oleeb's picture

    Wow! DC Democrats Prove Dumber Than Anyone Thought: Republicans Reward Obama And Conservadems By Sinking The Spending Bill

    By oleeb on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:57pm |

    If it wasn't so serious nobody would believe this is happening.

    Even the most jaundiced observer has to be left speechless this evening as Harry Reid is forced to withdraw the $1.3 Trillion Ominbus Spending Bill after the Republicans (including the reprehensible liar McConnel of Kentucky) reward their Democratic colleagues cave in on the tax cuts for the rich earlier in the week by withholding their support for the spending bill.  On top of that, the Democratic lemmings in the US House are set to approve the reckless Republican tax cut bill despite what the Republicans are doing in the Senate.  Have they no shame?  No self respect at all?

    Has there ever been a group of politicians in this country or any other as weak, gullible and stupid as these DC Dems led by the 70's Republican from Illinois and Reagan admirer Mr. Obama?  Just as a matter of simple self respect one would think these DC Democrats would at least stand up and kill the tax cut bill in retaliation for killing the spending bill but they won't.  Instead, they will fold over and over and over again between now and adjournment.  And it probably will be impossible to keep up with the number of times this very same scenario plays out in the next two years despite Democrats controlling the Senate and (allegedly) the White House.

    How could anyone defend or excuse this disgraceful, corrupt and incompetent conduct on the part of the President and the Democratic congressional leadership?  How?  It's embarassing to see our nation ruined because the Democrats just couldn't muster the strength even one time to do what is right and stem the disasterous consequences of the know nothing, racist, irresponsible, and unpatriotic Republican Party policies.

    Comments

    I have nothing to contribute, yet, other than these really fun comments at a link CMaukonen just shared with me in Chat:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/133945-gop-looks-to-box...

     


    by LisB on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:31pm

    That is an excellent link and a perfect illustration of why it was Obama's decision to cave in to the Republicans was such a poor one the negative consequences of which will only keep reverberating as long as he continues to cower in fear of them instead of standing up to them.  What Obama so naively has attempted to market as his reaching across the aisle to forge a bipartisan "compromise" is taken by the Republicans as a display of weakness and only encourages them to keep it up and redouble their efforts because they are confident (and rightly so) he will never fight back and they can do or say anything with impunity without the slightest fear of paying any price at all for it.


    by oleeb on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:47pm

    Could it be that Obama understands he is going into battle with this dynamic as stated in that article:

    The GOP has ramped up its attacks on the spending bill and has enjoyed support from some Democrats in hopes that recess-minded congressional leaders will relent and pursue a continuing resolution instead.

    The link has this little diddy:

    A Democratic senator facing a tough reelection battle in 2012 said on Wednesday that she would oppose a $1.1 trillion spending bill before Congress.

    Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she'd break with her party to oppose the omnibus legislation crafted by Democratic leaders, citing concerns over earmarks contained in the legislation.

    "It'll be interesting to see — I'm voting no," she said in a conference call with Missouri reporters. "The omnibus is a name for the giant spending bills that come through at the end of the year that are usually laden with earmarks. So it'll be interesting to see if they can get the votes for this."


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:04pm

    McCaskill is another doomed conservadem cut from the very same cowardly cloth as Obama.  She hasn't got a chance in 2012.  She's gonna be the Missouri version of Blanche Lincoln.


    by oleeb on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:23pm

    The point here is that this one of the folks that make up your "Democratic majority."  As long as you treat the Democratic senators as a single entity rather than a shaky coalition facing a tight coalition, your analysis of the situation is going to be off-kilter. in my so humble opinion.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:38pm

    Unfortunately, all too often people forget that point.  Snowe and Collins are sometimes more "liberal" than some of our Dems.  But they get tallied up in the Republican column when people talk about majorities and minorities in the Senate. 


    by LisB on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:50pm

    But because the Republicans are willing to punish severely those who break ranks, whereas the Democrats (rightly so) embrace individual expression, Snowe and Collins rarely express that sentiment.  There is an argument to be made that if the Democrats are willing to embrace the conservative Dem openly (rather than begrudge the fact we have the Senator Nelsons of the party) we might get the likes of Collins and Snowe to switch.  That is, if they thought the voters would put them back in office even though they had a D next to their name.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:08am

    Excellent point.  Cmaukonen, in chat tonight, also brought up the same fact you made at the bottom of the comments here, that the economy today is not anything like it was under Clinton. 


