Skip to main content

Thank goodness the Internet provides us with the option of visiting multiple sites.  If I'd been limited to reading here I'd probably have to have myself committed before Christmas. This morning I had to look to Republicans for some news about the people who are really sending our country into the abyss.

"It's the same 40 chuckleheads that screwed this place up," Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, said, referencing the conservative lawmakers who were opposed to raising tax rates at any level. "(Boehner's) done everything to make nice to them."
Just to recap, after Boehner's Plan B was terminated before conception, LaTourette had this to say about his caucus:
“It weakens the entire Republican Party, the Republican majority. It’s the continuing dumbing-down of the Republican Party and we are going to be seen more and more as a bunch of extremists that can’t even get a majority of our own people to support policies that we’re putting forward,” LaTourette said.
LaTourettte's "chucklehead" quote was all over the news--Maddow, NPR. Here, not so much. Not at all, in fact.  So I hopefully turned to our sensible and moderate friend Charles Krauthammer for some analysis:
I think that the statement that we just heard from the Congressman calling his own people chuckleheads shows that the president has won. I argued a month ago that -- from the president perspective -- this was never about fiscal issues, economic issues. The proposal he's offering today, like the deal, the Plan A he offered, will do nothing on deficits. Absolutely nothing, it perpetuates it.

He had one objective. He came off a winning election, but he still had a recalcitrant House. He wants four years where he can have his own agenda that he can enact. He would be stopped by the House the same way the House stopped it in the last two years. What to do? To destroy the Republicans, to fracture them and to create a civil war in the House, which he has done. And how do you do it? By insisting, as he did, this is extremely clever, tactically on his part. Insisting that the one thing that they had to agree to was an increase on tax rates.

Let's be clear on what "Chucklehead" means:
A stupid person.
numskull - fool - jolterhead - bonehead - dolt
The New York Times notes that Obama's pretty much stuck with these fanatical and stupid Chuckleheads for the duration, a problem which no American President in recent memory has had to deal with--ever.
Though it has been 45 days since voters emphatically reaffirmed their faith in Mr. Obama, the time since then has shown the president’s power to be severely constrained by a Republican opposition that is bitter about its losses, unmoved by Mr. Obama’s victory and unwilling to compromise on social policy, economics or foreign affairs.

“The stars are all aligning the wrong way in terms of working together,” said Peter Wehner, a former top White House aide to President George W. Bush. “Right now, the political system is not up to the moment and the challenges that we face.”

Axelrod captures the extent of the President's problem:
“It’s kind of a stunning thing to watch the way this has unfolded, at least to date,” said David Axelrod, one of Mr. Obama’s longtime advisers. “The question is, how do you break free from these strident voices?”
So I guess it could be argued that the only way to deal with the Chuckleheads is to turn their own people against them, as Krauthammer suggests.

John Cassidy has a good piece in the New Yorker about why these chuckleheads are really nothing to chuckle about:

In the ideologically-driven Republican Party of today, many congressmen won’t let the family dog drown to save their wives and children. If that means that the entire family perishes, so be it. The principle is what counts.
Cassidy thinks Obama and Boehner will ultimately reach a deal on the cliff.  I'm not so sanguine about that but Cassidy's larger point goes beyond the current "crisis:"
The bigger issue is what the Republican obstructionism means for the next four years and beyond. There is no reason to suppose that the newly-elected House of Representatives will be any more moderate than the current one. President Obama pointed out in his press conference the other day that most G.O.P. congressman now hail from districts where he lost heavily. Such Republicans have little incentive to coöperate with the White House. The only potential challenge they face is from the Tea Party right—in the form of a potential primary battle in 2014.
Cassidy won't come out and say it, but due to gerrymandering and the influence of corporate advertising on stupid people it's a safe bet that the Chuckleheads are here to stay.
To say that this doesn’t augur well for the prospects of bipartisan agreements on issues such as gun control, immigration, and tax reform is to lapse into understatement. Many of the congressmen involved in the effort to embarrass Boehner—such as Jim Jordan, the current head of the Republican Study Group, which represents over half of the G.O.P., and Steve Scalise, his successor in the new Congress—see themselves as on a mission. To heck with President Obama’s victory in November. In their minds, their reëlection to Congress gave them a mandate to uphold ultra-conservative positions, especially on those issues that bind together the conservative movement: guns, God, and taxes.
*  *  *
[O]n issues like gun control, immigration, entitlement reform, and global warming—where the onus is on the reformers—the ultras may well be able to wield a veto, which would mean another two years, at least, of gridlock. With the United States facing grave problems that need addressing, that’s not good for any us.
This country is in no shape right now to be held hostage by minority of idiots. Even if the country is unable to rid itself of them, they still need to be called out, by name, even if it means posting their faces on telephone poles and milkboxes. But ultimately, as LaTourette revealed in his remarks, and as Krauthammer backhandedly observes when he talks of Obama precipitating a Republican "civil war," the only people that can marginalize the permanently ensconced minority of Chuckleheads are other Republicans. We should be looking for ways to help them do that.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  have to disagree with cassidy here (12+ / 0-)
    There is no reason to suppose that the newly-elected House of Representatives will be any more moderate than the current one.
    they lost allen west and joe walsh and reduced the caucus size in general.  and hopefully, the dems will take the house back in '14, so we only have to deal with the worst until then.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 05:45:21 AM PST

    •  And Clinton had it worse (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unitary Moonbat

      Those Gingrich led morons (which is where this all started) actually IMPEACHED the democratically elected Democrat.  They held hearings accusing him of murder.

      People have short memories.

      But that cost Republicans.  They were finally beaten in 2008.

      The only reason we're dealing with a Republican House at this point is Pelosi and Obama's setting the Demoratic "brand" back with the grand mistake of requiring working class people to buy private corporate health insurance as a "compromise" with the health industry.  

      The 2010 election was a reaction to that fiasco.  

      We should be pushing Single Payer THIS term, with an improving economy, a Democratic majority in both Houses, and a freshly re-elected President.  

      Instead, due to the weak tactics and tone deafness of our "leadership" (Obama and Pelosi) we are where we are.  Obama proposing cuts to Social Security, and Pelosi backing him up as a "compromise."  

      It's an epic tactical failure that should be remembered by Democrats for years as a lesson on how NOT to manage a hard won popular majority.

      •  nah...boehner's still in power (0+ / 0-)

        thanks to gerrymandering.  * sigh *

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:04:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You should read the diary. The epic failure (0+ / 0-)

        of Obama and the Democrats has fractured Republican unity, the one thing they've always had over Dems.

        I'm all about epic failures that result in Republicans being exposed as lousy on Defense, wretched on Foreign Policy, execrable on Finance, and primarily interested in protecting obscene wealthy individuals.  

        But of course single-payer health care outweighs the demolition of the oligarchy.

        You've got nothing, really, but a fierce need to fight battles that never existed in reality.  Are you planning to punish Democrats in 2014?  It worked so well for us in 2010!

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:11:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There were still a large number of moderate GOP (0+ / 0-)

        elected officials in the 90's in both the House and Senate. I mean real moderate to liberal Republicans (25-30 in the House, 6 in the Senate). Today in the house there are maybe what 5 real House moderate Republicans (or maybe like Walter Jones they're just weird?) and 4 in the Senate (but Snowe is retiring and Sen Kirk has been sick for so long I don't know if he has actually had any real moderate votes yet?).

        -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

        by dopper0189 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:13:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They are only a handful (0+ / 0-)

      of the faction that has caused the problems in the first place.  As long as the GOP in general continue to govern with the threat of being primaried, the problems with getting anything meaningful done in the 114th still exists.

      The GOP has to start losing to Democrats in 2014 in order to neutralize the primary tactic currently being used on the right.

      But until then, expect more of the same.  Governing by crisis.

    •  Dems aren't going to win the house in 2014 (0+ / 0-)

      Obama proposed cutting SS payments to poor, starving old people.  No fucking way do the dems take back the House now.  

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 11:18:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he proposed no such thing (0+ / 0-)

        everything he's said about chained CPI included protections for the most vulnerable.

        for every senior who would notice a difference under chained CPI, there is one who wouldn't.  no way is every single senior poor and starving.

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 10:02:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Puppets come to my mind for some weird reason. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, Matt Z, 4CasandChlo, Smoh

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones."

    "Life without emotions is like an engine without fuel."

    by roseeriter on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 05:51:10 AM PST

  •  First things first, Charles Krauthammer, is a (7+ / 0-)

    pompous ass who despises the President and Progressives.
    Subsequently, he should never be quoted as anything but an extremely biased, bigoted braggart and bellicose ass.

    "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

    by Cruzankenny on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 05:51:43 AM PST

    •  I think the "sensible and moderate" re (11+ / 0-)

      Krauthammer was tongue in cheek.

      •  Understood. I just find the man to be a menace (7+ / 0-)

        and he should not have the pulpit he does.
        I admit a real bias against him and in no way was I responding to the Diary as much as to the tag.

        "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

        by Cruzankenny on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:28:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  His visceral hatred of the President is harmful: (6+ / 0-)

          Here is one thing that I am very very sick of.

          I think that the times are tough enough that some bending on principles is needed - God knows that our side has gone WAY too far over to make a deal.  And, I think that damn near anyone else who was a Dem President WOULD get a deal, but not Pres. Obama.

          The right is letting their personal hatred of Obama get in the way of what they might well agree to in other circumstances - perhaps there are some so stuck in their philosophical self righteousness that it wouldn't matter - but there are enough that realize the country NEEDS this.

          But they have "bigger concerns" than the country - they will not rest until Obama has failed and Krauthammer is the embodiment of this attitude.

          Lastly, many of these people represent districts where the principle concern is burying Obama - and not the nation's welfare.  This is dangerous and I do not see it ending - soon or well.

          Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

          by 4CasandChlo on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:51:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am with you 100% and many of the endgame (0+ / 0-)

            scenarios are not pleasant to envision.
            Can you imagine the courage it takes for him to step outside the White House or how he feels when his wife and children do?
            President Obama has more courage in his little finger than a million Krauthammers, Rush Limbaugh's cystic ass or Bill O'Reillys.
            The bigots that are holding this country hostage should be held accountable at every turn. I know I won't forget, ever.

            "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

            by Cruzankenny on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 10:36:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Krauthammer is a deeply damaged man (13+ / 0-)

      Bitter, angry, cynical.  And a horrible psychiatrist. (Yes, he actually is a board-certified psychiatrist!)

      But here's the thing with Krauthammer.  He's not stupid, and while his arguments are sophistry, he constructs them carefully. The other night I heard him talking about civil commitment and psychiatric disorders and how the answer to Newtown is making it easier to commit schizophrenics - using the Tucson shooter as an example.  Now, he's a psychiatrist, so he knows damn well that many or even most of these mass shooters are not clinically psychotic, but the point was to shift blame from access to weapons to mental illness.  He focused on the commitment process, and disagreed when someone pointed out that lack of funding and insurance restricts access to mental health services. Krauthammer was constructing an argument to protect his party.  He knew quite well that reality was different.

      So now Krauthammer is constructing another argument to protect his party.  The leadership is concerned about maintaining discipline, and Boehner demonstrated that they cannot.  The column referenced here was not for Democrats, it was for Republicans, and it is intended to bully and push them to unify.  I do think there is some truth to it - but like everything Krauthammer writes, it's all about his motives.  Like David Brooks, he is a master about talking about one aspect of some issue, while eliding everything else that is important.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:56:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like (9+ / 0-)

    the telephone poles and milk boxes idea a lot.

  •  Steve LaTourette is doing Boehner's bidding (5+ / 0-)

    because he retired; he's finished in a few days. Once he's gone we're going to have to do the pushing. I'm not sure how that's done because polls showing how unpopular their opinions are don't seem to matter to them. I'm really worried that the economy is in danger of heading downward while these jerks are trying to assert their power. "Chuckleheads" sounds cute. We need to choose better words.

    •  yea..."chuckleheads" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnnetteK, HappyinNM

      is what my uncle affectionately called his sons when they were little.

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:25:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The fact that he's retiring (7+ / 0-)

      allows him to say what he really thinks.  I saw that interview and I think it was genuine.

      The problem is, for Republicans to become logical and emotionally stable and once again become a principled conservative party... well, all that requires that they admit defeat on a whole host of things:  

      They have to come to terms with social security remaining a federal program.  

      They have to come to terms with the exceptionally damaging foreign policy legacy from Reagan right through George W Bush even if they start by admitting that overreach causes empires to collapse - true of the Roman Empire, true of the British Empire.  

      They even have to come to terms that most of us sane people are as scared of hard-core NRA survivalist gun nuts as we are of armed drug dealers - and that their current base actually defines dangerous loony criminal for a good number of Americans.  

      They have to admit and make amends and get behind the idea that supporting marriage equality is a deeply conservative idea.

      They have to recognize and internalize and take some joy in the fact that American identity is no longer synonymous with white identity - and most importantly, that this is not a bad thing.

      But they can't. The party has become linked to identity rather than even philosophy or a platform.  It's about ethnonationalist identity, which means a long decline with potential for violence.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:43:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The part where Obama fractures his own base (7+ / 0-)

    to appease the Republican money gods tends to be a major distraction from this brilliant GOP fracturing chess game you think he is playing using the vulnerable as his pieces, so I sure as hell don't blame anyone here for concentrating on that side of the story.

    I think most of us want to see an increase in security for our elders and others on SS, so seeing a cut put out, even if it's just bait is disheartening to say the least and needs to be slapped down as quickly as it arises, each and every time, and this website is primed, ready, and the perfect place to do just that.

    I think you just talked me into making a Daily Kos donation as a gift to our seniors and others that depend on SS here and out there.

    •  One flaw (7+ / 0-)

      The pie fights on DKos do not reflect the actual Democratic Party "fracturing". The authors populating the recent rec lists have never been part of President Obama's "base". They have always been critics throwing the lemon meringues. The actual Democratic Party base will develop its consensus opinion on that which is actually done, not over transitory negotiation stances as happens here all the time.

      No, this fracturing discussion is about GOP office-holders and their to-now monolithic voting record. That is where the rubber meets the road.

      And, if events play out as Mr Krauthammer suggests, the Democratic base will be giddy with delight over President Obama's political victory. All gripes about a transitory negotiating position will be forgotten - except, of course, among those who buy lemon meringues by the truckload.

      Well, more than one flaw, I guess.

      •  I don't spend most of my time online. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The fracturing is alive and growing out there.

        •  You were not whom I had in mind (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I do not recall your by-line appearing under scores of obama-bashing rec-listed diaries. But the larger point remains. The fact Dailykos is full of people who habitually bash President Obama is not evidence the actual Democratic Party is fracturing.

          And to return to the topic - fractures among the office-holders - here the Democratic Party has done much better than usual. President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, and Minority Leader Pelosi seem to have the cats in a herd for once.

    •  I think there there is a lesson learned here -- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Don't be like them.  I don't think that anyone who has been totally upset with the President putting chained CPI on the table doesn't have a very valid and supportable basis for being so.  

      However cannot agree with you that this is such a distraction from what is going on within the GOP.  It is because of what is going on within the GOP that forces the President to have to 'stand his ground', if you will, on the art of compromise.

      Because someone has to be the mature adult in this game or all bets are off.  We go into anarchy head on.  We are too close to that now as it is.

  •  Chuckleheads (5+ / 0-)

    I love that term!  I have a friend (we work at a University as professors), who consistently calls the administrators chuckleheads, so it makes me chuckle!

    Anyway, civil war was coming.  As soon as the rethugs broke into two parties (tea party and conservative party), what else could be expected?  Indeed, let's help.  Give us some guidance!

    being mindful and keepin' it real

    by Raggedy Ann on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:23:11 AM PST

  •  well, if a couple dozen non-chuckleheads vote w/ (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mkor7, ivorybill, Quicklund, AnnetteK

    the democratic minority, the extremists no longer have any veto power, correct?

    Coming Attraction: "Tea Party II - now with more stupid!"

    by memofromturner on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:26:23 AM PST

  •  5-D chess, but the pawns are people (6+ / 0-)

    I got that, with the offer to cut SSA. I saw that being certain it would be rejected would mean that nothing was really ventured, and yet it would force Boehner into an extremist position that was unwinnable on the public stage.

    It didn't matter to me. I'm a pawn.

    I see that the GOP is in revolution, but they've been in revolution since 2009. This is not a civil war that is breaking out, but rather one where a new battle is being announced. The civil war started in 2009, and it was Cantor/DeMint v. Boehner from the start. It was Armey and Koch vs. Carlyle Group -- oil and Birch vs. banking and stocks. There had been a cease fire.

    I don't care, though, because I'm a pawn. If either GOP faction is dominant (and in-state the Koch types are in power, while the Washington representatives from this state are more old graft), I'm shoved off the board.

    No swapping pieces for strategic gain. We have no room for sacrifice.

    People complain about dirt, but I'd like to see them make some.

    by The Geogre on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:28:32 AM PST

    •  Wait, I thought Obama didn't play nth (0+ / 0-)

      dimensional chess.

      Occam's razor = Obama doesn't want to go over the cliff and so he wanted to make a deal. Maybe he went too far toward Republicans at the end.

      That explains it all without the use of "pawns."

      You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

      by tomjones on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:49:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree. I don't think Obama was playing chess (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        either.  Nor do I think he was playing patsy.  He was playing a shell game where he was using the Repubs as cover to advance his (quite) right of center economic agenda.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:10:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, believe whatever you want (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You basically just charged that Obama is playing nth dimensional chess to advance evil. Occams Razor again says Obama is a liberal Democrat trying to reach a deal with crazy Republicans, but I frankly don't care if you want to read more into it either to cast aspersions or to credit him for playing the Republicans.

          Both are beliefs, not facts.

          You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

          by tomjones on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:29:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And your only dealing in fact? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SpecialKinFlag, NoMoreLies

            I'd say there are alternative explanations for Obama's behavior, only one of which is that he's a liberal Democrat trying to deal with crazy Republicans.

            The principle of Occam's razor is that the simplest explanation is the best.  That doesn't mean that there is only one simple explanation.  It's not a more complicated explanation that Obama is simply using the repubs as cover (it's a common tactic to blame someone for your actions), it's just another explanation.  

            In fact, I'd argue that your assumption he's a liberal requires a lot more complicated reasoning.  Seems to me there are few out there - including many of his ardent supporters - who believe Obama is a liberal.  I believe he's even described himself as more akin to an old fashioned Republican moderate.

            The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

            by accumbens on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:42:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Obama and Lincoln (8+ / 0-)

        In this months NYRB, respected historian David Bromwich writes a review of the Lincoln film (he likes it, but thinks its flawed).  To start the review off, however, he gives the following anecdote which is relevant to our back and forth here:

        Abraham Lincoln’s reelection was in doubt through much of the summer and fall of 1864, but Union victories in Mobile Bay and Atlanta restored the popular faith in his leadership, and he won 55 percent of the vote.

        Lincoln very much wanted to get the 13th Amendment passed to ban slavery--one of his main war objectives-- but he wasn't sure he had the votes in Congress.  He had tried to get something done in late 1863, but could not get the House to agree.

        After the 1864 elections, he felt good about his chances, but still had quite some time to deal with the lame-duck Congress.

        In his December message to Congress, Lincoln spoke of the amendment as a matter of great urgency. “The next Congress,” he said, “will pass the measure if this does not,” and “may we not agree that the sooner the better?”
        Meanwhile, moderate Republicans made a push to end the war early by asking to send a peace delegation to the Confederacy.  The commission met with the Southern delegation in Hampton Roads, VA and would eventually get face-to-face meetings with William Seward, the Secretary of State, and Lincoln himself.

        Lincoln heard out the Southerners' proposals and agreed to many terms being put on the table.  The one thing he could not accept was the North and South being treated as separate countries.  However, this peace conference was going on right in the middle of the effort to pass the 13th Amendment.  The radicals in Lincoln's party heard about the conferences and asked Lincoln to verify.

        He responded with a deft evasion. Hampton Roads, after all, was not the same as the city of Washington. “So far as I know,” Lincoln wrote, “there are no peace commissioners in the city, or likely to be in it.” So the amendment passed, the Confederate commissioners returned to Richmond, and history was supplied with a fresh illustration that the reality of politics may call on a politician to keep three balls in the air: in this case the pressure to end the war on certain terms, the need to maintain radical support for a radical initiative, and the good of proving to moderates that every avenue had been explored. Perhaps a fourth ball was also in play: the reputation of Lincoln for honesty, probity, and consistency.
        The bolded part is what we are seeing today, though for much lesser stakes.  Obama is in a position of keeping his base together while also trying to show to moderates and independents that he is exploring all options all the while trying to prevent the fiscal cliff/curb thing.  

        And that's not easy.

        Buck up--Never say die. We'll get along! Charlie Chaplin, Modern Times (1936).

        by dizzydean on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:10:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Great and thought-provoking comment (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dizzydean, I love OCD, Larsstephens

          The real shame in all this is that progressives are supposed to be the ones who appreciate and honor complexity, but on this issue they are being as simplistic as the Republicans

          You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

          by tomjones on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:33:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Politics, I'm sure (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoMoreLies, SpecialKinFlag

        Look, I am not an Obama believer. I'm a liberal or socialist or progressive or Christian who counts on values first and party second. I know that presidents play political games that extend from the games legislators play.

        The latter are obvious as a bikini in an igloo. When the GOP introduces an amendment that says, "All fetuses are legal humans" to a farm bill, it's obvious that they want to get Democrats to vote "no" so they can say that the member voted against the farm bill.

        Presidents play longer ball, if they're good, and it's quite possible that Obama is playing to make (R) unelectable in 2014. It's possible that he wants to make blame really, really clear.

        I'm just saying I no longer care: Not with this, not now, not ever. Don't negotiate with social security or Medicare/Medicaid, don't use it for a grander objective, don't do ANYTHING to it, because it is not a number, not a program, and not a token: it is people precariously balanced between life and death.

        The "fat" was cut long, long ago. The muscle was cut long ago. We cannot have more cut away bones.

        People complain about dirt, but I'd like to see them make some.

        by The Geogre on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:09:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Everyone has a line in the sand (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          While I may not agree with where you put yours it's certainly your prerogative.

          You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

          by tomjones on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:59:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  My survival depends on SS. I have watched (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this President carefully for 4 years.  The safety net is stronger than it was when he took office.  That's reality.  If we're going to emulate the political naïveté of the right and light our hair on fire every time Obama plays with the Republicans we deserve another few years in the wilderness.  

      Politics is messy, complex, and built on compromise.  You might ask yourself how it is that Progressives won this time, given the disdain so many Progressives seem to feel for Obama.  His coattails got them elected because most Democrats see him as a competent and successful President.  The lefties who cherish every opportunity to slam him did us a huge disservice in 2010, and appear to be on track to do the same in 2014.  Our only chance to make inroads in the House is crumbling.  Who benefits from that?

      I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

      by I love OCD on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:26:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't want to slam him (0+ / 0-)

        I want him to recognize that there is zero margin in most SSA recipients' lives for a reduction. Those are people. "It" cannot be on the table just because the GOP wants it to be.

        Again, I get how a feint works, but there are some things too immoral to play at.

        I would also like him to close Guantanamo and disband UAV programs. I consider the drone an inherently immoral device, which is a rare thing, and insisting on indefinite detention for the military budget is much more than pragmatism.

        People complain about dirt, but I'd like to see them make some.

        by The Geogre on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:15:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt there's anyone in this country (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          who's more aware of poverty and living on the edge.  Community organizers work with people on the edge, and those who have fallen in the ditch.  They know how limited services are, how frustrating and humiliating the process is.  They know the hopelessness.  It took 80 years to get a better way to get health care to most citizens and it happened only when Obama became President.  Personal experience drove his determination to get that done, and he did it with minimal support from Dems, obstruction and lies from Republicans, and little help from lefties.

          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

          by I love OCD on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 01:00:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I believe the president fully knows and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Geogre

          understands just what, and how serious the
          stakes are to everyone. That is his motivation
          for further negotiations and if necessary, compromise.

          Seeing as we are being forced to
          consider reforms to social programs,
          why not use the opportunity to demand
          their increase and expansion? The politics
          of the US house makes such appear unlikely,
          so wouldn't it be better to be pushing for more,
          as opposed to be fighting to keep things where
          they are? Like offense instead of defense?

          Does anyone think that Obama would veto it?

          Thanks for all of your efforts.

  •  If this is winning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't want to see losing...

    Commentator after commentator AND the President have said the President is offering Boehner and amazingly conservative deal, and has gone way past half to meet the demands of a party that lost in a landslide.

    And we are supposed to believe the winning is completely predicated on whether the President's likeability rating remains high.

    What none of these diaries, on either side discuss is what the preferred deal would be, and compare it to the actual offer or final deal.  Wouldn't that be the appropriate evaluation model?

    "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

    by justmy2 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:39:31 AM PST

    •  It's not discuss because (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanbrooker, Larsstephens

      we never really know what all of the offers are or would be before some new development occurs that takes us in a different direction.

      But I do think the dynamics of the current GOP structure is clear and it's equally clear to me that in order to effectively govern, that we must neutralize the current GOP strategy of 'primarying' its own members with more extremists by wholly rejecting their side completely.

  •  Reap what you sow ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok

    I  can't help believe that Obama is to blame at least in no small measure for the rise of the Tea Party and the consequences outlined in this diary.  He was AWOL during the summer when health care reform was being rolled around in Washington and when the Tea Party was ascendant.  His weakness - exemplified by his auto-capitulation in negotiating with the Republicans - and failure to take a stand on ...well, anything ... gave room to the Tea Party to grow and led to the disappointment and loss of enthusiasm that fueled the loss of the House of Representatives to the Repubs.  

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:58:07 AM PST

    •  Well, I don't think it's very fair (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to blame Obama for the rise of the Tea Party.  Did anyone anticipate the MI governor and GOP House and Senate to suddenly push right to work like they did?  No, and it's because we keep assuming that we are dealing with honorable people who value process and procedures.  The current brand of the GOP says to hell with all of that.  

      So okay.  We just have to vote them all out of office until the real statesmen come back to the table.

      Or not.  They can go by way of the Whigs.  This is what it has come to.

  •  The Kos chuckleheads are out in force (4+ / 0-)

    The people who are upset with the democrats for dealing with the reality that laws have to be passed in congress and so damn many democratic chuckleheads stayed home in 2010 that the republicans filled the house with republican chuckleheads.
    So, now we have the spectre of another debt limit fight and another downgrade in our rating that will cost us far far more than the less than 2 percent cut caused by chained cpi. It's a shame we have to appease the republicans, but how the fuck did they get so much power?
    Oh yes. Petulant dems staying home.
    And Obama derangement syndrome is back in force around here. He offers a solution. He tied it to eliminating the debt limit issue. It would also end the spectre of millions losing unemployment. Of government cuts going into effect that could send us into a recession.
    But no. He shouldn't have done that. He should have done what he wanted. Because that's how it works. The president passes laws. Didn't you know that?
    And, since he didn't just do that, I can't count the number of people I've seen writing that they are fed up and are going to vote green in the next election.
    Putting more republican chuckleheads in congress.
    Great plan.

    •  Chained-COLA does nothing for the deficit. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpecialKinFlag, NoMoreLies

      Putting extension of UI benefits on the table is like asking for a resolution to praise motherhood - it's not a get, it's a given.  It just makes it look like Obama is actually getting something (like it did last time he put it on the table - an easy get).  

      The reason lots of Dems stayed home in 2010 was because they were disappointed that Obama did not fight for what he was elected to do.  Not that he didn't get everything they wanted, but that he auto-capitulated repeatedly - namely, failed to fight.  That's an awful lot of people who you are calling chuckleheads.  Maybe so many that it might be worth considering they had good reasons to be disappointed.  But then that kind of thinking would require consideration that maybe Obama actually wasn't being pragmatic (as if pre-capitulating is pragmatic), but just incompetent or, worse, enabling a right wing economic agenda.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:20:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, becaue we should have gotten single payer. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Because we wanted it, it had to be possible.
        It wouldn't have gotten out of committee.
        Just because democrats have been proven to be idiots for decades because of petulance doesn't mean this is any different.
        Are you honestly defending the republican landslide in 2010 on the "rightness" of petulant democrats staying home because they didn't get what they wanted.
        Are you with the people who are saying that Obama actually has an agenda to get rid of social security. THAT'S all over this site too.
        2010 could be pointed to as the beginning of the end of American democracy. Republican statehouses that resulted from that election are destroying our country.
        Hyperbolic. For certain. But that's what I believe.

        •  Read what I wrote: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andersr, SpecialKinFlag

          1.  I didn't say anything about single payer.

          2.  I didn't say that people stayed home because they were petulant.  I said that maybe they had good reason to be disappointed and stay home because Obama failed to fight for what he was elected for.  They stayed home, not because they didn't get everything, but because Obama failed to try and instead caved into the Repubs nearly every chance he got.

          3.  I also said that to consider that these disaffected Dems might have had good reason to be disaffected would require that you entertain the idea that Obama was in fact at fault.  

          I don't think Obama wants to destroy SS, but there's plenty of evidence, including what he's said about it, that he wants to scale it and other entitlement benefits back.  

          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

          by accumbens on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:56:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So let me honest ask you this.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            is the alternative having these extremist Republicans in a position of power in the House better?

            •  They are in power. The alternative is to have a (0+ / 0-)

              Democratic President that acts like one, that takes a stand and doesn't cave to unreasonable demands (let alone cave before demands are made).  I Obama actually tried, but failed, he wouldn't have lost so many.  

              People hate weak, and as crazy and repugnant as the Repubs are, they are not perceived as weak.  Being willing to stand by your principles carries a huge amount of weight with voters.  After all, if you cannot be trusted to do so, then you cannot be trusted and that's a killer politically.  As abhorrent as their beliefs are, Repubs can be trusted to stand by them.  Obama cannot be trusted because he has largely failed to do so.  That doesn't mean not compromising, but it does mean not compromising unreasonably or against your basic principles or with hostage takers.

              The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

              by accumbens on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:16:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I asked you is that alternative better. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Of course it is the alternative that currently exist.  You didn't answer the question.

              •  You mean that acts like you do? (0+ / 0-)

                Do we all want a president that anonymously
                casts dispersion and insults and questions
                the motives of anyone who has the audacity
                to disagree with their own perspectives?
                And couches such in the form of personal
                character deficits and flaws of a vile nature?

                And then says "I tried but failed?"

                I would not vote for some one like that.

                I think we collectively decided on
                your perspectives concerning the
                qualities this president possesses.
                About six weeks ago.

                Your own issues of trust are simply that; your own.
                I know others share them, that is their own right.
                You and these few other are the ones who failed
                to convince the majority of your views either way.

                Keep trying though, maybe someday you will
                defeat all this weakness that you don't trust.

    •  agree especially about the '10 stay-at-homes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      i want a social safety net for all

      i didn't get it or even single payer but that could never have stopped me from voting

      pbo took on the office that had been filled by repubs and wannabe repubs (i mean clinton), and a govt that still has repub moles in place

      anyone who stayed home in '10 should be prevented from giving us any crap now

    •  I was chided by a Ralph Nader spokeperson in 2000 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smoothnmellow, Larsstephens

      during a Public Radio call-in for daring to suggest that there was a significant difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and that we had to be pragmatic about our political battles rather than falling into the trap of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  The example I used was the long-term impact of presidential judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court.  The Nader person just scoffed. I'd like to know what that self-righteous jackass thinks now, given the damage that's been done by Bush's two Supreme Court appointments and the GOP since 2000.

      The GOP made a tactical decision many years ago to turn itself into a monolithic, right-wing, conservative party willing to shamelessly pander to some of human nature's worst traits (greed, intolerance, religious sanctimony, ignorance, fear of the new, racial and sexual prejudice, etc.), because the GOP knew that approach would - sorry to say - result in a dependable 30 to 35 percent of the electorate, no matter what.  Coupled with chronic low voter turnout and a Democratic Party that is truly ideologically heterogeneous in comparison (and much more willing to self-criticize and self-punish), that calculation worked well enough, and we are where we are now: in a state of deliberate political dysfunction which, by GOP design, is intended to render government and governing ineffective for the sole benefit of the GOP's plutocratic puppeteers.

      "Chuckleheads" is too mild of a descriptor for the know-nothings in the GOP; Confederacy of Dunces is better.  The GOP is now reaping what it sewed for so many years.

      However it can be done, Congress needs to be returned to Democratic control in 2014, if only to stop the bleeding.  And President Obama needs to be fully engaged in that effort.  Maybe the rallying cry in 2014 needs to be something that enough disaffected Republicans and Independents might find vaguely familiar:

      Republicans are not the solution to our problem; Republicans ARE the problem.

    •  As not to inflame this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      who stayed home in 2010 pie fight again, I think that we all have to realize that the GOP at the local level stacked the deck with redistricting, making is easier to elect Republicans to the House.

    •  Yesh, the chuckleheads breached the walls! (0+ / 0-)

      While the gates had been left open for them.

      Thanks for all of your efforts.

  •  There is absolutely no path towards (7+ / 0-)

    enacting any sort of sane, sensible and useful legislation from now until 2015 that doesn't involve a large number of Democratic votes in the house AND the weakening of the filibuster to the point where Repubs can delay but not block bills. NONE. Now, different bills will require different levels of Dem votes, but ALL of them will require at least 20-30, and some may require 100 or more.

    If Boehner is any kind of leader, he will allow that to happen, even though a large part of his caucus and the GOP base will hate his guts (and guess what, they already do). And if he's not, Pelosi will have to find enough Repubs to do end runs around Boehner through discharge petitions and the like. We're in a parliamentary impasse that calls for parliamentary solutions.

    A Confederacy of Chuckleheads should not be allowed to sink the country.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:12:01 AM PST

    •  Norman Goldman talked about this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie, Larsstephens

      as being a possible Pelosi strategy last week.  I thought it was quite fascinating the idea of Pelosi quietly putting together a solid coalition of Democrats and Republicans to get work done.  He said that it would have to include a new GOP Speaker that Democrats would vote for to give that person the majority and that coalition going forward would work with the White House.

      Maybe that can be done, but given what I've seen this week, driving off the cliff, letting Cantor become Speaker and allow the American public to see the Rocky Mountain Horror Show in full throttle may be what is needed to mount a serious offensive for 2014 and beyond.

      •  To invoke that shopworn phrase (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's well past time to think AND act beyond the box. So far no Dem has been willing to do this in any meaningful fashion, as opposed to Repubs, who have been doing this since the 90's (e.g. impeaching a president over nothing for political gain, derailing the very sensible and conservative Clinton health care plan, the Hastert Rule, keeping house votes open for more than 15 minutes, abuse of the filibuster, creating a vast media infrastructure to manipulate the public, Citizens United, etc.), making Repubs, in terms of process, the more "progressive" party, and Dems the more "conservative" party.

        Dems have GOT to stop being pantscrapping afraid of being, and being seen as, too "radical" and "unreasonable", for fear that those mythical centrist voters who just want everyone to hold hands and love each other and get along might not like them. Complete and utter horseshit. Those voters do not exist, and never have. Those votes care about results, not process. NO ONE outside the beltway cares about process, or even civility. Americans care about results, wherever they lie on the ideological spectrum. So if Dems resort to radical and even "mean" methods to get results that the public wants, they will be praised for it, not punished for it. Even a child knows this!

        So I don't know what's taken Dems so long to realize and act on this, and why they STILL don't seem ready and willing to do this. Are they stupid? Weak? Cowardly? Are they just pretending to be these things because they secretly also want the kinds of policies that Repubs claim to want?

        If Dems want to end the GOP's hold on the legislative process then they HAVE to take some "radical" steps and risk being seen as radical and even "mean". E.g. end the filibuster as a means of blocking bills. Do an end run around the GOP house caucus. Run round the clock attack ads and stage many public appearances letting the public know what the GOP is doing, especially in red districts and states. Hold rallies and protests. Send out surrogates with teeth to all the political shows. And so on. Basically, declare war on the GOP, until the GOP either loses, stands down, or is voted out of power.

        If they don't do this, then they're either stupid and cowardly, or they don't really want to defeat the GOP, being the "good cops" in a decades-long game of good cop/bad cop being played on the American people. I.e. Kabuki.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:14:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ummm... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          So if Dems resort to radical and even "mean" methods to get results that the public wants, they will be praised for it, not punished for it. Even a child knows this!
          This is one of the reasons why we have the problem with gun violence in this country.  The abundance of guns and weak guns laws goes without saying, but this attitude being taught to our children is exactly why we got the problem with the extreme GOP in the first place.  I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this statement at all.

          Kovie, you don't have to be 'mean' to be radical.  The MI legislature that blindsided the unions wasn't particularly mean.  They were calculating.

          That is what our side needs to be.  Calculating.  Not mean.  There is a BIG difference here.

          A power grab knows no emotions.  The only ones who emote are the ones without it.

          •  Nonsense (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's precisely this artificial "civility" we try to impose on situations where it's not appropriate, necessary or useful that has so crippled Dems' ability to get much done. When someone punches you in the face you DO NOT cry and tell them how mean they are. You punch them back and break their noses until they're on the floor crying and begging for mercy. Or did you not hear about the Civil War and the smaller versions of it we've been fighting since?

            And I find it insulting to suggest that the GOP is so radical because Dems are too mean. Where on earth did you come up with this nonsense?

            but this attitude being taught to our children is exactly why we got the problem with the extreme GOP in the first place
            Spare me the Rodney King mantra. I'm not calling for actual violence, obviously, or gratuitous meanness. But a few political elbows thrown here and there will do wonders to tame the GOP into submission, in addition to smart politics.

            There is literally no path to a progressive future without some form of political violence. None. It is a dangerous and self-indulgent illusion to believe otherwise. For us to win, they must endure some inflicted pain.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:47:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Panicked writers rarely write well (4+ / 0-)

    I am not referring to Charles Krauthammer's column discussed in this diary. I refer to those half-score diarists who over the course of years are compelled to bash PBO over what amounts to little more than backseat driving. The route is not as important as the destination. Charles Krauthammer seems to understand that. That should be embarrassment enough for reflection even among the perpetually panicked.

    •  The destination . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      should not be the weakening of Social Security (period).

      If that sounds like a Grover Norquist signed pledge for progressives, then so be it.

      •  If we allow ourselves to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        adopt that kind of strategy, then we would truly be no better than they are and we will eventually end up where they are right now.

        No thank you.

        •  Public opinion does not support a cut in benefits. (0+ / 0-)

          In 2011, 87% of Americans said the SS is good for the country.

          It's just plain bad politics to cut benefits to SS.

          On the broad question of whether it is more important to reduce the budget deficit or to maintain current Medicare and Social Security benefits, the public decisively supports maintaining the status quo. Six-in-ten (60%) say it is more important to keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are

          (62%) of Republicans with incomes of $30,000 or less say it is more important to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are.

          The public’s desire for fundamental change does not mean it supports reductions in the benefits provided by Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Relatively few are willing to see benefit cuts as part of the solution, regardless of whether the problem being addressed is the federal budget deficit, state budget shortfalls or the financial viability of the entitlement programs.

      •  We did not arrive at that destination (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Remedial help for the metaphorically challenged.

  •  Night Of The Long Knives For The Tea Party (0+ / 0-)

    the pundits are lining up

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:16:03 AM PST

  •  We voted for status quo, 4 more years of paralysis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dear occupant, andersr

    ...and gridlock and we did it with forethought and commitment, rightly convinced that the only alternatives were batshit crazy worse. Now it's most important to always crisply define the higher ground and cling to it mercilessly, relentlessly. In the face of chuckleheads we will persevere.

  •  You know.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    isabelle hayes's the House of Representatives not the House of Republican Representatives. They could easily put 40 recalcitrant members in a box if they wanted to. Someone with a megaphone needs to make that point clear in public.

  •  18 New Democrats (4+ / 0-)

    Starting January 2013, Republicans have only a 33 seat majority in the House. In 2 years (22.5 months now) Americans have to decide whether to fire any or all of them. If only 17 Republicans are replaced with Democrats in 2014, Democrats have the majority. Indeed, if only 17 Republicans (7% of them) vote with the Democrats that's a Democratic majority. If 10 Republicans abstain that's only 7 needed to vote with the Democrats.

    The next 2 years will probably hold more obstruction than the past 2. But that obstruction will be focused on: gun control, immigration, entitlement reform, and global warming. Precisely where the worst Republicans scare the hell out of most Americans.

    If Democrats can't run on those issues, and the others of women's health, jobs, and the actual benefits of Obamacare American home economics will begin to depend upon, then the problem isn't really our political system. It's that Democrats aren't competent to use it to lead the country. Blame Republican chuckleheads. But don't excuse Democratic chuckleheads who can't push them aside.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:27:48 AM PST

  •  i'm sorry to have to say this but i see the next (4+ / 0-)

    2 years and possibly through Obamas' entire tenure, as absolutely torturous.
    the Tea Party idealogues relish the fact that they can gum up the works, grind legislation to a halt unless it suits their parameters. they cannot be reasoned with and i don't believe anything will change their mind.

    West and Walsh are gone because they were 2 of the most VOCAL and VISIBLE voices of the Tea Party. they paid the price for their stupidity and arrogance and so should the rest of them.

    Dartagnan, you wrote:
    'the only people that can marginalize the permanently ensconced minority of Chuckleheads are other Republicans.'

    i agree. i think the Tea Party can marginalize themselves by ousting Boehner and electing Cantor as the new Majority leader. Boehner is unpopular but just imagine seing Cantor, day after day in press conferences, spouting the demands of the idealogues.

    let the Tea Party own their sick idealogy, front and center, for everyone to see. we might have a reasonable chance of picking up MORE house seats in 2014.

    America...where we fight over who can be allowed to have a marriage license but don't give a shit about who can have an assault rifle.

    by dear occupant on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:28:23 AM PST

    •  That's what I say. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dear occupant, Larsstephens

      Just look at Joe Scarborough's head exploding when questioning a smug, but very even speaking Tea Party Republican the other day.  They just won't make the mistake that that West and Walsh did.

      But their ideology is all the same.

      •  they are, i assume, being pressured to stay smart. (0+ / 0-)

        but human nature being what it is, if they assume a leadership position, i believe their arrogance would get the best of them, providing youtubeable quotes for 2104 aplenty.

        it would be painful in the short term, but it might be beneficial in the long run.

        America...where we fight over who can be allowed to have a marriage license but don't give a shit about who can have an assault rifle.

        by dear occupant on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:54:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I cannot tip and rec this diary enough. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm beginning to think that President Obama is correct.  In his remarks yesterday, he said that everyone is not going to get everything that they want.  

    He wasn't just talking about the GOP.  By really looking at the total collapse of the Republican Party, we, on our side, should understand what NOT to do.

    The GOP gambled on holding its party together by pandering to the extremist elements of its party.  Of course, they don't view themselves as extremists.  They view themselves as ideological purists.  They really believe that their principles are just and sound and just as important as everyone else's principles.  

    The problem is that what they believe in does not represent what the majority of people want.

    But that doesn't matter to them.  They really believe that they are on a 'mission from God' to save the rest of us from ourselves.

    And because they have the power to stop things now, governing with them is not an option.  It's the reality of having to deal with them now that will not go away anytime soon.

    I know that some Progressives are really upset with the President putting chained CPI on the table.  But as the Krauthammer and Cassidy pieces have pointed out, we Progressives need to fully understand and accept the circumstances that we find ourselves in with respect to the Legislative Branch of our current government.

    I don't like the President having to put things on the table that any reasonable Progressive or Democrat knows is pointless in the grand scheme of things.  

    But the reality here is that we have been bamboozled.  A few members of the wealthy, but BSC conservative 1% have successfully bankrolled their way into the State and Local levels of legislative government.  As a result, the people that they paid for have changed the rules with the help of the last Census to dishonestly and immorally reconfigure Congressional districts to effectively disenfranchise half of the American population in many of the 'red' states.

    This trick will have severe consequences until 2020 and may effectively change our political landscape for generations.

    I think it's time we all start talking about this fact as well as to discuss what the hell we are going to do about this because we cannot allow the fanaticism of the few to damage all the rest of us.  

    More importantly, we must resist becoming such a faction that requires being marginalized.  

    Therefore, being upset with the President's compromise is understandable and just.  We just can't afford having some of us marginalize ourselves given the current situation with the GOP.

  •  I keep hoping (0+ / 0-)

    that perhaps a few of the saner rethugs (assuming there are any left) might see the light and switch to Dem - would only need around a dozen and we'd have Speaker Pelosi again!

    Atheism is a religion like Abstinence is a sexual position. - Bill Maher, 2/3/2012

    by sleipner on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:11:40 AM PST

  •  Fwiw, I posted the LaTourette comment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, Larsstephens

    ...almost when he made it. LaTourette has said it before too, on CNN with Soledad O'Brien.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site