh well. Guess my true feelings about that particular poster will always come through.

[Political Heretic]

57. The economy does not feel "saved" to me, or my poor friends and their families.

:shrug:

[Number23]

60. I understand. But trying to pretend that Obama has done nothing is dishonest

There is still more to be done but he has done MUCH already.

No matter how many people respond to my (fairly innocuous) post trying desperately to convince me that he hasn't done anything for the economy, I've read and seen far too much to be so easily deceived. Best of luck to you.

[Political Heretic]

61. The entire political philosophy of this administration on the economy is wrong, imo.

I'm sorry, but the economy is not one of the places I would personally rush to in order to make the case for administration accomplishments.

But that's because I believe that leading on the economy in a way that brings change, not just a restoration of a failed status quo, requires more than just trying to stop a deep recession and "reboot" the same system.

This administration, and let's be honest - most of the modern democratic party - subscribes to a certain kind of economic philosophy that prioritizes the wants and whims of the financial elite ahead of the needs of working class individuals and families. I believe it is absolutely accurate to describe it as a trickle-down economics philosophy.

That's painful to say given the fact that it was the term for Ronald Regan's ridiculous claim that primarily serving the interests of the rich and powerful was best for society because it allowed the rich to let benefits trickle down to all those "other people." But like it or not, that exactly the philosophy being applied to economics by this administration. In Regan's day, the primary issue was income tax, and income tax cuts for the rich. But in modern's society, the primary issues are deregulation, privatization and removal of financial constraints on investment practices.

Economic policy over the last year has been driven by this trickle-down wall street first approach. It was governed by a belief that all that really needed fixing was Wall Street. Even the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, though it did have some great money (having little to do with direct stimulus) for education and social investment programs (which is why, despite its flaws I supported it) was still structured primarily with a philosophy that fixing "wall street" and then injecting some capital would take care of things. It was designed to function over the long run (impacting the economy over several years) which was also about providing the financial elite with some stability, with the hope that it would compel them to feel "safe" lending to small businesses again.

ARR Act was better than no stimulus at all. But the shape of the act was padded down with billions in wasteful spending that could have and should have been better targeted for direct impact (such as the hundreds of billions in "small business" tax breaks.) Upon passing ARR the bulk of the administrations time was focused on getting financial power players everything they wanted - that they claimed the needed for recovery.

Programs and policy that would put main street first, taking what we should call a "trickle-up" approach, languished as secondary priorities - an example being the mortgage relief program that was supposed to help millions and millions rescue themselves from foreclosure and provide banks with financial backing to work with trouble borrowers. But the program suffered almost immediately from not being a primary focus, and languished in delays, setbacks and red tape with banks not communicating with the government and the government not communicating with borrowers.

If you've bothered to read this far - and there's really no reason to assume you would; these are all just my opinions - I should point out again that none of what I'm saying is suggesting that this President or this administration has done "nothing" on the economy. But when looking at the big picture, this administration favors and approach to recovery that prioritizes the wants and whims of the financial elite ahead of the needs of ordinary people, under a misguided belief that benefits giving the financial elite everything they cry for trickle-down to everyone else and little more will need to be done.

Finally, the economy is about far more than recovering from this financial crisis. We had critical problems with our economic practices before the collapse, which led not only to this collapse, but to the cycle of collapses before it. We've had a thirty year decoupling of wages from productivity, the exponential explosion of income inequality. We rank 1st among our top 20 peers in income inequality. We have the highest poverty among our peers. We have the highest percent of children in poverty. We have the highest infant mortality rate. Can you believe that?

This administration, up to this date, has not been at all interested in challenging the structural injustices embedded at the core of our economic system, because doing so really would be called "radical" by the money holders and denounced on every corporate media outlet. So the alternative is to double down on the failed system, re-inflate the bubble, spend over a trillion of taxpayer dollars (because its more than just TARP) on propping up Wall Street's sense of entitlement to its own lavish excesses and return the economy to the "way it was." The problem is, for ordinary Americans, the way it was sucked.