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:35am

    She is a follower and is following Obama's cowardly lead.


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:39am

    Okay, Oleeb, please give us a list of the GOOD Dems out there in Congress.  List the ones you believe in.


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:43am

    Golly but the way you describe Obama, it's a wonder that a strong winter breeze doesn't knock the man down and turn his skinny little bones into ashes on the sidewalk.  "Cower", "naive", "weak".  How on earth he became President of the United States is beyond me.  Wink


    by LisB on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:07pm

    I'm not the only one using those terms to describe Obama.  Not by a long shot.  And he showed not one bit of courage or fight in his campaign.  He simply rode the anti-Hillary/let's elect the first black President wave.  No more.  No less.  The Republicans have relentlessly attacked himsince before he was nominated on the most baseless racist, demogogic, xenophobic, and illegitimate bases imaginable and he hasn't swung back even once.  The only time he ever has a negative word to say is when he is criticizing other Democrats when they call  him out for lying.  This behavior begain when he flip flopped and lied about the FISA Bill in the summer of 08.  It hs continued through his Presidency as he has lied over and over again about the Public Option and being for it though it when in fact he had killed it in secret in his deal with big Pharma and the insurance industry, when he reneged on his promise to make EFCA a top priority in his first year, when he dragged his feet over and over on DADT, when he claims to be for strengthening whistleblower protection when in fact he has done all he can to roll back such protections, when he claims to be for "financial reform" but won't support any effective reforms and lets the Wall Street crooks do as they please, when he flip flopped and lied about open government, the rule of law, ending illegal detentions, stopping torture, and other war crimes and when he repeatedly lied about and then double crossed Democrats about opposing the tax cuts for the rich.  And this is only a partial list.

    As an example of what some others are saying, here's just a sample of what Glen Ford at Blackagendareport.com (a Chicago based site) has to say about Obama and he's been covering him since before he was elected to the state senate:

    Even if “progressive” lawmakers can remember where they left their spines so long ago, Obama is now in his element, where he can maneuver among fellow rightist Democrats and Republican Neanderthals, seeking the “bipartisan” nirvana he has craved his entire cynical, opportunistic career. The GOP may or may not withdraw their hit-contract on Obama, for the time being. After all, his capitulation spared them from actually having to go the mattresses over tax breaks for the super-rich. They may never have to consider taking government to the brink of gridlock, since Obama is so eager to spare them the necessity. The man has his uses.


    by oleeb on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:22pm

    The list of accomplishments he's passed haven't occurred, eh?

     


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:06am

    His list of accomplishments doesn't amount to a hill of beans because he has sold out or flip flopped on every major issue he campaigned on.


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:40am

    Oy. 


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:44am

    sdfgh,aoeth,


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:14am

    *raises glass to Kyle*

    Thanks for that Gaelic toast to my health, friend!  Or did the cat walk across your keyboard?

     


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:37am

    Gaelic toast.  Plus I tried writing something three or four times, only to have it disappear after hitting send.  Finally, in frustration... And of course it published.  I ain't good at typing (keyboarding?).  It's why I usually just read and scream at you all through my screen six times a day.  But definately Gaelic toast. 


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:44am

    Hee! 

    Yeah, I know how you feel about the screaming at the monitor thing....politics is such fun, ain't it?

    Anyway, a toast to your health!

     


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:48am

    "How on earth he became President of the United States is beyond me."

    It shouldn't be beyond anyone at this point.  In simplest terms, he lied.  Go and revisit his stump speeches and leaf through Blueprint for Change: Obama and Biden's Plan for America.  The evidence is in.  They're frauds.  Instead of a fight for the sort of America he said he wanted, we get bad policy and poor excuses.  Half a loaf of half a loaf of half a loaf...  This country is starving for progressive policy and leadership.  Obama's election proves it.  Yet all we get from him is, well, not enough.  Not nearly enough.  Say one thing, do another.  What do you call it.  


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:36am

    Many parts of the Blueprint have been let go, yes.  I admit that freely.  A lot of the Blueprint was written before 2009, though.  And a lot of Republicans have stood in the way of getting things done.  And Obama isn't a Saviour, and he's not perfect. 

    But he's our President, leading in a time of difficulty, and having people of his own party and base talking just as badly about him as the Republicans do, well, it doesn't help.

    Run for President, Kyle Flynn, and I'll back you.  :)

     


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:41am

    You need to be 35 to be President.  I'm only 15.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:47am

    Jayzuz Aich Christ, and here I am letting you raise glasses in toast!  Fer shame!!!

    Hide the bottles, mon!  And git to bed!!!  A lad yer age needs his sleep.  Ach.

     


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:50am

    After long deliberations with Republican principals Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the Senate floor that nine GOP members had reneged on their pledges to vote for the omnibus spending bill, which reflected months of bipartisan negotiations, and included earmarks benefiting both parties.

    That left Reid several votes shy of the 60 he'd need to overcome a filibuster and essentially vaporized a year's worth of work by the Appropriations Committee.

    And what would have stopped the Republicans from doing exactly the same thing with whatever the Dems wanted to do with taxes?  Even if the Dem shaky coalition was to hold strong.

    And if the House Dems derail the current tax deal, and thus go into the new year with nothing passed, and, thus nothing accomplished, if the polls are to be believed at all, the only winners will be the Republicans.  So they are truly hoping the House Dems do exactly what you want them to do. You and McConnell are on the same page.

    And you can bet your sweet toots that it'll happen again and again because the voters in their infinite wisdom made it even harder for what you call the Democratic majority to get those 60 votes - which in case it has sunken in is the new majority number. Yup the American voters just gave you and me a government with the party who seek know nothing, racist, irresponsible, and unpatriotic...policies even more leverage.  But keep on blaming the Dems and Obama.  The Republicans love it.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:45pm

    Whgat would have stopped them?  How about telling them to go fuck themselves if they think they're going to blackmail the President of the United States and 59 Democratic Senators and a majority of the House of Representatives?  And then let them block everything and next year wield the veto pen whenever necessary, not to mention pointedly blocking the pork barrel projects Republicans want in their states, killing their favorits programs and tax provisions with administrative action and so on.  It woldnt' take long before they got religion.  But the DC Dems and folks like yourself are too scared even to try.  How sad.

    You really are head over heels in this naive Obama approach aren't you?  I guess you haven't been kicked in the teeth by Boehner and McConnel and their wacked out right wing extremist colleagues long enough and desire more huh?  Well, the cowardice of the DC Dems which you apparently approve of is precisely what encourages them to continue with their demagogic stunts.  It really amazes me that you and those who think like you do cannot see what is so obvious to even a casual observer: that your approach ford not work and indeed produces failure time after time after time.

    Did it ever cross your mind that just passing shitty legislation for the sake of saying you passed a bill is a bad idea and it is better to fight for what is right and lose to show yourself and your supporters that you actually stand for something rather than humiliating yourself over and over by surrendering to an army that has less power, less popular support and less to offer than your own?  Your positon, like that of Obama and the cowardly crew claiming to be Democrats in DC is the position of weaklings and losers and that's why the American people think the Democrats are nothing but pussies.

    You would have advised (using your logic) that Bill Clinton cave in to Gingrich and the Republicans when they shut down the governmentin the 90's.  The situation is no different now yet evidently you and Obama would prefer to grovel for mercy and cave in rather than stand up to them and win.  Thankfully, Clinton wasn't nearly as naive as that and he had what the current leader lacks: balls.  Clinton held his ground and by refusing to cavein, exposed the Republicans for the grandstanding demagogues they were and remain today.  Instead, folks like yourself and the brilliant architects of the Democratic debacles of the past two years think it's smarter to cave in, capitulate, submit, and then meekly claim "at least we got something passed" and "it was the best deal we could get" than to fight for and get a better deal than simply whatever the Republicans choose you should get.  I'm astounded at thinking like yours in many ways, but the ongoing willingness to keep repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results is the most remarkable thing of all. How many times do those in your camp need to debase yourselves and the Democratic Party before you realize what you're doing is an embarassment, losing whatever respect of the people you might have once had, not to mention doing great disservice to the nation in the bargain?


    by oleeb on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:08pm

    You lost me at telling the Republicans to go fuck themselves, Oleeb.


    by LisB on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:20pm

    Unsurprising


    by oleeb on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:24pm

    My reaction to your comment is - in your eyes - as unsurprising as your comment itself was, in my eyes.

    And we're both of the same Party. 

    Blows my mind, sometimes, Oleeb.  Blows my mind.

     


    by LisB on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:30pm

    Okay, let me try this:  You want A.  (A, of course, being a strong liberal President who fights Republicans in order to get his agenda pushed through).  I want B.  (B, of course, being a moderate liberal President who is willing to work with Republicans on certain points in order to get his agenda pushed through).  Republicans, meantime, want C.  (C being THEIR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY).

    Which of us will work better with the Republicans to get things pushed through?

     


    by LisB on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:36pm

    I want a President with some principles.  I want a President who isnt a shameless liar and who isn't a cowardly hypocrite.  I want a President who is an actual Democrat and not a Democrat in Name Only.  I want a President with a backbone and some balls.  And fuck the Republicans unless and until they are prepared to come to the table in good faith which is something they haven't done in years.  So fuck em!


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:45am

    Amen, Oleeb.  I want what you want, so if you find it first, lemme know, k?  Meantime, I'm standing behind what we've got. 


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:00am

    Gee wiz.  20 minutes ago you said you'd back me if I ran for President. 


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:03am

    I've got twenty years to prepare myself, luv.

     


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:06am

    You can't get any of those things by passively going along and not objecting to lying, hypocritical, unethical politicians like the DC Corporate Centrist Democrats.


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:24am

    Let me just say this for now re:your comparison with Clinton and the shutdown in 1995.  In those days, Republicans controlled Congress.  These days the folks who control Congress are...hmmmm...let me look at your original blog here, ah yes the Democrats.  And in your blog you go to the mat to point out that the Democrats are in the majority.  So if there is a shut down of government who is the low information voter going to blame.  The Republicans who kept things from coming to the floor because they kept the Senate from getting a cloture vote?  Okay answer me this.  If I went out in the street and asked the first 10 people who passed my way (and I'll help you by doing it in a white collar portion of town) "what does cloture have to do with government?" how many of them do you think will be able to answer correctly.

    The other point is that Clinton stood up to the Repubs when unemployment was at 5.6%.  To put it perspective, the last time unemploymet dipped below 5% (to 4.9%) was December 1973. 

    To say Clinton and Obama were standing in different dynamics is an understatement.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:02am

    Your leader is so weak he can't even get the members of his own party in line?  Pitiful.

    But ya know, that's not even true because he makes no attempt to lead.  He is a horrendously inadequate leader, doesn't have the courage to cajole his own former colleagues.  He saves his big displays of manliness for kicking the dirty fucking hippies who put him where he is.  Good thinkin!

    And you are wrong about the shutdown.  Clinton, unlike Obama, was a leader and there was no more loyalty to him amongst Democrats than there are to Obama but he used the power of his office and he showed some guts.  Obama never, ever shows any guts on anything.  There's not one single issue he is prepared to fight for, oh, except of course for Bush's tax cuts for the rich which are vital.  What a load of malarky!


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:49am

    "Your leader is so weak...."

    "How weak IS he?"

    As for Clinton, he showed a lot of guts, yes.  And he also showed off his privates in the Oval Office, which didn't help much.  But now I'm nitpicking as much as you are. 

    I'm sorry, Oleeb, but your comments do very little to advance discussion and only seem to be set on attack mode, to the point where you're becoming a caricature of the "Disappointed Liberal". 

    I think I'll go now.  Y'all can have the last words.  Wink

     


    by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:04am

    As Jack Nicholson so famously said:

    "You can't handle the truth."


