Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Barney Frank: Obama might not have stomach for fight over Elizabeth Warren

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:38 PM
Original message
Barney Frank: Obama might not have stomach for fight over Elizabeth Warren
Source: The Hill

Barney Frank: Obama might not have stomach for fight over Elizabeth Warren
By Jordan Fabian - 03/21/11 10:37 AM ET

President Obama may not be willing to endure the ideological battle that would result from nominating Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer protection agency, a top Democrat said Monday.

Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), who co-authored the law creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said that if she were nominated, Warren might not be confirmed to head the agency. While Frank argued that's a fight worth having, he cautioned that the president might disagree.

"I think the president is too unwilling to make the kind of fights that don't necessarily win. And I'm not sure she couldn't be (confirmed)," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program.

Frank's comments could add pressure on the administration to nominate Warren, a consumer advocate and Harvard Law School professor who is currently serving as a White House adviser.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/150973... -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think the president is too unwilling to make ANY kind of fight unless it is with his 'base'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoTimeToulouse Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. They're only really good for their votes. So what use are they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Considering 87% of liberal Democrats approve of his job performance, I'd say you're wrong.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 12:53 PM by ClarkUSA
The only part of the "base" he has problems with are the small minority of Democrats who spend most of their time complaining about everything he says or does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Please show me the link to that stat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Gallup is your friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Except when they're not, such as in 2004, and anyone who remember DU from then
remembers the drubbing that Gallup got back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
87. There's been no complaints of oversampling Republicans since then so that's irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #87
169. How long are we suppose to chill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #169
182. Oh, you're gonna chill, alright.
Tax hikes for the poor, tax cuts for the rich.

And for those who manage to avoid homelessness, deep cuts in home heating assistance will keep you frosty!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #87
213. I seriously question their definition of "liberal Democrat" when they approve of
More war. Less tax for the rich, more cuts for the poor and middle class. Cuts to social security. Backing away from closing Gitmo. Backing away from gay rights. And personally, here in WI, we don't want him to COME here, but it sure would be nice if he'd make a stronger statement than something to the effect of "everyone needs to make cuts".

So I'm one of the fringe 13% that complain about everything...because he AIN'T a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fuddnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
72. Brother are you in for a rude surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #72
88. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #88
180. Because it's a lose/lose
Either Gallup is right and 87% of people who approve of President Obama actually vote for him, and we get 4 more years of DLC triangulation strangulation or Gallup is wrong and we get President "who the fuck cares" and 4 years of Republican bat shit crazy. But if the second thing happens, at least we'll know that they are our enemy. It's the ones you think are friends who aren't actually friends who can really fuck you over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #15
191. Gallup SUCKS republicans off - It's bullshit manipulated polling - Gallup is complete bullshit!
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 02:34 AM by GreenTea
Pay attention over the long haul how republicans use rigged polling, not just some one shot fucking poll here & there that you may agree with.

Republicans & their corporations learned a long time ago how to use Gallup and most of the other polls to their advantage manipulate gains them being able to control isn't that what republicans are all about - controlling... knowing full well all the sheep will go with the majority if that's what the polls tell them....it's like anything else republicans touch, money and corruption will easily produce manipulation!

You think polling is sacred and perfectly clean, can't be bought off, manipulated or controlled by big bucks - get real!

And elections can't be stolen either?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoTimeToulouse Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. I thought it was 187%...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I prefer facts to nonsense, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
78. Prefer facts, do ya?
- Well then have I got a treat for you! Check out these "facts."

Lifting The Veil: Obama And The Failure Of Capitalist Democracy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. Sorry, I don't go to conspiracy websites. I got a malware alert from there once, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #81
95. Then try this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzULm4d8h8w

Youtube also has conspiracies there as well. So you may still be too frightened to go there as well. Alas, maybe you'll never get the "facts."


- But then, at least you'll be safe....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #95
101. Sorry, not interested in watching YouTube fairytales, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Right.
Guess you aren't as interested in "facts" as much as you said.


- Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #101
134. that's fine...if Obama wants to allow his agenda and policies to slip away, it will hurt his ratings
...hurt them later on.

you'd think he'd be worried that not fighting for his policies would harm job growth and the economic recovery.

if he believes his policies are key to helping those things. maybe he doesn't. maybe he thinks that if by not fighting for them, 4% more independents will like him *now* and that's what he wants.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #101
199. yeah, you cite one poll and think you've won the argument.
absolute fail.

from your friendly neighborhood proud 13%-er
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenzoDia Donating Member (375 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #81
139. Thanks for the warning. I have solid protection on my machine, but it's always best not to click
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #78
141. Thanks for link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #141
183. You're welcome.
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 12:36 AM by DeSwiss
- And as a preview, here are some of the "highlights":

Excepts from: "Lifting the Veil: Obama and the Failure of Capitalist Democracy"

"I will promise you this: that if we haven't gotten our troops out by the time I'm president it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. I will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama, October 27, 2007

"Close down Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus, say no to renditions, no to wireless wiretaps..." - Barack Obama, November 14, 2007

"When I promise that I... we are going to bring this war in Iraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, 4, 5, 6 and 7 -- so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war." - Barack Obama, 2008

"Iran, they spend 1/100 of what we spend on the military. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us." - Barack Obama, May 18, 2008