I understand that I am a radical. And I know that Obama is not. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm not somehow "confused" when I say that the bulk of administrative action on economics has been in a direction I disagree with. And my problem is not that I think this administration has done "nothing." It's that I think on the issues most critical to this countries survival and to the health and prosperity of my children and their children - the administration is doing the wrong things.

There's always time to change. And I don't hold a grudge - the moment I start to see sunlight from this administration and a change in its economic philosophy, I'll be the first to jump for joy.

[GOTV]

59. "Saved the economy"? He paid the blackmailers. I guess that's sort of saving the hostage ...

... It's not like he's done anything about too big to fail. It's not like he's prevented the blackmailers from profiting handsomely from their should-be-crimes.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

20. Trying to get the Congress to go along is what he is doing

He is not Santa Claus - if anything is "delivered" to you, Congress will be involved. Both houses.

[Political Heretic]

58. Of course, which is why its silly to make it personal about Obama

And yet, that's what too many on both sides are doing.

Obama is President now, and as President he's part of an administration, collectively responsible for setting policy direction among other things. He is the national "leader" sure, but the Executive branch is bigger than him and certainly not about personal popularity.

And Congress is inexorably linked to most policy being made or getting done.

That's why I try to be careful to refer to "the administration" if I have a criticism and also include Democratic congressional leadership or Democrats in Congress where appropriate. I'd spend more time railing about Republicans too, but it seems rather pointless - I have no influence on them or their people.

[dixiegrrrrl]

51. If you do want to catch it, here is the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AsM7bQ_JTU

[Political Heretic]

44. I watched. I watched him say New Deal ideas and FDR legacy are dead

and irrelevant to the 21st century.

[GOTV]

49. If he did watch, what substative and completed changes would he have seen?

Nothing? Just more speechifying? Nothing actually changed?

[Toasterlad]

53. THANK You

That anyone could still be taken in by this man's WORDS is fucking astounding.

[bvar22]

5. Shure SOUNDS like he shaming the "Centrists",

..but you know how it goes with Obama,
You "hear" what you want to hear.

"I did not run on a Public Option."

[jobycom]

6. NEXT MAYBE HE'LL SHAME PEOPLE WHO POST IN ALL CAPS!1

:P

Anyway, he's attacking conservatives, not centrists.

[kpete]

8. ouch...

peace kp
...conservatives, centrists, whatever

[jobycom]

32. Nah, not whatever.

If you think whatever you're the problem, not the solution. When we're this far to the right as a nation, the centrists are a stone we have to step on to get to the other side.

[DainBramaged]

21. NEXT MAYBE HE'LL SHAME THE DNC FOR WASTING MONEY ON OBSTRUCTIONIST ALMOST-PUKES

[Winterblues]

41. He said that in regards to Blanch Lincoln and yes she is a Conservative

but if you listen to MSM she is a Moderate as is Ben Nelson and Mary Landroux and Joe Lieberman..I am not sure What a Moderate is anymore but if I had to guess, Obama would fit the description.

[jobycom]

42. Obama's a moderate opportunist.

That's not bad if you are as far right as this country is now, but it's annoying.

And the media is always trying to push the country to the right, so describing conservatives as "moderates" is there little way of making far right wackos seem closer to mainstream.

As for Mary Landrieu, she's not so much a moderate as she is forced to play one on tv. In a state that elects David Vitter and Bobby Jindal and actually took David Duke seriously as a candidate, she's as liberal as we're going to get. The choice isn't between Mary Landrieu and another Dennis Kucinich. It's between Mary Landrieu and another David Vitter, or even David Duke.

[kestrel91316]

7. Pot/kettle. Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Presidant.

[Zoeisright]

9. Now ACT on it.

Before it's too late.

[cascadiance]

23. Yup! If he ACTED, like FIRING Rahm before saying this, THEN I'd be inclined to believe him!

I'm running out of patience just listening to nice words...