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:23am

    If memory serves me correctly, one of the primary critiques of the Republicans during the Bush years was that they did exactly what the WH told them to do.  At the time people complained about how the Dems couldn't get into lockstep to present an unified opposition (as we see the Repubs do now). I stood then as I stood now I prefer a party which allows for disunity over unity by coercion.  You on the other hand want the Democratic version of Delay to appear, to whip everyone to vote the same way or else...of course it is different because we're on the side of the angels.

    The reality, however, is that a rep or senator is going to vote in his or her interest.  Since it is all of their interests, regardless of party, to vote in a way that is aligned with their wealthy donors, it makes senses that the Repubs are able to vote in a way that is consistent with their primary objectives.  In other words, it was good for Bush that his objectives were the same as the objectives of the republicans' wealthy donors. 

    And back to the shutdown - the point is that the public is going to tolerate a showdown when things are going relatively well as opposed to now where they have endured a prolonged recession.  To say that things would have played out exactly the same way in 1995 if unemployment was 9.0%, etc. is to walk into the land of la-la.

    And one last thing: if you forged a coalition that ranged from moderate republicans to dirty fucking hippies, and the ones who giving you the most shite are the dirty fucking hippies, the same ones who need you to get something close to liberal pushed through given the repubs in the senate, how would you react to them? Especially when you made it clear that you weren't a dirty fucking hippie.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:32am

    Impressive regurgitation of the common wisdom.  You are amazingly limited both in your understanding of what is going on and in your ability to explain away the open cowardice, corruption and incompetence of the Democrats who have sold your future, your kids' future, and the nation's future down the river.  Pitiful how people will make excuses like the ones you use to avoid dealing with reality.  Like Obama and the other cowardly Democrats of DC what you would prefer is that everyone just shut up and cheer for the team that's losing the game on the field because they are wearing blue.  Well, that works maybe in high school but not in national politics.  Do you ever tire of losing?  Do you ever tire of offering lame, demonstrably illogical and false excuses for the players that keep throwing the game?

    And by the way, the dirty fucking hippies have been right on every major issue both during the Bush years and during the third Bush term presided over by Obama.  Perhaps you and the other smug, self satisfied supporters of the ongoing anti-Democratic strategies of the corporate conservadems could get a clue one of these days but that would be wishful thinking.

    I wonder why it is that people like you and the other defenders of the corrupt, incompetent liars don't think it matters that ever major campaign promise these guys made has been broken?  Do you share the same lack of committment to doing things you say you'll do as these tools?  Do you think capitulation is a synonym for compromise?  Unashamed and unabashed ignorance and hypocrisy like this amazes me.


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:21am

    First off, I'm not asking anyone to cheer on anyone.  There is very little to cheer about. 

    Do I ever tire of losing, you ask.  A long time ago.  But just because one is tired of losing doesn't mean one can choose what dynamics one wants to believe are in play.  Of course there is a lot of corruption, incompentence, and cowardice amongst the Dems.  Yet - here's one little facet of it all: the Republican agenda is facilitated by having its party members corrupted by wealthy elite forces, whereas the Democratic agenda is thwarted when its members are corrupt.  Guess which side is going to win more often.  Do I cheer that? No. If there is something other than rant on and on about it, I'll give it shot.  In the primaries, if a better alternative is there I support him or her.  Yet for the time being these are the folks in my coalition.

    Is having the committee chairs worth having the likes of Sen. Nelson and my former senator Bayh in the coalition? Sometimes I wonder.  Would it be better to be more pure and in the minority?  There are days I say yes.  Would I like to see the Republicans have 63 seats in the Senate? Hell no. 

    Now, in my humble opinion, I have concluded -- based on some serious speculation on my part - that your exact assessments about the nature of what is happening there is based on the erroneous belief that all the Democrats are as one entity, much like the borg.  This leads you to make assessments on the outcome of their behavior based on the idea that they are operating with the same agenda, the same perceptions, the same conclusions, and the same priorities. In my humble opinion, nothing could be further the truth (well, there are some things a little further the truth, but that is another matter). 

    And I would agree with you in general that the far left is right on the issues, over and over again.  But the far left ain't got no power (thanks to the people.)  Now the far left can look to see who has some power that be aligned with, but this means a little compromise.  But the liberal moderates are very few and far between, too.  So get a little more power, one finds oneself aligning with the moderates, as well.  Some more compromise.  And even then, not that much power.  One could give up and just the conservative moderates align with all the conservatives and basically rule without resistance.  Or one can compromise some more and yank some of them into the coalition.  And there we find ourselves.  This particular view of the dynamics doesn't align with your "they're all corrupt and incompentent cowards" meme so you can't accept it.  I understand.

    Just as it is hard to deal with the fact that much of the current outrage has to be sustained by the absolute belief the Republicans would have caved in the few weeks that they had to hold out. Remember what a failure the Bush messaging team had when they tried to paint the Democrats as obstructionists when they controlled Congress?  Most Americans only look to see who has the majority and don't concern themselves with things like cloture votes.)

    And two more things:

    You're calling me smug and self-satisfied?

    And

     Do you ever tire of offering lame, demonstrably illogical and false excuses for the players that keep throwing the game?

    What you don't understand is that this isn't a game.  Somebody recently told me that.  I think it was on this thread.

    Peace.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:52pm

    Obviously you don't remember 1994.

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_lessons_of_94


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:36pm

    Of all the annoying rhetorical tics and tricks of the anti-Obama left, this constant assertion that Bill Clinton was somehow a better liberal who really fought the progressive fight is the worst.  I mean, Bill Clinton's presidency ended a mere ten years ago.  Unless everybody who makes this assertion is less than twenty-five years old (and oleeb claims to have a grown son, so I'm pretty sure he doesn't have youth as an excuse), then their ignorance of the facts surrounding the Clinton years is just astounding, and simply inexcusable in anyone who claims to have some perspective on American politics.  Every, and I mean every, criticism of Obama from the left was, or should have been, also made about Clinton.*  Arguably even more so.  And I know this because I was one those making those criticisms.

    To claim Clinton was a progressive where Obama is not should disqualify you from lecturing others about their lack of fealty to the progressive cause.  It's almost like ignorant ranters like oleeb want to look ridiculous.

    *(This is in no way intended to argue that either Obama or Clinton should be held up as liberal heroes, although if the ACA leads to truly nationalized health care, Obama should be recognized for that achievement.  Clinton's legacy, however is already clear:  no legislative achievements of lasting significance, unless you credit repeal of Glass-Steagall and exemption of derivatives from regulation as contributing to the long-term economic decline of the American economy.)


    by brewmn on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:20pm

    Amen, Trope.  Thank you.

     


    by LisB on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:18pm

    I was doing some banking today with the help of a finacial advisor.  He was really optimistic about the economy improving.  I didn't buy into it and I told him why.  My point here is that people are expecting things to soon get better and aren't ready to make any drastic changes right now.  When they don't improve in the next couple of years,  people will be ready to try something else ,then what went on in the last 30 or so years.   The republicans will keep this up until the voters decide to change it.  Obama seems to be working with this in mind.   


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:51am

    In two years, policies like the horrendous tax cut deal just passed will have so wrecked the government that it will be impossible to take the sort of action required to put things back on track.  We lost the battle against the depression last night thanks to the Democrats.


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:14am

    This all reminded me of when the repubs and the dems went behind closed doors and bailed out the corporate pigs in '08.

    The deal was struck fastly and both parties contributed it to it. Within a month or two the big companies were handing out billions in bonuses.

    I assume the dems just figure that they will not be able to get anything passed over the next two years.


    by Richard Day on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:35am

    DD,  I think they assume that they will be able to go back to blaming the mean old, omnipotent Republicans for their failure to get anything done they have promised to do.  It's just standard DC Democratic obfuscation of the truth which is they refuse to fight for any of the things they campaign on.


    by oleeb on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:12am

    Ahhhhhh......a hiatus.....a break.......a suspension of hostilities.....

     


    by we are stardust on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:12pm

    Latest Comments