Well, the Republicans, and some Democrats called the President and the Far Left’s bluff yesterday, voting down the Raise the Taxes on the rich so their base of the loonie left get that message.
But, of course that wouldn’t be the message. Most Democrats said that showed them siding with “millionaires and billionaires” over the middle class. (NYT)
And that was the symbolic gesture they wanted, to toss some red meat to their psychotic base before they allow themselves to be bribed into going along with something else.
Call it the sugar pill before the medicine.
Now, though, comes the bribery. What will it cost us taxpayers to buy off the Democrats and their class warfare this time. It certainly will not go away. It’s all they really have anymore.
“I feel like I am in the twilight zone,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. “It’s depressing to me that we have gotten to this level of posturing, that they are saying if you do not give people a tax break on their second million, that nobody gets one.”
The Democrats posturing, excluded, of course. 🙂
And let’s not forget the paternal contempt of the Left:
Sen. Schumer, pressing for his proposal (to make the cap $1 million), said: “It’s not that we want to punish wealthy people. We want to praise them. But they’re doing fine, and they’re not going to spend the money and stimulate the economy.”
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him 🙂 It surely wasn’t the other way around. 🙂
Right now there is little goodwill on the left toward the president. Liberals are up in arms amid talk of compromise on extending the George W. Bush tax cuts for all Americans, rather than allowing rates to rise for the wealthiest. They see Obama today as weak, vacillating and lacking either convictions or the gumption to fight for the principles they believe got him elected. They want a fighter in the White House who will put the Republicans in their place.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), an unabashed liberal, was quoted last week as saying that if Obama caves on tax cuts, “he’s going to have a lot of swimming upstream” to do. Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher accused Obama of “cynical charades” in his discussions about a compromise on tax cuts and unemployment insurance. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called Obama’s freeze on federal workers’ pay “transparently cynical.”
But other Democrats see dangers in a strategy of confrontation and argue that an alternative approach can win back the independent Democrats lost last month.
Liberals may be disillusioned, but they still voted for Democrats in the midterms. Independents defected in significant numbers. Many are worried about the president’s policies, and many think he has failed to fulfill his promise to reduce partisanship and change the way Washington works. They want results and expect cooperation between the parties.
What is the right strategy for Obama to regain the political initiative and put his presidency back on track? Should he hold firm, push a liberal agenda and provoke fights with the Republicans, as Truman did? That would reenergize his liberal base and sharpen his profile with the public.
Or should he be a conciliator, as Clinton tried to be, cooperating when possible with congressional Republicans but resisting when he believes they have gone too far right? That might show the Republicans as obstructionists and bring independents back to his side heading toward 2012. (Washington Post)
Well, this independent won’t be back if he plays cynical political games. But at least the left now sees the weakness that we all saw more than 2 years ago.
Only they see it for their own ideology, not reality. As usual.