What Brings Democrats and Republicans Together: A White President?

obama biden pelosi

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden talk with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi following their meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Oval Office to discuss ongoing efforts to find a balanced approach to the debt limit and deficit reduction, Saturday, July 30, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Now that the national debt ceiling has been raised, and the country has averted economic catastrophe, it really is necessary to process and analyze what a small band of obstructionists have put the nation through.

This debt ceiling debate, usually a pro forma act of Congress, took on a political – largely ideological – tone of huge proportions. Why is that?

The last President, George W. Bush, raised the debt ceiling seven times without as much as a peep out of Congress. The federal deficit was spiraling out of control at that time too…so much so that by the time Bush left office, the economy was in a free-fall. More debt had to be taken on just to keep the economy from crashing…and burning.

Both parties, the Republican-controlled Congress before the 2006 mid-term elections, and the Democrat-controlled Congress after 2006 mid-term elections, accommodated then President Bush’s request.

Then Barack Obama became President, and a national movement ensued to “take our country back.”

The movement calls itself “The Tea Party,” named after the taxation revolt of 1767 that occurred after King George III and Parliament put the Stamp Act on the colonists. The colonist then dressed up as Mohawk Indians and threw tea shipments into the Boston Harbor in protest. The modern-day Tea Party hadn’t been taxed, nor had they been dictated to. They simply reacted to the election of the nation’s first black President and immediately sought to obstruct anything he tried to do from its inception.

Let’s not act as if this four-month debt ceiling debate, one of the most disruptive and intense debates about the economy ever, was not about President Obama. It was ALL about President Barack Obama (more on this later). But have the country’s economic problems been resolved as a result of this protracted debate? The common consensus is, “NO!” So what will it take to bring the two parties together?

Let’s be clear: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were held hostage by a relatively small band of political mavericks who have gained critical mass in the Congress. They are not so large that they can take over either chamber of Congress, but they proved that they are not so small that they can be dismissed by at least one chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives.

Well, who are the Tea Partiers in Congress? That’s where it gets a little fuzzy. In 2010, they were 87 Republicans newly elected to Congress, filling 63 seats in the House that were previously held by Democrats and 24 seats that were held by Republicans. This was the largest shift of party control in history and, by and large, has been seen as a backlash to the election of Obama, or his Health Care reform initiative named, by the Tea Partiers, “Obamacare.”

Many of them ran against incumbents, and received little backing from either of the two major parties, so now that they are in Congress, they don’t feel beholden to either party; they clearly have the most leverage in the Republican Party. This was demonstrated when President Obama and Speaker John Boehner made a sincere effort to do the “big deal” to address some real problems in reducing the deficit.

The Tea Party, the Republican mavericks, killed the deal because Boehner couldn’t herd them in. The Tea Party drove the debt ceiling debate all the way until the end, but not before trying to pass a temporary extension that would expire in the middle of the 2012 Presidential election. This was their shot at trying to derail Obama’s re-election hopes with another artificial debate about taxes.

The Republican Party is now being held hostage by the Tea Party. Fifty two of the newly elected Republicans have officially signed on to the Tea Party caucus and the rest acknowledge that the Tea Party movement assisted their election in part, if not in total. They are highly sympathetic to the Tea Party position, as Tea Partiers vote with the Republican Party, but in the most extreme of policies associated with the Republicans far right wing.

The Tea Party has emerged as the most radicalized segment of American politics. And they are only relevant because they could obstruct a critical vote, at a critical time, when the country needed to address it. They leveraged the media by sharing the President’s spotlight on a critical predicament.

They also have very highly racialized sensibilities amongst their constituents. So much so, if there is another race movement in America, the Tea Party will be at the front of it. I feel safe to say that the rise of the Tea Party wouldn’t have taken place had we had a white president. Blink if you want to…but the fact this has not happened to any other President has raised my “Race-dar,” beyond anything ideological battles could muster. Race(ism) has not disappeared in this country. It’s just been codified.

Politics is compromise, and pragmatism should always prevail when the national interest is at stake. It did for the two wars that increased the deficit and it should have now that it is time to pay the piper. America is not going to survive without increased tax revenues. All the economists say it. But these “lay legislators” (common folk representing “the people” in Congress) know more than the economists. I don’t think so.