[amborin]

26. +1000

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. Sounds great, Mr. Prez

Now make it mean something.... fire those Wall Street whores, and hire a REAL economic team.

And veto any "health care" bill that does not contain - at the very least - a true public option open to anybody who wants it.

[Individualist]

11. New Democrat President shames centrists

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Enrique]

15. shames them with 500,000 for TV ads trashing the public option

it's a lot like how he shames the banks.

[Edweird]

16. Was there a mirror involved at any time?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. In the way a dolphin shames an olympic swimmer?

[GOTV]

50. +1000 - awesome!

[northofdenali]

25. Can't help it.

I love that man.

K&R

[JoeyT]

28. Under the bus with him!

"then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys."
rAmen.

[Marr]

30. Well, this election year sales pitch is going over big with the Obama loyalists.

We'll see if it attracts much outside of that. I think they overplayed their hand in the first year, personally. Losing that Massachusetts seat was an unexpected monkeywrench/wakeup call. They did way too much shameless servicing of corporate America, and it turns out the public is more informed (and a lot more fed up) than they were in 1993.

[depakid]

31. Now that's what we need to hear more of-

unfettered by contradictory statements and actions.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

33. K&R

[pleah]

34. K&R

[branders seine]

35. congratulations on having succeeded

in moving the "center" to the right of reagan.

[grahamhgreen]

36. He needs to push for the public option or Medicare for all - Why the F did he not put restrictions

on TARP and other bailouts BEFORE he gave away our children's money?

[pscot]

40. I watched this as it was happening

I thought the conservadems were being schooled, but in conversation it just kind of passes over. I'm not sure the conservadems got it. He told Blanche Lincoln that people won't vote for you if you run away from the Democratic Party's ideals. (It wasn't quite that explicit.) She looked like she was sucking on a sourball. You can really see what Obama is telling them in the transcript. Good OP. Thanks.

[Political Heretic]

43. I was glad to hear him say that, however he said it along with too much centrist nonsense.

When Obama says that he doesn't want Democrats to the same things that have been done before, I'm sure he means it.

Unfortunately, one need only listen to the kinds of policy he discussed when talking to House Republicans, or the other part of this transcript with Democrats in which he scoffed at New Deal policies and FDR as part of an old century irrelevant to the 21st.

So it kind of leaves me with some head spin.

I wonder if it ever dawns on him that, if he really means the statement that he highlighted, how bad he failed when picking his advisers and cabinet. That team delivers a conservative economic and foreign policy agenda, carried out with more smarts and smooth-talking than republicans, but conservative just the same. They don't deliver any other type of policy.

So if he wants democrats to be clear differentiated from "the other guys" and from "politics as usual" (as he has said before) then appointing a bunch of republican-lite pro-centrist DLC whoring Wall Street suck-offs to fill his administration.

Guys who call people who talk about change that looks different from the other guys "fucking retarded."

[Blue Owl]

45. Centrism = Insanity

centrism = insanity, by definition -- now THIS the kind of schooling the Blue Dogs could use...

[TheKentuckian]

46. Next, he can cease being one himself.

His policy offerings seem pretty close to Poppy's (aka semi-rational but corporate friendly to a a fault Republican).

He brags/admits he rehashed Bob Dole's old health care scam and is all about him some tax cuts and privatizing as the primary solutions for everything that ails us.

Obama has the talent and intellect to be a transformative President but seems mostly inclined to be middle of the road Republican circa 1990-1999 and it is a terrible and costly waste.

[BrklynLiberal]

48. more!!! more!!!

[LWolf]

63. If that's what he thinks,

why does he leave so many Bush policies in place, and and make some of them even worse?

Education, for example.

Why does he insist on "coming together" when it counts, and then fall back on rhetoric to appease those supporters he's pissed off by doing so?

[LWolf]

64. And here is what that means in action:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7644769&mesg_id=7644769