Obama '08?

ican has the habit of making claims he can't support with evidence. A total loser.

Ican has made such an allegation.

But I refuse to believe that my go to guy for issues relating to constitutional law is bereft of even that paltry sum of one ounce of common sense.

Who gives a **** what Eli Parser said?

The fact that you ascribe any real meaning to his boastful statement is ridiculous. Even to the point where you would accuse Obama and others of treason based on it!

I mean: It's crazy. Do you not realize that you are advocating a crazy position? I would simply accuse you of trolling if not for the fact that you put considerable amounts of time into this.

Cycloptichorn

And if that doesn't work, Ican, Cy is going to spread the rumor that as a child in school, you crossed your fingers when you placed your hand over your heart while reciting the pledge of obeisance.

You say George Soros is working to support enemies of the US? Is he supporting Monsanto? Does he line the pockets of dick cheney? Ronald raygun is pushing up daisies, but, perhaps, Soros has a line to the afterlife, or, at least he would according to the twisted mind of ican/okie or whoever is the man behind the curtain of those names.

SOROS ADHERES???!!!! OMG!! Get some solvent to remove that glue!

Some prominent progressive authors give interesting insights into Obama's recent deal for tax cuts. This article originally appeared on The Progressive Book Club blog.
Progressive opinion on the the president’s tax deal (and the base-chiding press conference that followed) spans the spectrum all the way from mad as hell to apoplectic. Well, that’s an exaggeration–as you’ll see from a couple of the items below–but not by much. Read on for snippets of early commentary from some of our favorite authors.

Ari Berman (Herding Donkeys): "A poll commissioned by MoveOn.org yesterday found that 74 percent of Obama volunteers or financial backers in ’08 oppose the deal. More than half said they’d be less likely to support Democrats in 2012 who back the compromise and would be less likely to donate to Obama’s re-election campaign. Pretty sobering statistics for the president and his team." [The Nation]

Paul Krugman (The Return of Depression Economics): "[T]here’s a policy issue here, and it’s a tough one; you trade off the stimulus Obama extracted now for the increased likelihood that low taxes for the rich will be made permanent, crippling policy for decades to come. But there’s also a character issue: what we really don’t need right now is a president who blames everyone but himself, and seems more concerned with self-justification than with sustaining the alliances he needs." [New York Times]

Gene Lyons (The Hunting of the President): "For Obama, justifiably accused of negotiating with himself in a futile quest for bipartisanship during the stimulus and healthcare efforts, this time was different. This time, he got Republicans to budge off square one. Plus, he avoided a bruising and futile confrontation over the accursed Bush tax cuts that could have paralyzed Washington for months.

"At minimum, the White House bought itself some precious time." [Salon]

Gail Collins (When Everything Changed): "I speak for the broken-hearted Democratic grassroots. Finally they had a crystal-clear issue that allowed them to define what made them different from Republicans. Health care was maybe 50 times more important, but it was messy and cloudy. This was a clear, popular line they could draw in the sand: no tax cuts for people making more than $250,000.

"And to make it worse, it wasn’t even a compromise. A compromise would have been the tax cuts for everybody but millionaires." [New York Times]

Ta Nehisi-Coates (The Beautiful Struggle): "[Obama's] anger at the Left–for basically being the Left–is as bad as the some of the Left’s anger at him for basically being a politician. It’s worse, in fact. He’s the president. You can’t preach to people about the evils of 'tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires,' and then wonder why you get this sort of push-back from the people to whom you were preaching." [The Atlantic]

John Cassidy (How Markets Fail): "[F]rom an immediate macroeconomic perspective, and, hence, from the perspective of a President preparing for a reelection campaign in 2012, the tax-cutting agreement makes some sense. By boosting the overall level of spending power, it will reduce the chances of the economy falling back into recession sometime next year or in 2012. That is very good news for President Obama. Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr., and George Bush Jr. all discovered to their cost that there is nothing as threatening to an incumbent President as an economic slump in the year or two before polling day."
[The New Yorker]

Robert Reich (Aftershock): "By agreeing to another round of massive tax cuts for the wealthy, the president confirms the Republican story. Cutting taxes on the rich while freezing discretionary spending (which he’s also agreed to do) affirms that the underlying problem is big government, and the solution is to shrink government and expect the extra wealth at the top to trickle down to everyone else." [Huffington Post]

E.J. Dionne (Souled Out): "What's most striking about Obama's deal with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is the extent to which it only reinforces Obama's image as an inside technocratic dealmaker. It turns out he will negotiate with anyone to get what seems sensible to him.

The problem is that this approach shortchanges the need to carry on a sustained argument on behalf of his overall objectives and rejects the idea that some "fights," a word Obama uses with disdain (except, perhaps, when he's criticizing liberals), are instructive and can help accomplish change over the long term." [Washington Post]

Michael Meeropol (Surrender): "If we on the left want Obama and the Democrats to strongly back a progressive agenda, we have to make them do it. If there had been a strong progressive movement such as existed in the 1930s demanding universal healthcare, pro-union policies, increases in the minimum wage, a crash program to create a green infrastructure for energy and transportation and, yes, a progressive tax policy, we wouldn’t need to be having this discussion today. Instead of complaining about Obama we ought to be working our tails off to build a real movement that will ultimately force him and a recalcitrant Congress to do the right thing." [The Nation]

James Kwak (13 Bankers): "[T]his can no longer be considered a two-year tax cut. This year, the Democrats gave in to the framing that letting the cuts expire would be a tax increase. President Obama has already nailed himself to the cross of 'stop[ping] middle-class taxes from going up.' With that on his resume, how is he going to flip-flop and let those taxes go up in 2012? He won't win a vote to cut taxes just for the middle class with fewer Democrats in Congress than he has now. So if he wants to preserve the middle-class tax cuts, he'll have to compromise again." [Huffington Post]

Obama has no back-bone, and in the long-term hurts all Americans. This growing deficit will bankrupt this country - sooner than later.

This was pointed out before he was sworn in.

Tell the current Democrat Congress and President:

The Obama "Death Panel" is back in the form of Medicare covered Advanced Care directives, effective January 1st. This should have the conservative talk show hosts frothing.

Yeah, I guess people like you and Beck will distort what this really is, which is much-needed end-of-life planning. Sadly, millions will believe these distortions and lies to the detriment of the country. Congratulations, Real.

And it should have liberal talk show hosts continuing to lie about it.

Ha, you don't really know me, do you? I firmly believe in "end of life" planning in consultation with my family, a doctor and my attorney. Regrettably, that is a discussion many people don't have which leaves doctors with no choice but to do what doctors do: keep people alive.
I would restate that there will be talk show hosts who will trot out, with a snarl, the term "death panels."
That will happen.

... Obama Death Panel does have a nice ring to it.

It showed up during the health care bill debate. Remember? I am quite confident it will be brought up again by Beck and Limbaugh.
Do you understand what the issue is about? Could you do a bit of independent research on it and report back to us? Or will you wait to hear what Glenn and Rush tell you what to think about it?

Haha, yeah right

Cycloptichorn

Ha, you don't really know me, do you?
I am very familiar with Obamacare and the death panels and I don't
need no stinking liberal or other talk show host to 'splain it to me.

The entire country wishes that the politicians would have done a little
independent research on what was in the Obamacare bill before voting on it.
Princess Pelosi said they had to pass to find out what was in it and they believed her

How do you suppose the current political situation and its repurcussions for the next two years would have played out if Obama had refused to compromise (or sell out, if you prefer) with respect to extending the Bush income tax rates? Do you believe this would have strngthened his hand with the new Republican led House majority, and new Senate in which Democrats enjoy only a slim (and less than perfectly reliable) majority? Do you believe this would have increased his chances for reelection now less than 23 months away? What, in your view, would have been the public reaction to the scheduled tax increases?

I am suggesting that president Obama may have simply made a sensible political calculation. I certainly don't know his motives, and I do have the impression of a leader who is in a bit over his head and is now learning to deal with the inevitable side effects of the progressive political program he so fervently espouses in his rhetoric. However, it seems to me that in this instance he took the best available course of action.