The President offered up cuts in exchange for taxing the rich and closing corporate tax loopholes. The President was left hanging. And so was Boehner. And so were the American people. The Tea Partiers claim they are not about “politics as usual,” but they proved they are about politics. It was a classic filibuster without a reasonable expectation of compromise, like the Dixiecrats in years past used to filibuster civil rights bills without one inch of give. Same thing. The only difference was that they filibustered taxing the rich, the President’s request and the Democrats in Congress caved on it under the deadline. So, we got $2.4 trillion in spending cuts and not much else. And the Tea Party claims victory.

anthony samad

The American people should be asking why would Tea Partiers get in a game and ask for somebody to throw them the ball, then just hold it? We are foolish to believe that this was just about ideology. We need to stop playing ignorant about race realities in America. Wonder what a white president would have gotten?

Or if he (or she) would have had to go through this at all?

Anthony Samad
The Black Commentator 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. Thomas says

    First of all genius, it’s not the ‘Tea’ Party, It’s the ‘TEA’ Party. TEA is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. Tea is an aromatic beverage prepared by adding cured leaves of the Camellia sinensis plant to hot water.
    “I feel safe to say that the rise of the Tea Party wouldn’t have taken place had we had a white president.” No, the rise came about because of a Democratic controlled White House, House, and Senate that was increasing spending and deficits. Didn’t Obama get elected with white votes too? Seems to me a statement like that proves racism is still being kept alive and not by the white people (look at the support for Herman Cain). If Cain were a Democrat, he wouldn’t be under attack like he is. Obama is trying to undermine the Constitution and bring us to socialist nation, like Russia. It’s not Obama’s blackness we object to, it’s his redness.

  2. Jack Black says

    Don’t blame Barack Obama’s failures on racism or the color of his skin. The problem is that our Democratic president is probably a stealth Republican, and he’s driven away even his most ardent supporters.

    Republican policies, including those that are dismantling the hard won protections of the New Deal and deregulation of the financial industry, are what have finally brought this once great country to its knees. Obama is the icing on Bush’s cake. He was elected with the biggest mandate of our lifetimes, with democratic majorities on both sides of Congress, but he turned his back on America’s working and middle classes. He tricked us into believing he was on our side, and then he continued, no, he actually reinforced and expanded the Bush policies that destroyed the economy. Oil barons and Wall Street own our government. We’re fighting wars to make the rich richer. And we’re slowly losing our middle class.

    Our country has been here before. When the 19th century robber barons hijacked the economy, we managed to stop them, and we proceeded to build excellent protections for America’s workers, including minimum pay, workplace safety rules, unemployment protection and child labor laws. But a new set of Wall Street banksters and oil and insurance industry tycoons have hijacked our government again. When a real Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, he presided over the worse economic crisis our country had ever faced, the Great Depression. FDR stood by the little guy, and enacted policies that gave us functional solutions. His inauguration and fireside chats calmed the nation, then his actions inspired us and led us through the recovery. He had no problem clarifying how the financial crash had happened, specifically stating who and what caused it. He promised to use our country’s resources to put Americans back to work, and then he followed up with real action and solid public policy, building the infrastructure we still utilize today. He promises to disempower the people who had caused the crisis, and he followed up with policy that made good on that promise. As a result, he was supported by the general public and villainized by the super wealthy. The concentration of wealth that occurred was dangerous in 1928, and is even more dangerous today. FDR and Teddy Roosevelt both worked tirelessly to enact reform and exercise federal regulatory power over the banks, trusts and railroads. Bush I and II have since dismantled those protections, and the Obama Administration has made them even less useful by funneling money and power to the very people who caused the current crisis.

    When we elected Barack Obama, we thought he could lead us away from the banksters and thieves who are stealing our nation’s wealth. But unlike FDR and Teddy Roosevelt, Obama seems more intent on dismantling the middle class and making the super rich even richer. Instead of naming and indicting the people who destroyed our economy, he put them in charge of it. When faced with the greatest economic inequality and the worse corporate influence on politics our country has ever seen, Barack Obama is choosing to give our opponents everything they want, and more. Bipartisan compromise? No, it’s more like he’s on their side and just giving lip service to us little guys who voted for him. The recent debt ceiling debacle indicates that Obama wants to prove his hero Ronald Reagan’s infamous quote about government – that it is the problem, not the solution to our problems. Reagan was wrong, but only if our Democratic leaders make it so. We need our President to find that solution, not bargain away everything that could have helped us if only he was strong enough to stand up for the common American.