"I think it's time for us to end the embargo on Cuba. I think this because, if you think about what is happening internationally, our planet is shrinking. And our biggest foreign policy challenge -- and it feeds into the battle on terrorism and it feeds into issues of trade and our economy -- is how do you make sure that other countries and developing nations are providing sustenance for their people, human rights for their people and the basic structure of government for their people and are stable and secure so that they can be partners in a bright future for the entire planet." - Barack Obama, 2008

"I've said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo and I will follow through on that. I've said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world." - Barack Obama, 60 Minutes (2008)

"And as President I'm going to make it impossible for Congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws while no one's looking. Because when I'm President meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public - no more secrecy - that's a commitment I make to you as President. When there's a tax bill being debated in Congress, you will know the names of the corporations that would benefit and how much money they would get. And we will put every corporate tax break and every pork barrel project online for every American to see. You'll know who asked for them and you can decide whether your representative is actually representing you." - Barack Obama, 2008

"....create jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow. Jobs that will help us end our dependence on foreign oil and may save the planet in the process. Rebuilding our crumbling roads and schools and bridges...." "....so we can have a new electricity grid and bring renewable energy to population centers here in Indiana and across America. Build an American infrastructure for the 21st century." - Barack Obama, 2008

"....that tired, worn-out old theory that says, that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity will trickle-down on everybody else. The last thing... the last thing we can afford is four more years where no one in Washington is watching anyone on Wall Street because politicians and lobbyists killed common-sense regulations. Those are the theories that got us into this mess. They haven't worked and it is time for change, and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America." - Barack Obama, 2008

"...bailout Wall Street banks. As President I will insure the financial rescue plan helps stop foreclosures and protects your money, instead of enriching CEOs. And I'll put in place the common-sense regulations that I've been calling for throughout this campaign. So that Wall Street can never cause a crisis like this again. That's the change we need." - Barack Obama, 2008

"It's been a long time coming. But tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America." - Barack Obama, November 4, 2008

"It is absolutely true that NAFTA was a mistake." - Barack Obama, 2008

All quotes taken from Barack Obama speeches and interviews as shown in the documentary "Lifting the Veil: Obama and the Failure of Capitalist Democracy" (Time mark - 6:45 - 14:52)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
132. you said 87% when it's 84%
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
160. But you have no facts. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. We will see how accurate that number is in November of 2012
when about 50% of that 87% dont show up to vote..if Obama is running
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #41
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #41
85. Does your crystal ball do lottery numbers, too?
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 03:16 PM by ClarkUSA
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #85
96. Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #85
211. 70 million voted for the prez in 2008
Would you like to wager on whether that number goes up or down next year? He's turned off a lot more voters than he's brought on board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #41
135. 84% not 87%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
61. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
91. You're dreaming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
108. Wow, I've seen that same comment expressing 70%, 75%, and now a whopping 87% even.
Same exact comment, just the percentage keeps changing....and these were all posts just today! Amazing, a 17% gain just since this morning. Of course, I personally don't even buy into the 70% claim, poll or not, but I'd Love to see a link to where you read 87% of Liberal Democrats approve of his performance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #108
112. Whatever his percentage, it's gonna be Obama vs. some Republicon.
I'll bet my home on that--and I've never bet over $5 in my life, even in a post

And while I'm not putting my home on it, Obama will most likely beat the Republicon. And I hope he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #108
215.  expressing 70%, 75%, and now a whopping 87%
In some post last week it was 90%!


Well, as we all know, 92.4% of all statistics are made up....










like that 92.4% one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BulletproofLandshark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
115. You must not be very confident of that.
You're quite fond of beating people over the head with that statistic every time someone talks about poor little Obama. Just keep telling yourself that, and sticking your head in the sand over the discontent on the left. We'll see how much of that supposed 87% remains if Obama's cowardice extends into primary time. I don't see the president having an epiphany after the last 2+ years though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
131. what's your position on Elizabeth Warren then?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
133. What the fuck does that have to do with it?
This is an article about the President's unlikeliness to get behind Warren. Not about "liberal Democrats" support for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
137. I'd say that your propaganda is bullshit
Out of the 450 or so liberal Dems I know personally, I'd say maybe three are happy with him-because they don't watch anything outside of the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
144. You are confusing what Democrats tell pollsters to what we say when among ourselves n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
150. "Chill out, I've got this"
For the bankers and the wealthiest. The rest of you - so I lied about everything, so what? Who the &%$* else 'ya gonna vote for, chumps?"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/resp...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #150
172. Manny nails it. !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
157. Sorry.... I can't chill the fuck out anymore...
The things between his legs turned out to be turds.

I have little faith left in this man as a leader. She's one of the things worth fighting for, and if Frank is right about this... you can eat your hat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #157
200. that was a lousy graphic when it first came out.
it's a sure sign of a inferior mind now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ckimmy57 Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #157
221. Agree
Obama needs to grow some freakin gonads and quit extending that damn olive branch. Never seen a "publican" president even ATTEMPT to work with Democrats so it's time for him to man up and remember what political party he represents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
158. Where do you get that he has the approval of 87.24343% of lliberal Democrats?????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
159. Again you are getting desperate. The closer Obama gets to Bush, the more desperate you get. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
179. Well, then, I needn't feel guilty
You guys can carry the ball this time. Since my time, money and vote are not needed this time, I can spend it on other, more productive things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
202. It's a bullshit number and it always has been.
The problem, of course, is in the definition of "liberal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
203. wow, are you clueless
yeah-- he's "got this"-- i.e. screwing us over
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
208. If 87% of 'liberal' Democrats approve of his job performance I'm PROUD to be in the 13%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
56. My first thought too.
Too bad 'base' seems to mean sucking up to republicans and bowing to corporate power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
63. +1 more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
90. he has no stomach for anything but appeasing the idiots that would
have parties if he was dead. I can't understand his lack of awareness.

