Obama '08?

One thing that is interesting.
Now the dems are in dangef of being anti workef. Many of them are oppposing the tax plan that Obama worked out with the repubs. But included in that plan is an extension of unemployment benefits.
So, are the dems now opposed to that extension?

They are opposed to Republican thuggery on the tax issue, all in the name of making the very rich, richer. At any cost.

Not only that, the 'deal' is ridiculously bad for Dems, for SS, and for America as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

I suspect that was a bit of legitimate compromise.

What surprised me the most about the deal was what the Republicans thought most critical to our economic future. They fought for and won on two major points -- the temporary extension of Bush era tax rates on incomes over $200,000 a year a person and $250,000 per family, and a trimming of the inheritance tax. Both of these "victories" protected the very wealthiest among us from modest tax increases. The expiration of the individual income tax rates would have increased a wealthy person's tax bill by less than 10%, and returned to rates which were in place during the greatest economic boom in American history. Republican claims that restoring these rates would be risky for the recovery remain more political spin than sound economics.

The Republican strategy on display this week reinforces how intellectually bankrupt and ideologically enthralled with wealth but not growth and broad based prosperity the right has become. Their big "wins" were to protect the wealthy in a time of historic inequality, offer nothing concrete to help grow the economy and, and perhaps most remarkably, refusing to accept the most powerful deficit reduction tool currently available to either party -- the expiration of the high-end tax rates -- after spending 18 months attacking the Democrats for letting the deficit grow too much. The deal reminds all of us that the Republicans rhetorical commitment to deficit reduction is the big lie of American politics today.

Like many I am disappointed with aspects of the deal, but President Obama enters the next round of this debate having won some major concessions from the GOP; reinforced his position as a champion for everyday people and the overall American economy; and having had his opponents publicly and foolishly choose the interests of the wealthiest among us over the national interest or the American people at a time of great national challenge. While this may not have been a rout for President Obama, I think he enters the next and much more consequential stage of this battle in better shape than his out of touch conservative adversaries, and the American people enter 2011 also better off than they would have been otherwise. That's perhaps the best holiday present we can give to the American people in these challenging times.

It is not a matter of punishing, but what is better for the people under government as a whole.

Evidently President Obama and many (not all) Democrats don't agree with you.

Saul Alinsky talk:

The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;

The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth;

The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the HAVES and giving it to the HAVENOTS and then see what happens;

The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;

"The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution."The stated cause is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is accumulation of power to make the revolution;

The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth—truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist;

Radicals should be "political relativists."They should take an agnostic view of means and ends;

We should not forget to acknowledge the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer;

We are not virtuous by not wanting power. We are really cowards for not wanting power, because power is good and powerlessness is evil;

To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles.

Life is a corrupting process;

He who fears corruption fears life;

The standard of the revolution is democracy--a democracy which upends all social hierarchies, including those based on merit;

He builds his initial power base among the underclass and the urban poor by calling to make the last ones first and the first ones equal to the last ones.

Profanity, Anger Spill Over in House Democratic Caucus Meeting
By Anna Palmer
Roll Call Staff
Dec. 9, 2010, 2:29 p.m.

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f--- the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

“It wasn’t loud,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It was just expressing frustration from a very frustrated Member.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was also overheard saying that “we can’t trust him” not to cave to Republicans and extend the tax cuts again in two years, according to a Democratic source.

The anger aimed at the bill was widespread. As Democrats moved to block the bill from coming up on the floor, chants of “Just say no!” could be heard by reporters outside the room.

Berkley is one of the few Democrats publicly supporting the package. While she said it wasn’t necessarily how she would have written it, the bill should go forward in her estimation because it is “chock full” of tax cuts that will help the working class in her state.

“I’m not willing to play Russian roulette to see who blinks first,” Berkley said.

Now Obama needs to be seen moving to the center to have any hope for re-election in 2012

Don't worry, the anonymous (for now) critic doesn't need to be censured nor should he or she be required to resign. It was just frustration after all.