    When faced with the mortgage and real estate crisis that could have been solved simply by giving homeowners government loans (as Democrats did with the federal HOLC program during the Great Depression), Obama chose to give banks bailouts instead. Many of us lost or are losing our homes while banksters rake in record profits and refuse to help homeowners, even though our tax money is used to not just keep banks afloat, but to help them garner even more lobbying power over our government.

    In order to go down in history as the man who gave us Universal Health Care, he chose to turn his back on true UHC and stuck us with forced health insurance payments instead. Now, rather than just paying for health care for ourselves and the poor, we’ll have to pay an extra 30% overhead so rich insurance investors can get richer off our medical costs. He made a deal with the insurance and medical industry to ensure we’d never have real UHC, then spent the next eight months lying to us by saying he’d make sure we at least have the “public option.” Then he turned around last minute and trashed the public option, claiming we needed to compromise and rush to get his “Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act” passed. Compromise? No, it’s a gift to the insurance companies beyond their wildest dreams. Unfortunately, it screws the middle class by forcing us pay for Universal Health INSURANCE instead of universal health CARE. Now we’ll never get UHC, and the cost of health care will skyrocket as the rich investors rake in the profits. The “for profit” model of health care could have been dismantled last year, and instead, Obama’s trickery and secrecy cemented it in place until the economy collapses.

    How many people lost a huge percentage of their retirement savings after Obama’s wishy washy attempts to make nice with Republicans over the debt ceiling? We need our government to find a solution that helps the middle and working class, not the superrich. Republicans are now dismantling unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent, fork-tongued justifications after bargaining it away. Instead of taxing the superrich, Congress has found a sneaky way to have six members establish policy that will destabilize the middle and working classes even more by downgrading Social Security and Medicare. Apparently neither party is inclined to slash subsidies to agribusiness or oil companies, but Congress and our President are more than willing to destroy the social security systems that took good Americans decades to build. We’ll know more this fall when the six member inaptly named Super Congress presents us with policy that goes against most of what the public agrees on: That in today’s economic crisis, millionaires ought to be sharing the burden, not receiving government subsidies.

    His steadfast dedication to making the rich richer is trumped only by his lack of leadership on social issues. He talks out both sides of his mouth on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice, but of which are used by the right wing fundraise and inspire homophobes to vote for Republicans. LGBT citizens, like the black community before them, deserve equality and will soon have it. Why let the GOP continue to use it against Democrats over and over? Establish equal rights for LGBT citizens and move on. Obama should have taken a strong CIC role in eliminating DADT, and should have pushed to repeal DOMA in his first year. By 2012, gay marriage would have been a non-issue. Instead, it’ll be used against Democratic candidates again during a crucial presidential election year.

    Obama handed the Republicans another gift in Dec 2010. The secret deal he made makes you wonder if he’s afraid to stand up to the Republicans, or if he’s really on their side. Either way, the Bush tax cuts for the rich are now the Obama tax cuts for the rich. Obama’s lack of leadership just resulted in huge losses to Americans with retirement savings invested in Wall Street. While he was pussy footing around with the debt ceiling, our country’s credit rating was being trashed.

    Let’s be honest. In spite of the racism in the Tea Party and elsewhere, Obama’s problems are not essentially about race. They’re due to a leadership vacuum. He’s just not willing to create or support policy that helps the average American. Obama is making the rich richer while the rest of us suffer. He fooled us all. Almost everything he said to get elected is a farce. From his war mongering that props up war profiteers and the oil industry, including OPEC’s illegal price manipulations, to the Obama health care scam that will force us to buy insurance instead of health care (including paying for insurance for the poor, propping up the insurance industry rather than paying 30% less via Medicaid and Medicare) to his lack of leadership on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice, it’s now clear that we need to primary this president before he and the Repubs destroy America’s middle class.

    What does any of this have to do with Obama’s race? That’s right – Nothing! His skin color is not what made him turn his back on the millions of people who HOPED he would lead us. He’s simply not the leader we need at this crucial time in the history of our fledgling democracy. If we don’t primary him, then we at least need to demand he change his leadership role to one that supports the middle and working classes over the super rich who have bought and sold our government.

    I guess the only question left to answer is how can the people lead when we have such a lame leader standing in our way?

  3. says

    As Samad notes, ideologues of the Tea Party (henceforth in brief TP, just like that bathroom convenience) are as uncompromising as the racist Dixiecrats. However, that commonality of in-your-face attitude is no evidence that racism is the TP folks’ motivation.

    On the contrary, the TP outcries and focus didn’t and don’t depend at all on who is president. The TP folk would hardly have been deterred by another 2008 choice of president (e.g. Hillary Clinton, or John McCain).

    You know, we were through this government shut-down chicken game all before with Newt Gingrich vs Bill Clinton. Bill prevailed not because he had paler skin than Barack but because he had common sense enough not to be seen month after month as readily bullied. But almost two decades later, the GOP and TP extremists figured (correctly) that this time they could get their way (or anyhow a good part of it) with a now-demonstrably wimp president (whose compulsive masochism – if indeed he actually even means to be a Democrat – is in part detailed by commenter Hernandez).

    Contra commenter In_awe, there’s nothing particularly ‘reality based’ about the TP budget games. The TP (and long-time Republican) dogma is that, except for government-sponsored destruction (military and wars) and some police-state activity, everything else government does is inherently evil. In fact, most of the House’ actual and attempted funding cuts – penny-ante in comparison with the overall budget – are aimed at little other than attacking and destroying whatever common-sense solutions – for good science, public health, and sound environmental practice and resource conservation – happen to be modestly supported by federal government efforts.

    Like Republicans and especially TP folks, commenter In-awe glibly mentions ‘entitlements’ – and cutting them – as though the entitlement concept is somehow either bad or at best neutral and disposable. In point of fact, many ‘entitlements’ are largely independently funded – or would be, if politicians didn’t raid their piggy banks.

    More important, whether independently funded or not, a government ‘entitlement’ can be and often is a much needed and very positive tool for socio-economic justice. By use of such a tool, we as a society guarantee that folks can meet their minimum basic needs. The guarantee arises because we act not from mere optional feelings of charity but from legally binding recognition of our mutual rights and obligations as fellow human beings.

    Taxes, spending and entitlements together amount to some government-sponsored redistribution of wealth. Progressives are correct to emphasize that such redistribution is required for social justice and thereby for a stable and well-governed society.

    What limits should be set on taxation, spending and entitlements? We can and must try to discuss the matter rationally. But rational discussion is difficult with true believers in the notion that it’s the wealthiest folks who most merit not being taxed.

    • in_awe says

      Thanks for your reply. we obviously come at this issue from quite different starting points, but in the end we must collaborate in finding a middle ground. I dare say that the left is no more flexible in its demands than the right.

      At some point there must be an agreement on the absolute facts in the area of discussion – setting aside political rhetoric in order to engender cooperation, to whit:

      - Republicans do not consider everything in government aside from military and “police state activity” as evil. Truthfully, most conservatives agree with probably 75%+ of government functions. The left’s meme that the right wants no government at all is just silly and a distraction from the discussion of what is essential and what is discretionary as far as government roles are concerned. If we compare the current breadth and scope of government in our society and economy today with its role 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago we can see the breathtaking growth of government. With the federal budget spending twice what was spent ten years ago you must agree that there are at least some new roles that can be reviewed.

      - Entitlements are only partially funded by beneficiary contributions and actually represent huge cross generational wealth transfers and mostly are unconstrained by means testing. Those who will bear the burden in the future of funding these behemoth programs have no say in the type and number of benefits being distributed. Are all entitlement programs bad – no, they aren’t – nor are they all good. The idea that there can be no modifications to entitlement programs is a non-starter relative to addressing the fiscal crisis we are facing as a nation. Liberals must face that reality.

      - The thought that somehow the rich pay no taxes and the conservative dupes don’t get that is belied by every IRS report for the past 30 years showing percentage of tax revenues paid by income band. This is just another fact that the left conveniently ignores. We have all seen the source of tax revenues with the likes of 70% are paid by the top 10% and 95% by the top 25% of earners (you can Google to get the latest actual numbers). Now are there modifications to the tax scheme that are warranted to deal with corporate loopholes and politically driven tax breaks to the likes of agribusinesses and ethanol producers and oil companies – of course! At the same time that fact that we are a year or two away from half the income earning population from not paying any income taxes at all is societally destructive and dangerous.

      - The proposition that if only we tax the rich more everything will be just fine and dandy is ridiculous. Check out “Eat the Rich” and see how confiscating not only 100% of their income over $250K but all their assets, along with all the profits of the Fortune 500, etc. would balance the budget for a single year…then what do you do? The nonsense about corporate jet tax breaks was a joke. What Obama proposed, just so you know, was to extend the depreciable life of the jet from 5 years to 7 years which would generate <$300MM per year in timing adjusted taxes – it wouldn't increase taxes on jet by a penny. And that is the crap that the left screams about? Really? When will people in DC get serious?

      - The social programs in this country have ratcheted up in number and expenditures inexorably since the mid-1960's with no appreciable positive outcome as measured by reductions in poverty numbers or other social benefits. Must there always be expansion? Are any benefits worthy of scrutiny? No? Seriously?

      - As for taxes, who on the left will kindly define what everyone else's "fair share"? What level of confiscation of other people's money (actually their life since most taxpayers trade their time for money) is "fair" as seen by the left?

      Until we stop screaming at each and start talking with each other no progress will be made and that will lead to our collective doom. Peace.

  4. in_awe says

    “The last President, George W. Bush, raised the debt ceiling seven times without as much as a peep out of Congress. The federal deficit was spiraling out of control at that time too…so much so that by the time Bush left office, the economy was in a freefall. More debt had to be taken on just to keep the economy from crashing…and burning.”

    As Daniel Patrick Moynihan used say – you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Somehow your statement doesn’t quite pass the snicker test. As a matter of fact, even Obama issued one of his great missives about the irresponsibility of increasing the debt limit when it came up for approval under Bush. Somehow I missed the part of the decade where the Democrats were the puppets of George Bush. Would you care to do a review of the contemporaneous news articles about how the debt ceiling was raised “without a peep” from Congress?

    Now on to the point about the economy spiraling out of control. Really? Care to look at the increases in GDP and employment under Bush right up to the point where the Democrats took control of Congress – then look again at those indicators afterward? Seems to me that Democrat control of the government is the cause of the downward spiral.

    Which of the Bush era initiatives did Obama and the Democrats oppose? The prescription drug plan? Doubling the size of the Department of Education? Housing programs to give down payments to minorities and leverage lenders to drop mortgage underwriting standards? Increases in social security and medicare benefits? If they opposed them, why haven’t they been repealed in the last 4 years when the Dems held majorities in Congress? Like it or not – what we are living is the natural result of ratcheting progressive social policies that no Democrat opposed and for them to carp about them now is laughable.

    “Let’s not act as if this four-month debt ceiling debate, one of the most disruptive and intense debates about the economy ever, was not about President Obama. It was ALL about President Barack Obama (more on this later). But have the country’s economic problems been resolved as a result of this protracted debate? The common consensus is, “NO!” So what will it take to bring the two parties together?”

    Yes, Obama is THE fiscal conservative who has tried non-stop to get America to deal with its out of control deficits – we get that. Er, wait … what was in Obama’s budget in January…oh yeah, endlessly increasing annual deficits and a doubling of the national debt over the next decade. They was no 4 month long debate. there was a four month stalling action by Obama to get us to the precipice and create the crisis we have just endured.. It makes for great campaign fodder for him. Only problem is that it backfired on him. While the Dems have failed to pass a budget for over two years and refuse to even support Obama’s feted special fiscal commission’s recommendations, the republicans have been doing yeoman’s duty passing budgets, passing proposals to address the debt and the deficit. What have the Dems produced? Nada! Nothing! Zilch!

    The Tea Party killed the deal because Boehner couldn’t herd in the party’s mavericks. The Tea Party drove the debt ceiling debate all the way until the end, but not before trying to pass a temporary extension that would expire in the middle of the 2012 Presidential elections. This was their shot at trying to derail Obama’s re-election hopes with another artificial debate about taxes.

    You think the Tea Party is calling was happened a victory? The are pi$$ed off about the result. What happened? Congress approved the largest increase in the debt ceiling EVER, agreed to adding $10-$12Trillion to the national debt. Real Tea Party goals, eh? Get serious. Artificial debate about taxes. Well, yeah it is artificial since the the real issue is uncontrolled spending and entitlements. Don’t believe me – believe the rating agencies who said avoiding a down grade of the debt rating required a credible $4Trillion in spending cuts. What did Obama and the Dems force through? Spending increases. Yep, damn those Tea Party radicals!!

    “The Tea Party has emerged as the most radicalized segment of American politics. And they are only relevant because they could obstruct a critical vote, at a critical time, when the country needed to address it. They leveraged the media by sharing the President’s spotlight on a critical predicament.”

    Laughable on its face. If you don’t think that the Obama, Reid, Pelosi cabal wasn’t (isn’t) the most radicalized, then you live in an alternate universe.

    “They also have very highly racialized sensibilities amongst their constituents. So much so, if there is another race movement in America, the Tea Party will be at the front of it. I feel safe to say that the rise of the Tea Party wouldn’t have taken place had we had a white president. Blink if you want to…but the fact this has not happened to any other President has raised my “Race-dar,” beyond anything ideological battles could muster. Race(ism) has not disappeared in this country. It’s just been codified.”

    Despicable comment. race baiting at its worst. Any administration that pursued Obama’s policies with his arrogance and citizens be damned attitude would get EXACTLY the same reception. It’s the economy stupid…and federal spending policies that matter, not who is in the suit. If more race baiting is your best argument, you may as well close up shop and go home, cuz nobody is buying that trash anymore. You’re past your expiration date.

    “Politics is compromise, and pragmatism should always prevail when the national interest is at stake. It did for the two wars that increased the deficit and it should have now that it is time to pay the piper. America is not going to survive without increased tax revenues. All the economists say it. But these “lay legislators” (common folk representing “the people” in Congress) know more than the economists. I don’t think so.”

    “Elections have consequences”, “I WON”, “They can come along but they get to sit in the back of the bus”, “We’ll have to pass the bill for you to see what is in it”, “Sit down and shut up”, “Constitution? Are you serious!?”.”They are terrorists” “They are pushing grandma off a cliff to save the fatcats”..oh, the quotes from the Dems expressing their sincere concern for compromise are legion … I hope you were laughing as you typed your comment because even you couldn’t be serious about what you wrote.

    “The President offered up cuts in exchange for taxing the rich and closing corporate tax loopholes. The President was left hanging.”

    Oh my! The President offered up anything and everything then retracted them again. Show me a printed summary from the WH about Obama’s offers. Oops! There is none. All speeechifying and hot air. Nothing substantive – just “a willingness to consider cuts to entitlements” at some point in the future. Remember Popeye’s friend Wimpy who promised to pay Thursday for a hamburger today? Wimpy, you have been one-upped by the President.

    Obama and Boehner agreed to$800Billion in new tax revenues on Thursday night, then Friday afternoon Obama said no deal – it has to be $1.2Trillion in tax revenues or it is no go. A 50% increase overnight in an already agreed upon deal. Great way to engender trust there Mr. President. No wonder Boehner gave up trying to negotiate with Obama.

    Remember the $36Bilion deal in April that the Dems said would eviscerate safety net programs and turn the clock back to darker days, but they were being held hostage and had to agree to it. Heck we had headlines for weeks about the wicked republicans. As it turned out actually amounted a $300Million actual reduction i spending. Let’s just say conservatives were not amused.

    “The American people should be asking why would Tea Partiers get in a game and ask for somebody to throw them the ball, then just hold it? We are foolish to believe that this was just about ideology. We need to stop playing ignorant about race realities in America. Wonder what a white president would have gotten?”

    No, the Tea Party doesn’t want to just hold the ball – they want to change the game to one that is reality based. You know, one like the rating agencies pointed out is necessary for this nation to SURVIVE. Stop the race baiting, it is beyond old. The sane members of this society would issue notice to a white President (or a black President) that he would face impeachment if he continued to pursue such economically ruinous policies.

  5. Eugene Hernandez says

    What a bunch of bullshit Anthony Samad says that no white president would have the Tea Party. The reason that the right is so powerful is that Obama is so competent as a President. If he had played his cards right, Obama could have evoked the 14th Amendment to raise the Debt ceiling. Instead he backtrack beyond what the Republicans were asking for it was he and Steny Hoyer who advocated putting Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block, instead of asking for military cuts, like ending the Libya War or ending our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. It takes guts for Samad to bring up the race card to justify defending Obama.

    • Pancho Valdez says

      The Tea baggers were not alone in this betrayal of the American people. Before the budget battle even began Obama in his usual style was giving away the family farm (Medicaid, Medicare & Social Security) offering up these precious and hard won entitlements to appease the right wing horde.

      I agree wholeheartedly that Obama should have made REAL cuts to the military! Why do we need over 800 bases across the globe? Why are we still fighting in Afghanistan against an enemy we obviously cannot defeat and still supporting a drug lord as the governmental leadership? How does one “humanely” bomb the Libyan people?

      It is without a doubt that the tea baggers despise Obama because of his race, but Obama in his eagerness to be “accepted” cannot and will not see racism for what it is. Oh yeah, poverty is the other subject matter that Obama cannot seem to fathom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *