"According to Kantor, in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections Emanuel and Michelle Obama were at odds over whether the president should give an address on the need for comprehensive immigration reform. The president wanted to do it. The chief of staff saw no point in pushing for legislation that had no chance of passage."
And...
"To [Michelle Obama], the Scott Brown victory provided grim evidence for what she had been saying for months, in some cases years: [her husband] had been leaning on the same tight group of insular, disorganized advisers for too long; they were not careful planners who looked out for worst-case scenarios."
Looks like we have quite a few here who find insularity and disorganization to be pragmatic virtues. Heck, what do I know? I'm just a firebagger.
What is really being a "pragmatist"?
A coward.
While some are about the "business" of harassing "trolls" they don't like (and have never liked beginning in 2008), perhaps the rest of us should be about the task of pulling up the real weeds around here.
The internet is a wonderful thing; here's a blast from the past all of us remember...
"The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”"
Reality, eh? Reality is a lost majority in the House and much more problematic reelection campaign than should have ever been the case.
Date of the article? Sept. 10, 2010; nine months after the Brown win in Mass. The same "pragmatists" screwing up the Administration two months before the debacle in November. Sad thing is, the President is presented really as weak as many of his supporters would insist that he is in the face of the House and Senate Republicans.
Thanks Gibbs; thanks Rahm: now go screw yourselves. All you "pragmatists"? Go f**k yourselves. And enjoy the global-warming induced nice weather while you entertain yourselves.