But then, he has no stomach for anything. He approved the tax cuts for gazillionaires and supports cuts to poor people. I guess you could call that change. (From the candidate to the official, it was a 180)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
100. I know....he will give us
a compromise and name someone else, but with the last name 'Warren.'

Elizabeth Warren should be the President.

Where is The Spine? When is The Spine going to make an appearance? I like Spine. I think lots and lots of people like to witness Spine. Why can't we see The Spine????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #100
113. Nixon and Reagan landslides crushed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #113
121. No...I don't buy that.
They were bought by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. It wasn't crushed....it was bought.

My spine is NOT for sale. I can still look myself in the mirror. Many 'dems' can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #121
127. What are you saying? Do you mean the landslides were bought?
Or that the landslides has nothing to do with the party's rightward march? If the latter, I disagree.

"My spine is NOT for sale. I can still look myself in the mirror. Many 'dems' can't."

Are you implying my spine is for sale or that I can no longer look myself in a mirror?

If so, get the fuck over yourself. If not, you should diret those comments to someone to whom they do apply

Either way, nitey nite

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #127
130. has everyone lost their mind?
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 09:39 PM by femrap
eta: yes they have. Ignore Ignore Ignore.

I'd rather banter w/ freepers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dotymed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #121
207. Almost everyone on DU and most Americans, realize
the only way things will truly change, is if we as a mass, take to the streets and demand it. Everything else is BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
106. Too true, and too obviously true.
If it is so obviously true that members of his own party can say it publicly this way as such a casual observation, then you know it has reached the point of being conventional wisdom. It is what everyone knows. This is now Obama's accepted reputation.

He's a political coward, and everyone knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #106
171. I think it's political calculation
rather than cowardice. For him to be a coward he'd have to abandon his principles. Throughout the campaign he spoke with passion about bringing about fairness and real reform. But I don't think those are his principles. I don't think he has any deeply held principles aside from the political. I'm convinced that getting a second term has been his main motivation since being sworn in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #171
223. Thats the cool thing about Sensible, pragmatic "Centrism"
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!

:party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #223
229. What still amazes me is
how many people here continue to fight so zealously for someone who is in the end just another politician, albeit more talented and less principled than most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
107. +2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmorlan1 Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
120. Agree
Unfortunately, I think you're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessionalLeftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
125. Bingo....
...and his base is Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Excelon, Wall St., etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pam4water Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
196. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
217. Sickeningly true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, THAT's a shock.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. They have to crunch numbers. If there is no way she can be confirmed, a "battle" is a waste of time.
I'd also say that Barney Frank hasn't got a clue as to what Pres. Obama is thinking. Pres. Obama and Elizabeth Warren have been friends since their days together at Harvard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. the fierce advocate lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. the fierce whining lol
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:05 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. The lonesome holdout, lol.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sulphurdunn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
42. Wrong.
Obama's brand of bi-partisan compromise should more accurately be called premeditated capitulation. Anytime the supposed opposition knows you won't fight they also know they don't need to compromise. Fighting a losing battle is only a waste of time when it has no strategic value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #42
173. It clearly shows what he values most
his own political future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
58. Sometimes fighting a battle you are going to
lose is the one you most need to fight if you want to win in the long run. I'm certainly not saying all need to be fought, but some do simply for the principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #58
151. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SomeGuyInEagan Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #58
214. + 1 That says everything about a person, regardless of position. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
114. Her wiki says she joined Harvard in 1992 and his says he was graduated from Harvard in 1991.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 08:37 PM by No Elephants
Besides, Frank was not likely basing his statements on his (Frank's) assessment of Obama's thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #114
167. Reality is for Purity Democrats nt
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 11:02 PM by MannyGoldstein
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwishiwas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #114
226. So they did not know each other at Harvard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
147. Why bother having a President or Congress, then?
Just crunch some numbers and take it from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
224. Barney Frank doesn't have a clue,
but YOU do?

LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't think the words fight and Obama should be used together in any sentence.
Well, I guess you could use them together when there is a Democratic campaign. But when it comes to fighting for some policy that may make FOX unhappy, Obama and fight should never be used together.

The right word to use with non-campaign mode Obama is compromise, capitulate and baby steps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. HCR and Wall Street reform are two of his signature policies that prove you wrong.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 12:56 PM by ClarkUSA
Republicans, Wall Street, Faux News, and The Chamber of Commerce fought tooth and nail against both and they lost. Billions of lobbying dollars were spent for naught. The only reason is because Pres. Obama refused to give up the fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. HCR when we fought for SINGLE PAYER? When we pass GOP proposed bills it is hardly a victory
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. The GOP didn't vote for HCR. And single payer never had the votes. Next fairytale?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. The HCR bill that passed was virtually identical the the GOP's answer to Hillary care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Is that why Republicans refused to vote for it and The Chamber of Commerce fought against it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. No, of course not. They opposed it because Obama had his name on it.
I think if Obama had proposed raising Reagan to sainthood, most Rs would have voted against it because the idea came from Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. That's not why the Chamber of Commerce spent billions of lobbying $$ trying to sink both bills.
And I doubt Republicans would vote against any Obama proposal to eliminate regulations on industry or the estate tax (neither of which he will do, of course).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. and now they are spending billions to repeal it.
:shrug:

Considering it's a profit protection plan for the insurance companies anyway -- it's kind of stupid to repeal it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #53
64. This is why they're doing it... because it changes the status quo which favored profits above all.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:04 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
124. HCR gave insurers a mandate with the young and healthy as Boomers age into Medicare. Meanwhile, it
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 09:14 PM by No Elephants
stuck healthier consumers with a mandate and no public option. Also, it left Medicare with an even greater responsibility for the meds of the disabled and the elderly, but without benefit of a a mandate on healthier consumers or drug re-importation. And health insurance and health care costs continued to soar.

Why are insurers fighting it? Dipped if I know. It bailed them the hell out of their aging Boomer crisis before it even happened.

Is that question your best argument in favor of the proposition that it's a good bill? Nixon's was far better ffs. And, as another poster pointed out, so was the Rethug's response to Hillary's bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenzoDia Donating Member (375 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #124
146. It provides funding for health care cooperatives, pilot programs to experiment with payment options,
will gives states like Vermont an option to opt out and work on their own single payer plan, it expands medicaid coverage, provides subsidies for the poor, tax credits to small businesses, there's a 3rd party appeals process if your insurance company tries to jack you, it provides funding to help states review insurance tax hikes, it provides options for people who lose their jobs and want to continue coverage, oh and it guarantees coverage for people with preexisitng conditions.

Some other president got us anywhere near this let alone a single payer option?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgainsttheCrown Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:47 PM
Original message
Duplicate
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:49 PM by AgainsttheCrown
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgainsttheCrown Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #53
77. I thought the same thing.
But their two biggest issues are with the "Cadillac tax" and the Employer mandate.

I think they would prefer to get rid of those two and keep the Individual mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #77
126. Heck, I'd prefer those things too--IF Medicare got the benefit of the individual mandate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #47
209. Yes, they would vote against those too if their votes weren't needed for passage.
The best thing for a GOP incumbent right now is to get what they want without voting for it. That way they get what they want AND they opposed Obama's "socialist" agenda. Anytime they vote with Obama it's an opportunity for a challenger to attack them from the right.

So with HCR, it's a bill they like but it would pass anyway because Dems control congress. Voting against it is a win-win for the GOP.

The same thing goes for eliminating regulation or the estate tax. They'll vote for it if they have to to get these things - and they would have too because Dems don't control congress anymore, but if they thought it would pass anyway they'll vote against it because it's one more vote against Obama.

It's simple, even elegant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenzoDia Donating Member (375 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
140. They opposed it b/c they didn't want to bring high risk people into the insurance pool. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgainsttheCrown Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
52. They didn't vote for it this time.
But they did propose something similar in 1994 and it is very similar to Romney's bill. They've just been radicalized and stake out positions further to the right.

Our side makes the error in thinking that meeting them in the middle is best for the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
109. The GOP sponsors got to write the HCR bill though.... And that little nightmare is what has
so many people upset.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
118. GOP's not voting for a bill 2006-2010 proves nothing. And no one knows what
Dems votes would have been where if Obama had actually fought for single payer--instead of flatly ruling it out before he was even elected. Ditto his pre-emptory cave in on public option.

However, it is very convenient to say the votes would not have been there, even if he had fought. Too bad it's not provable, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. We don't have a clue how hard he fought
in the back room deal that took public option off the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. What garbage. Lieberman killed any chance of the public option.
It's easy to spout nonsense when there's not a shred of verifiable proof to back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
34.  It's public knowledge that public option was
taken off the table in a deal with the hospitals before insurance finance reform was passed. Daschle's book, Getting It Done: ,let that cat out of the bag. As for spouting nonsense and garbage with not a shred of verifiable proof look at your own posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Wrong. It's public knowledge that Joe Lieberman took it off the table. His vote was pivotal.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:24 PM by ClarkUSA
Proof: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html

I always back up what I say, unlike those who rely on alleged comments that amount to secondhand hearsay that sells books .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. Secondhand hearsay from politico,
by LIEberman over former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: If LIEberman said the sky was blue I would look out side to check, because I wouldn't believe him. :rofl: :rofl: Nice chatting with you but I'm done with your rudeness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
65. Really? Yet you provide nothing in the way of proof. Google is your friend (link -->)
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:37 PM by ClarkUSA
My proof that "Joe Lieberman killed the public option"... take your pick of sources: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
138. Actually, you don't always back up what you say. You haven't even
backed up everything you;ve said on this one thread.

Besides, if Lieberman says he will filibuster, God forbid anyone should even think about actually making him do it, or taking his precious chairmanship away. No, best to cave immediately and not risk putting the traitor on the spot with voters in his state. Not as though he was not teetering in 10/09, the date of the article you linked.

But don't take my word for it. Read what Gibbs said in the article you linked: "Asked about Liebermans threat to filibuster a final vote on the Reid plan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "I haven't seen the report from Sen. Lieberman or why he's saying what he's saying. I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year.

Also, 10/09 is several months AFTER Obama had begun PUBLICLY decsribing the public option as unimportant--a sliver--again, begging the question, how can anyone claim to know what would have been possible if Obama had actually fought for it?

