This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on
December 23, 2010 12:29 PM.
The previous post in this blog was
Where the treetops glisten.
The next post in this blog is
Heavenly peace.
Many more can be found on the
main index page or by looking through
the archives.
Comments (8)
What exactly did the Republians "compromise" on? They got their number one thing before even taking office.
The missle treaty, the gay thing, and the 9/11 health care bill should have easily passed months ago. No credit for getting routine stuff done late.
How's Guantanamo coming?
Posted by Mike D | December 23, 2010 1:29 PM
Good stuff.
Posted by Joey | December 23, 2010 2:30 PM
What the D's got for the 2 year extension of the high income bracket tax cuts was the extension of all the rest of the tax cuts, plus the FICA partial holiday and the unemployment insurance extension. Many people, including me, believe Obama should have been able to get those things anyway, but the Senate rules made that unlikely. Some of the same people, not including me, believe Obama should have at least threatened to let all the tax cuts expire, and let the unemployment insurance lapse, and then pinned the blame for the resulting hardship and economic decline on the republicans. Its hard to see how that tactic, however satisfying psychically, would have produced a more satisfactory result. The fundamental problem here is not a feckless president. It is a corrupt Senate.
Posted by Allan L. | December 23, 2010 4:42 PM
Exactly, Allan.
As Obama aptly put it, when it came right down to it, he wasn't willing to let the hostages die in order to uphold the principle of not negotiating with terrorists. Were the Republicans bluffing in their stated disregard for the interests of the unemployed and the middle class and their championing of the super-rich? Astoundingly, probably not. How a major political party can flourish when it doesn't care at all for the economic interests of the great majority of citizens is beyond me.
All that said, I don't let Obama off the hook entirely for allowing himself to be put in the position of having to negotiate with terrorists with the bomb about to go off.
Posted by Richard | December 23, 2010 7:12 PM
Richard says:
"As Obama aptly put it, when it came right down to it, he wasn't willing to let the hostages die in order to uphold the principle of not negotiating with terrorists."
Hmmm, sounds like the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages deal. Bad when Reagan did it, but more noble when The One does it. LOL!
"How a major political party can flourish when it doesn't care at all for the economic interests of the great majority of citizens is beyond me."
Hmmm, maybe the largest mid-term electoral victory in more than half a century would give you a clue as to why said party can flourish. Can you say rebuked? More LOL!!
Keep 'em coming Richard...
Posted by Larry | December 23, 2010 11:16 PM
I guess you have to have that Faux News conditioning to make arms smuggling look just like voting on tax legislation.
Posted by JerryB | December 24, 2010 12:20 AM
Yeah, I think someone needs to tell Larry about the concept of a metaphor.
Yet more LOL.
Posted by Richard | December 24, 2010 1:44 AM
Looks like somebody got some new talking points for Christmas!
Posted by Roger | December 24, 2010 9:28 AM