Finally, the article you linked was several months before Brown's seating as Senator from Mass., replacing Kennedy's place holder and the subsequent decision to proceed via reconciliation.

So, your link far from settles the issue of who really blocked the public option and why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
44. LOL
Lieberman was a SUPERMAN!!!
He DEFEATED President Obama.
There was nothing Obama could do.
Poor little Barack.
....beat up and defeated by wimpy Joe Lieberman. :cry:
.
.
.
.
The White House, with its HUGE Popular Mandate for "CHANGE", could have crushed Joe Lieberman anytime it wanted to.
(SEE: LBJ)
Joe Lieberman was a useful scapegoat.
He took one for Team DLC.
The rest was Kabuki Theater.

It really does not do Obama any good to insist that Joe Lieberman defeated Obama on Health Care...
not a good picture at all.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone




"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and "By Their WORKS they will be counted.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. That's a whole lot of fucking truth
in your post. :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #48
66. No, that's empty rhetoric. This is the truth, via Google. Take your pick -->
I repeat, Joe Lieberman killed the public option: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #66
162. LOL, if google hits prove something, then I guess the world must be flat, after all.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 10:53 PM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #44
67. See reply 71 & 72 for the facts.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:16 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #67
105. Still LOL....See THIS link for the TRUTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #44
145. +1 Thank you. You said it better than any posts of mine did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
129. Really? Please describe the specifics of the Senate public option you claim Lieberman killed.
Please also describe all efforts anyone made to make a deal with Lieberman.

Most of all, kindly explain Lieberman's power over a bill that passed by reconciliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kermitt Gribble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
227. Russ Feingold disagrees with you
"Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle. Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"It would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise... President Barack Obama...could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I dont think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth. I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-madison/russ-fei...

I tend to believe Senator Feingold over most others...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Where is the TRANSPARENCY?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
46. There is no TRANSPARENCY n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #46
69. Wrong. (3/16/11) ABC News: "President will accept an award from... transparency advocates"
"Later in the afternoon, the President will accept an award from a coalition of good government groups and transparency advocates in conjunction with Sunshine Week, on transparency in government."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/the-pre...

I'm glad President Obama is being credited for his achievements, which his opponents have yet to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #69
148. Everything's relative. Fighting FOIA requests in court was not especially transparent.
Especially when he had promised that HCR meetings would be broadcast on C-Span.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
119. Oh, we have a clue, all right, In fact, we have any number of clues.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 08:55 PM by No Elephants
One of them is reports of Rahm's mo, namely, approaching folks with, "What do you want to get this done?"

Other clues are how the bill was approached and how it turned out.

The rest of the clues are Obama's behaviors.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
37. "HCR" is just H Ins. subsidizing
and "Wall St. reform" is hiring them to the WH Cabinet. Golly Gee, Mr. Wizard! That's change we kin believe in!

This week we got a NEW conflict to involve ourselves in - while YET to extract ourselves from the other two. Guantanamo? Change? Surveillance? Change? Bush tax giveaways? Change? Comfortable shoes? Can't find any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
49. Obama called it Insurance Finance Reform
and that's what it was. He was very truthful on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #49
70. Really? Provide the quote in full, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #70
220. After he tossed out the Public Option,
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 10:55 AM by bvar22
Obama did, indeed, stop calling it Health Care Reform,
and substituted Health Insurance Reform.
Thats a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
71. "just"?? Wrong. Read up on what HCR does for Americans -->
Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Wall Street reform facts: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/ju...

Why don't you go to Politifact.com and revise your opinions, which seem to be baseless. They did win a Pultizer Prize while you seem to have nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #71
93. You're right!
;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
116. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
136. And in the end, the big money WON
"Please don't throw me in that briar patch!!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
154. LOLOLOL
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 10:31 PM by Skittles
"REFORM"???? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
161. The insurance lobby and Wall Street are laughing at the "reform" that Pres Obama passes.
But you idolizer's are happy with the crappy HCR and Wall Street "reform". Now he has started a war with Libya that we cant afford. You must be ecstatic, the republicans are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
204. wow, how much kool-aid have you drunk?
jesus-- he didn't fight, he CAVED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
165. I can scarcely believe people still call HCR a win.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. That he
which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matt819 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. Unfortunately
He doesn't seem to have the stomach for anything difficult, except he seems pretty comfortable caving to republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
13. First the crazy liberals and many DUers...
said that Obama would not choose warren. Then he chooases her and now they are saying he will not have the stomach to fight for her....WTF? Do liberals understand what they are doing here? They are giving aid and comfort to a future President Romney, Huckabee, etc....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgainsttheCrown Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:50 PM
Original message
He chose her to set up the agency
That didn't require congressional approval. Choosing her to head the agency is another matter.

Critiquing him from the left only expands the frame of the debate. (When people to the left of him are actually heard)

He's a centrist. And he wants to choose a position between left and right. But the establishment is so far right that he is ending up in the same place as Bush 41.

Centrism in Liberal clothing is going to give aid and comfort to a republican presidency, not our critique of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
197. EXCELLENT response, AgainsttheCrown
welcome to DU :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. Her appointment is something he should fight for.
if he doesn't we will see what he is made of. But I am really not optimistic about him fighting for it based on his record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
18. We need to stand up for this woman like she's standing up for us. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
22. Pres. Obama and Elizabeth Warren have been friends since their days together at Harvard.
Barney Frank doesn't have a clue what Pres. Obama is thinking or will do. He's just shooting off his mouth. But since Frank concedes there may not be the votes to confirm her, so in that case, Pres. Obama is not going to waste his time or Elizabeth Warren's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLovinLug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
83. Van Jones was also a long time friend wasn't he?
That didn't stop Obama from axing him on the first whif of controversy and FAUX News smears.

Jones calls Republicans "assholes", which is fitting, he gets turfed.
Wilson, the asshole, calls out the POTUS with "you lie!" on national TV during the SOTUA and he gets to ride it out.



:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #22
174. Please remind us when they were at Harvard together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
27. Given the opposition she must be doing her job-nc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
155. She's probably doing her job, but there would be opposition no matter what.
Besides, I don't buy that anything the Party of No opposes must be wonderful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
28. Seems like many of our legislators have the same questions about Obama
that many of us do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. "many"? That's quite an overstatement.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:12 PM by ClarkUSA
Neither Frank/Kucinich or some DUers represent "many" in Congress or the real world.

Check out what Pelosi and Reid say about President Obama after every legislative victory over the past two years. They represent their caucuses far more than a couple of outliers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
74. I have to applaud your persistence
Even if I disagree with you. You've been standing by and defending Obama for quite some time. If, as your polls suggest, those in disagreement with you (in regards to the President) are in the minority, then man am I ever disappointed in the majority. How do we define liberal democrat? Many who call themselves such are not - just as the word conservative is so often misused to describe various republicans. Conservative would imply that they attempt to conserve, such is not the case.

It's not my place to define either, really. I'll say Obama is better than any alternative on the right, but not by much. I support Obama to the extent that I'd vote for him over a republican candidate, or casting my vote for a third party... but beyond that, not so much. If that is how we can define "support", then I suppose he's got enough of it, maybe, to win 2012.

You're mistaken though, if you think all of that support is enthusiastic. There are many, many liberals who support Frank and Kucinich. Most of us though, realize that neither would have much hope in a Presidential victory. So I disagree with you that Frank and Kucinich do not represent "many". They represent many, most of whom are well aware of the reality of our political system - which does not allow for such progressive candidacy to become a threat.

That being said - I almost always question the validity of polls, regardless of who conducts them. A sampling of a majority is never truly a majority, though I suppose it's more accurate than guessing.

Some times I wonder though - if we all voted by our conscience and ideals rather than by pragmatism.. would we perhaps finally have the government we deserve?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #74
175. "would we perhaps finally have the government we deserve?"
Here's the good news and the bad news: Whenever those we vote for win, we do have the government we deserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #175
192. Good point
Still, I think a lot of us expected the Obama administration to be different - to be more progressive. Perhaps that was naive. I don't know, I'm just tired of the constant disappointment. Bush was a disaster, but I think most of us knew he would be - naturally, that's why we didn't vote for him (kind of like the majority of the population).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
35. Wow. I'm shocked....
The president doesn't have the stomach to fight for something liberal democrats are really in favor of? That's crazy talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
38. This is nonsense. Look at the way he stood up & defended
Shirley Sherrod

Uh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #38
219. And Van Jones!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizen Worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
39. I have complete faith that President Obama will go to the mat for Elizabeth Warren the same way Bill
Clinton did for Lani Guinier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #39
194. Who?
I don't remember her at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frisbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
50. What DOES he have the stomach for?
Has he taken the lead on even one knock-down, drag-out fight with the opposing party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Old Bush leftovers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
54. I'm going to be an any progressive Democrat for president person from now on.
Obama's "Yes we can" was just a campaign slogan.

He seems to have a "No, we can't" mentality now that he is in office.

It may not be Obama. It may be that he has just surrounded himself with fearful people like Tim Geithner. Somehow I just don't trust the wheeler-dealer types around Obama like Rahm Emmanuel was and like Bill Daley is. I think that if Obama got close aides who had both courage and integrity he could do a very good job.

The only place you see him compete is in sports.

This makes me so sad. Obama as a person is well liked. But his administration is not functioning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #54
176. "The only place you see him compete is in sports." ......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
57. When one is a pragmatist , they do not have the fire in the belly
for any ideology. In fact, a pragmatist is usually
trying to find out what will work--how many votes
they can get. They are not as concerned if something
is left or right. If they can get more votes for a piece
or RW Legislation, they will go with it. If they can
get more votes for a piece of Left Wing Legislation
they will take that. Their commitment is not right or
left, it is what works.

I am in no way criticizing Obama. He told us he was
a pragmatist and is interested in getting things done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgainsttheCrown Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. His goal seems to be
Pragmatism as an end, rather than a means.

A pragmatic Healthcare bill, rather than a pragmatic process to achieve it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
59. Haven't seen any signs that Obama is interested in protecting consumers from corps ...!!
and his trampling of SINGLE PAYER/MEDICARE FOR ALL was one big shock wave

we should have picked up on -- shouldn't we?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #59
75. You haven't been looking at any facts. Here are some from Pulitzer-Prize winning Politifact.com -->
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
60. Look who he appointed for his economic team, it's no surprise he will
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:55 PM by Arctic Dave
cave on this also.

I guess if he wanted to he could publicly call out anyone who votes against her but we all he has to work with them, much like they work over him. Wait, what?

Oh, wait, he fought to the bitter end on everything I's tells ya, EVERYTHING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #60
76. You mean the team that saved this country from the Great Depression 2? That one?
As if anyone here could've done better... :eyes:

Even Barney Frank says she may not be confirmed because of GOP opposition, so in that case, why would Pres. Obama waste his or her time? But you and Frank haven't a real clue as to what Pres. Obama plans to do, so all this outrage is ridiculous.

Here's what he fought for and won, but I won't hold my breath that his opponents will acknowledge the facts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. Then the credit needs to go to bush also.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:52 PM by Arctic Dave
As for saved the country from GD2 still has yet to be seen. Most likely he did what bush did, put it on the credit card and pushed it further down the line line to the next guy.

As for wasting his time, what else is more important then fighting for what his party believes in, picking targets to blow up in our WOT fantasy game. As I asked before, why not publicly call out opposition? Other then he doesn't have it in him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Uh huh. You mean the guy whose policies led us into the Great Depression? How so?
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:54 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Bush was the one who instigated the bailout, remember?
Obama continued his policy, kinda like the killing of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. But it was Pres. Obama who added a whole lot of payback terms that put billions back into Treasury.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 03:09 PM by ClarkUSA
In fact, banks have paid back 99% of Obama's TARP II and Team Obama's savvy payback terms will continue to pay dividends back to taxpayers:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/03/17/banks_have...

Bush's TARP had zero strings attached. So you're wrong, Arctic Dave.

Funny how eager you are to give Bush credit (erroneously) yet you never give Pres. Obama any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #84
92. Yes, he gave them money to consolidate more on our dime just like bush and Clinton.
How does one get dividends if the money is paid back?

Like I said, he only continued with bush policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #92
97. Wrong. As I proved, 99% of TARP bailout has been paid back w/interest, thanks to Team Obama.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 04:44 PM by ClarkUSA
Plus, We The People's government has preferred stock in companies that will yield further billions when sold off.

Thus, you're wrong on all counts and you have zero proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #97
170. It was paid back using other Fed loans
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 11:14 PM by MannyGoldstein
More than $2 Trillion in junk assets have been purchased by the Fed, many trillions more have been loaned.

It's a shell game, like the way the White House staff meets with lobbyists across the street so the lobbyist names won't show up in the White House visitor logs.

We are the biggest suckers ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #170
184. + 23 trillion
Shell game is the word for it. The greatest swindle in our long, sorry-ass history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #170
187. .....
"On March 23, 2009, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced a Public-Private Investment Program (P-PIP) to buy toxic assets from banks' balance sheets. The major stock market indexes in the United States rallied on the day of the announcement rising by over six percent with the shares of bank stocks leading the way.<25>

P-PIP has two primary programs. The Legacy Loans Program will attempt to buy residential loans from bank's balance sheets. The FDIC will provide non-recourse loan guarantees for up to 85 percent of the purchase price of legacy loans. Private sector asset managers and the U.S. Treasury will provide the remaining assets. The second program is called the legacy securities program, which will buy residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) that were originally rated AAA and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) which are rated AAA.

The funds will come in many instances in equal parts from the U.S. Treasury's TARP monies, private investors, and from loans from the Federal Reserve's Term Asset Lending Facility (TALF). The initial size of the Public Private Investment Partnership is projected to be $500 billion.<26>

Economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman has been very critical of this program arguing the non-recourse loans lead to a hidden subsidy that will be split by asset managers, banks' shareholders and creditors.<27> Banking analyst Meredith Whitney argues that banks will not sell bad assets at fair market values because they are reluctant to take asset write downs.<28> Removing toxic assets would also reduce the volatility of banks' stock prices. This lost volatility will hurt the stock price of distressed banks. Therefore, such banks will only sell toxic assets at above market prices.<29>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Prog...

(In wiki, the above is one long paragraph. I broke it up for readability.)

P.S. I don't believe Meredith Whitney.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #97
178. I guess you know more than the Treasury Dept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #84
186.  At least one Nobel Prize winning economist was less enthusiastic
than you about "Team Obama's" TARP II vision--and that was when Timmeh said Obama would ensure that a significant amount of TARP II would go to avoiding foreclosures on individual homes.

Interesting timeline in this article, showing what Bush did versus what Obama did (bearing in mind that the federal regulation making proess takes a lot more than one day) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Prog...


Inasmuch as you appear fond of google, try "hidden costs of U.S. bank bailout" before you next post about what U.S. taxpayers are or are not getting from TARP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #76
152. Saved from WHATTT??!!
Good gawd, a multi-trillion dollar giveaway to a bunch of big dinosaurs that should have been allowed to fail, just like Lehman. After they picked our pocket, you'll note that they're now giving huge bonuses again.

And all that with mounting foreclosures, rising unemployment, and a runaway propensity for foreign war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #76
201. danger: kool-aid overdose!!!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
68. Well President Obama better put some lead in it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
73. not surprising to say the least
I'm done with him. I really don't have the stomach for his capitulation for winning over justice. He hasn't fought for much of anything since he stood up for the auto manufacturers..and look what a shitty deal the workers got from that. But thank goodness the wealthy got their nice tax giveaway that will save us all. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
86. O's base wants Warren / Why would O. ever fight for her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Because O and her have been friends since their days at Harvard & he selected her in the first place
Of course, even Frank says she may not be confirmed due to stonewalling Republicans, so in that case, it's understandable that Pres. Obama not waste his or her time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
94. Wasn't Barney Frank one of Warren's opponents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
142. no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #94
188. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
98. Imagine that.
Since his top priority appears to be protecting bankster criminals this comes as no surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
99. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
103. Then he damn well better find the stomach for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
104. I'm Not Sure it's about Courage anymore
in fact, I'm not sure what Obama really stands for, I can only judge the man based on his actions and even his inactions. But I get your point Barney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
110. What fight?
Does a President meet congressmen in single combat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
111. If he doesn't fight for Warren, then he's not the Middle Class' friend
And should be treated like Sam Walton, Henry Ford or Glenn Beck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #111
122. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
tcaudilllg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #122
128. Yes, PURGE, PURGE, PURGE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ramsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
117. Obama has not taken a stand on anything I've thought supremely
significant. I agree with Frank, he'll avoid this one too. Obama doesn't know how to put his office behind anything tough. I am not sure he has principles. If he does, they apparently do not coincide with mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
123. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoliticAverse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
143. So which Goldman Sachs alumni will be nominated in her place? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
149. Well no shit. Who could have predicted this?
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 10:52 PM by MannyGoldstein
Except for me and everyone else paying attention when she was first semi-sorta-appointed after letting Timmy Geithner set the Bureau up first to keep Warren from being effective.

Purity Democrats my ass. We're the tell-it-as-it-is Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #149
153. YOU GOT IT MANNY
disgusted but not surprised
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
156. She is the one to get the job done. I am sick of political governing. We need to see some real
services showing up here for our bucks, or we should stop
paying taxes altogether and go on a general strike. 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duke Newcombe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
163. In related news, water wet, sun hot.
A shame, really. If the Republicans didn't neuter the agency, our president may kneecap her. I'll be watching this one...and remembering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
164. That's a polite way of saying, "STFU suckers!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
166. Another preemptive surrender, Mr. President?

Why are we supposed to be grateful again?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
168. Here's the video:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwishiwas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #168
189. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
177. Follow the money (if it's still possible).
We may have voted for Obama to do our bidding, but collectively we didn't and don't have the money to pay him to do it.
What can you do when he is the only "game" in town against the oligarchy? Unfortunately, disillusionment doesn't inspire voter turnout.
2012 doesn't look that good even with all the GOP clowns lined up to take him out. The banksters will ultimately decide it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
181. She's magnificent. I'm sure he'll fight for her.
He knows millions of us really need her in our corner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #181
190. I'd buy a ticket to that
But I wont hold my breath. How's that for mixed metaphors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #181
216. um, yeah, suuure
He may know that, doesn't mean that he cares about it enough to fight for it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chipster Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
185. Barney Frank: Supporting the Fascists or Consumer Protector Elizabeth Warren?
Further proof of how strong and divisive the fascists' influence is...while acknowledging where President Obama's loyalties lie...(hint) it's not with the American working class - not like Elizabeth Warren's do. She has the tireless head and the heart to beat these greedy bastards...and THAT is the reason she isn't being considered to head the Consumer Protection Agency, on the fear that she won't be confirmed. Let's stop legislating on guesses and preconfirmed notions. Read her bio. Hear her explain why we need a Consumer Protection Agency (in case you don't know, from your own personal experience). So she gets the lukewarm political endorsement of Barney Frank, BFD. She's worked long, hard and consistently on behalf of the American consumer. Will Barney Frank work that well and hard for her - and for YOUR financial interests as a consumer? Let's see...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
193. I think he'll nominate her and then the fight will be on the Dems in Congress, and they'll cave in
like a house of cards again.

The Democrats in Congress today are in so much disarray they can't even agree on what day of the week to hold their bullshit sessions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:24 AM
Response to Original message
195. How does this get so many recs?!
For every spot Warren has obtained while Obama has been in office is DIRECTLY through Obama-s nomination. Further more, there is a good chance Warren will not even take the position because she only wnts to stay in the particular position she has for a limited time and made that clear. But Franke is claiming Obama has not political will--- I'm tired of this meme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
198. dog and pony show
the usual
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #198
205. meaning what exactly
Warren being nominated?

I thought she had already been nominated anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dotymed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
206. More likely, Warren is being re-programmed with
large sums of money. When "they" feel she is one of "them", then she will be nominated. If she doesn't make the transition, she does not get the nomination. Who wants to protect serfs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disillusioned73 Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
210. I don't want to hear any excuses on this one....
this just needs to happen and that's that!!!

Weak kneed Dems need not apply.. 2012 is right around the corner, haven't they already sold out their "base" enough??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
212. left makes it so easy for the right to swiftboat anyone by ignoring the radio advantage
- 1000 unchallenged radio stations can take free potshots at warren or acorn or van jones and the left just sticks their fingers in their ears cause they don't want to listen to it, and then blame obama for not wanting another fight.

ignoring the rights most important tool has been the biggest political blunder in history, considering time lost dealing with global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
218. Just like the public option should have been, this should be..
non-negotiable. The department needs a strong consumer advocate, or it's useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessionalLeftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
222. He doesn't seem to have stomach for a fight over anything. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #222
228. Maybe if Fox "News" expresses approval for Liz Warren
he will jump on board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
225. Obama doesn't have time to fight for Warren.
He's still looking for his "Comfortable Shoes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 18th 2017, 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC