Tweet
Ryan Lizza, writing in the New Yorker, falls for some pretty disingenous spin from Barack Obama:
“I think we have a very real difference on Iraq,” he went on, citing Clinton’s public statements and her support of the Senate resolution, co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, which was intended to warn Iran about meddling in Iraq. “She believes that our force structure in Iraq should in part be designed to blunt the impact of Iran in Iraq. I think that is too broad a mission and I think sending that signal to the Bush Administration while they’re still in office potentially gives them cover to engage in more aggressive military action.”
But the truth is, Obama didn’t show up for the vote on Kyl-Lieberman, a bellicose monstrosity that Jim Webb called “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.” His full-throated opposition only came after he saw which way the wind was blowing for Hillary Clinton; he doesn’t get to play “profiles in courage” with 20/20 hindsight. (Don’t worry, I whacked Clinton for her Kyl-Lieberman vote on Washington Journal the other day, too. Nobody gets a pass on that horrible piece of legislation.)
Lizza gets suckered on Social Security, too:
A potential crisis in the Social Security system is a long way off. Why, then, would a new President spend political capital on yet another tax hike when he will almost certainly seek to undo the Bush tax cuts for more immediate demands, like universal health care? When I asked Obama about this, he smiled and leaned forward, as if eager to explain that my premise was precisely the politically calibrated approach that he wanted to challenge. “What I think you’re asserting is that it makes sense for us to continue hiding the ball,” Obama said, “and not tell the American people the truth —”
“The truth” is that there is no Social Security crisis; defeating privatization was one of the few public relations wars the Democrats won over the past 7 years, and Obama shows himself willing to open up a very dangerous door again to pander for old people’s votes. (It makes you wonder — does he just not know how the game is played, or is it that he simply doesn’t care?)
I don’t blame Obama for trying to pull a cheap carney act on a gullible journalist — there’s one born every minute, as the saying goes. But Lizza seems to be a consistently easy mark.
(photo by – ART -)
129 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Second again?
Well, how’s that for luck.
Be back after I inform downstairs and read the post!
FunnyDiva
Funnydiva2002 @ 1
looks to me like you are number one
congratulations, now go downstairs and link to your zed
Okay, I am absolutely done with the “Obama missed the vote” crap. Harry Reid personally assured Obama that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment would not come up for a vote for several days. He sprung it on the floor, giving senators only a few hours to be available. Obama couldn’t make it back from his campaign stop in time.
it’s stunning that this kind of pablum appears in the new yorker.
they’re usually vastly better than this.
Obama deserves to be rapped for missing that vote. Blaming Reid is weak tea.
The Democratic front runners have not shown the kind of leadership they should be on this stuff.
The more Obama opens his mouth, the less I like him. He does have more spunk than I initially gave him credit for, though.
Hillary ain’t growing on me neither. (For those who are unfamiliar, I started out not liking her.)
Liked seeing Edwards at today’s NYC WGA rally. Probably the closest I’ll ever come to a prez candidate.
i do.
i don’t like being bullshit by anyone, and especially not politicians when they are talking about subjects important to me.
Embee @ 4
That would be fine if it was the only time. It wasn’t. Obama has missed several important votes this year.
sorry for the OT
Joe Biden is NewsHour’s candidate interview, just starting
not only is there no crisis, it is one of the most succesful program in our history
this administration’s only goal is to privatize everything
they are trying to privatize our military too, that’s why they are trying to break it, their “wet dream” is making it impossible to have our armed forces and instead have their friends provide our “security”
their sick “economic philosophy” has failed everywhere they’ve tried it, yet they keep at it
why?
because they know they can market their program after a catastrophy and then steal the treasure of that country and their people
this is their plan, it is their only plan, they don’t want public roads, they don’t want public bridges, they want private corporations to own our water works, our armed forces, our infrastructure, our everything.
Embee @ 4
is that true? do you have link with some evidence? ‘cuz if you do, i will happily retract my statement.
Embee @ 4
Good comment. It’s important that we are accurate in our reporting because we know that the repubs and Joe Klein won’t be. Thanks
Joe-Bama!
Jane,
Great analysis. I think you hit it on the screws (that’s a home run if you never heard that expression before).
He’s my Senator and this is the exact reason I don’t support him.
Thank you
perris @ 3
Thanks, and Waaaaaaay ahead of ya!
XO
FunnyDiva
Loved this comment from you, btw!
I don’t blame Obama for trying to pull a cheap carney act on a gullible journalist — there’s one born every minute, as the saying goes. But Lizza seems to be a consistently easy mark.
Does anyone know if Lizza holds Joe Klein as a hero? Why can’t reporters spend a few minutes fact checking? It’s like they never heard of Teh Google.
Perris,
you iz on fffire today.
Privatize everything, and make it cost the people, what, 5-10x more than the gov’t program that actually works? I’m thinking what Blackwater pays contractors vs what the US military is paid.
Diss. Gusting.
(spit)
FunnyDiva
perris @ 11
Funnydiva2002 @ 16
thaNX, I knew it was going into the epu but I had to get it off my chest…’preciate it you funny diva you
Bit of a pattern for Obama. Ducking out on key votes. How’s that for leadership?
I hate to say it, but if he ever won the nomination, I’m not going to be able to vote for him.
I can’t forget all the testing of water that he did over the Sammy Alito nomination. What was to think about?
Obama, how about standing up for principles? How about taking an unpopular viewpoint that you know is right? I don’t think he’s got it in him.
selise @ 12
Follow the link. From CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..222754/291
If he didn’t duck the MoveOn vote and attempt to weasel out in the same way, I’d be more likely to believe his protestations.
Deleted by commenter, already addressed…
link
You kids are nuts. Absolutely nuts. He missed the vote due to scheduling (check the Congressional Record), but admits its a mistake. And please identify the two Senate sources. Until someone does, I’ll go with the Congressional Record (vote announced at 12:14; vote held at 12:44).
That’s the end of it.
Oh my, Frank Gaffney was OTT today. Won’t give him the traffic by linking to the original article, but you can read the relevant parts here:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerrepo…..13730.html
There is a projected social security shortfall. It can be totally fixed by such simple steps as changing the way the cost of living adjustment is computed- It is NOT a crisis. Medicar- on the other hand, DOES seem to be a crisis- and fixing it will not be easy…much depends on lowering medical costs- something that most don’t want to hear about.
apropos of discussion earlier, an observation: every post on here today, except the Blue America and the Romney hiring thing (already covered out the wazoo elsewhere), is framed as an attack on something someone else *said*.
Great analysis Jane!!!
Obama’s talking points on social security are just baffling. His own economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, wrote a paper showing that proposed reforms to social security would “lead to a massive increase in payments of financial fees to private financial management companies” — $940 billion worth of fees to be exact.
“For a worker at the average income level, the fees in privately managed accounts are likely to reduce the ultimate retirement value of their individual accounts by 20 percent for the intermediate case.”
So Obama’s own economic adviser knows that so-called social security reform is a Reverse Robin Hood raid on the U.S. Treasury that will steal $940 billion from seniors and give it to financial services companies and yet Obama continues to run with this ruinous meme.
I did a longer piece on this topic (here).
Um, been watching Ferris Bueller’s Day Off?
rwcole @ 26
Not sure if this is still true, but the Social Security “crisis” (2037?) is/was based on economic growth assumptions that are too low, like 1.8% growth/year. Higher growth pushes the day of reckoning into such a far distant future that it’s irrelevant for now.
You’re right about Medicare/Medicaid & all other medical costs in the economy. I’ve been focussing on that since 1991 and it’s like watching someone commit suicide in slow motion.
rwcole @ 26
I believe the projected shortfall is worse case scenario
but I have an even better idea to help extend it’s solvency even if their projections are correct
that being get BACK the funds that were taken from it’s surplus, get it back WITH dividends, get it back from the people who gave it away and from who they gave it too
that should do the trick for another generation right there
Obama treats being a senator like it’s a high-schooler’s part-time job.
Obama comtinues to underwhelm me. I was really hoping for more out of him, his charisma is undeniable.
But instead of rapping Reid over his alleged shennanigans over that vote, he’s doing his best to make political hay over the issue at another Dem candidate’s expense.
And has been pointed out, this is not the first important/controversial vote that Senator Obama has missed.
I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that by “that’s the end of it” you _don’t_ actually mean “I’m right and the rest of you ‘kids’ are wrong, so THERE.” That don’t fly around here.
FunnyDiva
Keith @ 24
eCAHNomics @ 30
ya, I believe they based their
liesprojections on a worst case scenario and then compared it to the private investment performance based on aliebest case scenarioin any event, either way, the best thing to do to begin with is have teh funds stolen from the program returned
i’m going to be counterintuitive here and come out in support of smart approaches to addressing the magincal 2017 when outlays begin to outstrip SS revenues. the fact of the matter is that the entire premise of our ‘there is no crisis’ talk stems from the assumption that the country’s balance sheet will be healthy enough to be able to absorb the redemption of the SS trust fund bonds. but as we can see in plain sight, our balance sheet is far from healthy and our extreme anti-tax sentiment implies that we’ll have a tough time fixing it. a smart approach would be to hammer this point home and present americans with a clear choice – either reforming our tax and expenditure policies or allwoing SS to fall off a cliff. we proved once that americans support SS – now lets help them make it an affirmative act of policy
selise @ 12
Look here. http://thinkonthesethings.word…..iran-vote/
In addition, the vote wasn’t even close (76-22) so what difference does it make? He made his opposition known. Should he have stayed in D.C. to cast a meaningless vote just to have “cred” with the netroots?
Just watched an excellent interview of John Edwards by Brian Williams on Nightly News. Excellent on both sides. I really give Williams high marks for the quality of his news coverage, the well-rounded, nuanced coverage. News for thinking Americans. Still glad I switched from Grandpa Charlie’s relentless cheerleading. [Williams says the full interview is at nightly.nbc.com]
Edwards strong and optimistic and direct. This man will make a great president. He stands on his own two feet, too, fighting with passion and doesn’t need “rock stars” to make his case for him. His own man. And it shows.
Edwards ‘08. The better choice.
Isn’t casting votes–”meaningless” or not–Obama’s job?
Embee @ 37
votes that weren’t close become closer when democrats show up, that makes defense of being on the wrong side more difficult
Time continues to dig Joe Klein’s hole deeper:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…../184622/62
Obama is not favoring privatization is he? I checked out his website and found nothing about social security at all.
Prairie Sunshine @ 38
Second that.
Keith @ 24
Kids? nuts…
eCAHNomics @ 44
Third
So, Perris
Do you think there’s any way to make an SS “lock box” work? And to put those (hypothetically) returned surplus funds back into it?
Seems like part of the problem is that money paid in to SS gets diverted to other initiatives when times are good, but not put to work to benefit the program’s long term health.
Does that make any sense? Am I hopelessly confused/ig’nant of the whole thing?
FunnyDiva
perris @ 35
rwcole @ 42
As close as he seems to RGJoe (and who the Hell knows what he thinks anymore), I wouldn’t be shocked to hear him talk about a hybrid of privatization.
Jane: I’ll bet that CNN’s two sources have endorsed Hillary.
Reid has repeatedly played games with votes like this. He changed the timing of the Mukasey vote so it would be held when all the senators running for president would miss it (a huge embarrassment to Chris Dodd, who’d come out aggressively against Mukasey and “didn’t show up” to vote against him. I was furious, until I found out what Reid had done; it looked like a move to get around Dodd’s hold and preventing a filibuster.
Now, it’s possible that Reid was doing some of the other candidates a favor (Hillary, perhaps) by arranging for them to miss the vote. But there’s a huge difference between missing the vote and voting for K-L.
Carson Daly–scab.
Barack Obama made a huge mistake not voting on Kyl-Lieberman, and journamilyzts should not let him get away with it. He’s got no grounds to criticize Clinton for her awful vote, and he can’t say to Edwards “Easy for you to say, you’re not in the Senate any more!”
Tactically, this was a terrible vote to miss. How could he not see the optics in not showing up?
It’s rookie mistakes like this that make me wary of Senator Obama. Ya gotta show up, dude. When it comes to stopping this preznit from making war on Iran, hope is not a plan.
With regard to Social Security, I don’t think TradMed’s getting suckered, Jane. They want this re-fought, again. The idea that the Democrats won anything during the Bush Administration is simply incomprehensible to them. Of course, you don’t hear Democrats bragging about it much either, and we should.
I haven’t checked in a while but the story on Social Security runs something like this.
The program is solvent until 2017.
At this point, the government starts paying back the surpluses which SS has been running. This is my principal gripe because the surpluses were really a backdoor tax on working Americans. They are gone, spent. The commitment to honor them remains, however, and will be repaid by raising income taxes or borrowing. This same commitment could have been made without the surpluses and would have saved ordinary Americans a couple of trillion dollars. Anyway this will keep the program solvent until around 2040.
In 2040, even if there are no further fixes to SS, the program will still be able to pay about 74% of its commitments.
So while there are some problems with Social Security, there is nothing pressing about them at least in the next 30 years.
Embee @ 37
I would love to have a link where Obama stated his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman in advance of the vote, because my recollection is that he didn’t. I could be totally wrong about that, however.
Funnydiva2002 @ 46
there are plenty of methods for getting the funds that were stolen returned
my favorite being to take social security tax exponetially from those incomes that were in the past exempt
I forget what the ceiling was but income over a certain amount doesn’t contribute, I want that income to not only contribute, but to contribute exponetially more then the lower brackets…until the coffers are replenished
and there would be no exemptions on that fee, that fee would come right off the top before deductions
and I wouldn’t call this “raising tax”
I would call it “re aquiring assets that were stolen instead of jailing the theives”
that would shut their face immediately about “tax increase”
newton
Obama close to Joe? How you figuring that one? The fact that you wouldn’t be surprised is not evidence that he favors privatization. Have you seen anything that indicates that he is? I favor Edwards so I’m not defending a favored candidate- but if we’re gonna bash a candidate it should be with facts.
sfalex @ 36
Well, I’m one of those who has been paying in all these to SS, increasing the amount needed in order to provide the “cushion” to support the time when out-go exceeded the income. So unlike Little Boots, I see that cabinet at SS Hdqts as a bit more than just “pieces of paper.” I see it as forcing them to fulfill the promise that has been made to me and all the rest of us as we paid that many in.
Oh, and while on paper Social Security is in good shape until the 2040s, the problem is that the trust fund doesn’t exist except on paper. Working people are currently paying “too much” FICA tax, to build up a surplus, but Bush gave that surplus away in the form of tax cuts to the rich. Younger people have good reason to worry about what happens in 2017-2018 when suddenly the trust fund needs to be paid back by the general fund. Where’s that money going to come from? It’s not like the trust fund has been invested.
FICA is a regressive tax; the working class pays a higher percentage than the rich. Obama proposes to address this injustice by raising the cap, to fix Warren Buffet’s complaint that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Some fear that re-opening the issue at all will help the Republicans destroy Social Security. But that’s a load of crap from people who are so used to losing that they fear discussing any issue, lest the Republicans drive in a wedge. Republicans will get hammered if they try privatization.
rwcole @ 42
Possibly not. I think Jane’s point was that Senator Obama’s response to Mr. Lizza’s assertion that there _is_ a social security crisis was lackluster at best. From the quote of Mr Lizza’s piece above, the Senator is, at the very least, letting the “Looming Social Security Crisis” meme/talking point go unchallenged. IMO, this is NOT OK, regardless of his position on privatizing SS.
FunnyDiva
Prairie Sunshine @ 49
he isn’t funny anyway
rwcole @ 54
Actually it’s no secret that Obama (who I don’t dislike too badly) got his Senate “chops” from Joe, and Joe has been all over the map on this issue in the last 10 years.
I’m not ascribing motive, BTW.
Loo Hoo. @ 44
Yah. Somehow thinkin’ the concern trollz hung around after the Joke Line thread earlier.
Sigh.
FunnyDiva
Katrina Vanden Heusel is planning to endorse in two weeks. She is favorable toward Obama.
Disappointment…
cleter @ 45
fourth.
how’s edwards/obama sound?
newton
Didn’t know about an Obama/Lieberman connection. Do you have a place to go for more information on that?
I’m in for Edwards.
rwcole @ 63
Lieberman is Obama’s mentor in the Sentate. Try google.
I think both candidates know that to resolve their differences they only need consult Curveball.
Keith @ 24
i’m checking the congressional record now, and you are mistaken – the vote was not announced at 12:14 – that was the UC request for the vote – and reid announced the amendment at the start of the day. here’s what i have so far (but i am not finished with my research into the congressional record).
harry reid (on the senate floor for his morning statement on the day’s schedule) at about 9:30am on 9-26-07:
carl levin on the senate floor at 12:15pm:
the vote occurred at about 12:45pm
rwcole @ 63
It was one of those things that slipped by me as well, til Obama endorsed RGJoe in April ‘06.
Joe Buck @ 48
And this difference would be? A criticism against all of the Presidential candidates who are in the Senate is that they talk about leadership in their campaigns but by and large it has been invisible in their day jobs as Senators. So Obama can talk big about his opposition to the war but he certainly is not leading the fight in the Senate on it. Ditto for Hillary. The same is true for SCHIP or FISA. Where are they? That is why the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was important. Obama could have shown leadership in bringing some sense to our Iran policy. He talked the talk but he didn’t vote the vote.
[[[[[[[[JANE!]]]]]]]]
I heart U. Keep on holding accountable (sometimes called attacking) influential people for the ‘things they “Say”‘.
And if Candidate Obama did make such a public statement beforehand, whouldn’t this be a good time for him to be actively pointing that out and citing the press release/senate floor speech? To really drive home the point that his positions are different from HRC’s?
FunnyDiva
Jane Hamsher @ 52
Prairie Sunshine @ 49
Ellen DeGeneres: scab
That’s some very nice work, selise.
Hugh @ 69
Thank you Hugh, I’ve been sitting here trying to compose my thoughts like you just expressed yours.
Kneejerk@29
…well, it’s better than attacking people for what they haven’t said, isn’t it? Or are you recommending we discuss mostly policy issues?
I recall reading that Obama has been famous for missing votes that might be held against him since he was in the senate in Illinois. I don’t remember where the article was located but it seems that he is recorded as not voting or voting present on issues that might cause questions or problems. Perhaps someone else knows where that info can be located. He appears to have followed that practice in the US Senate as well.
I agree that it would have been better for Obama to show up for that vote. But it is a fact that Reid changed the timing at the last minute. Jane claims to have sources that word went around the night before. Obama could have changed plans at the last minute, to cast a vote in a losing cause.
But the reason it was a losing cause was people like Hillary Clinton who voted for it in large numbers.
Note that I’m only an Obama supporter in that I prefer him to Sen. Clinton; I prefer Edwards or Dodd, BTW.
And I’ll agree that he hasn’t been the fighter in the Senate that I’d like to see (unlike Feingold, my true favorite, or Dodd).
Joe Buck @ 56
Actually, it was St Ronnie of Ray-guns who first started using the SS Trust Fund as part of the general fund to off-set the budget deficit that he created back in the early ’80s with his “Voodoo economics” (you know, cutting taxes for the rich and doubling/tripling the defense budget so that it would “balance”).
Perris:
I like the way you think vis a vis framing it as “paying restitution of throwing the thieving bum’s in jail.”
Seems like all that SS tax money is just too tempting for pols of either party to leave alone. So is there any way to make it unavailable for financing anything besides 1)meeting commitments to those who contributed and maybe 2)some sort of gold-plated, interest bearing vehicle to make that money work toward #1?
FunnyDiva
PS mods/Jane, if I’m OT or hijaking the thread here, do please rap my knuckles.
perris @ 53
From Jeff Dinelli at the Left Coaster, which Steve AR has gotten me hooked on…
Wait, there’s more. Taylor Marsh quotes him today from New Hampshire:
“One of the great pleasures of running for president is to go to some tiny town in Iowa and you’ve got some guy in overalls and a seahat to say what do you think about the situation in Burma, and you’re thinking that he’s going to ask you about corn, and he asks you about Burma.”
“Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t…”
BTW, I’ve been an Edwards supporter since 2004. Still am.
Pade @ 75
Aha, essential preparation for being U.S. prez.
rwcole @ 54
Obama chose Lieberman as his Senate mentor and campaigned for him in Connecticut in his primary.
Pade @ 75: Obama has missed a lot of votes over the last two months, but over the last year Biden and Dodd have missed more votes, and Clinton has missed almost as many.
I would have liked to see all four of them in there fighting Bush. But part of the problem has been that Reid is to the right of all four, and has been scheduling votes so that they will miss, to get around them.
newtonusr @ 72
Second.
And from the previous thread…Selise, you are a teacher, just not in a conventional classroom an not monetarily compensated for your efforts.
XO
FunnyDiva
newtonusr @ 72
selise’s research skills deep in the capitol hill warrens are nothing short of amazing. it’s a great service you perform at the ‘lake, selise. thanks for it.
TeddySanFran @ 85
she’s also Our Lady of CSPAN
Fresh thread, y’all.
eCAHNomics @ 65
here ya go!
Disclaimer: I have no firm preference. I like Edwards and Dodd, but I think any of the Democratic candidates are pretty good, with the exception of Hillary, although even she is much better than any of the Republican choices.
Anyway re Obama: Lieberman was Obama’s mentor. What this means is that a senior Senator shows a freshman Senator the ropes. At the time, Obama was not displeased with the choice.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/cockburn
Obama also supported Lieberman in his primary against the anti-war and progressive Lamont.
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…..lieberman/
Joe Buck @ 83
Well then, they need to say so. Reid’s on my good side right now because of recess, but this is the first I’ve heard of deliberateness on his part to avoid their being present for votes. Have you a link for that?
Loo Hoo. @ 79
OUCH! I hope for his (Obama’s) sake that’s a mis-quote. Because, isn’t that the type of stereotyping that he doesn’t like being on the receiving end of? (I’m vaguely remembering a flap over another Senator(?) saying something about him being “clean” and “thoughtful” and getting in big trouble for it).
FunnyDiva
And, yes, it’s probably just an off-the-cuff remark that didn’t come out as intended.
fyi – it will take me a few more minutes to complete my quick analysis of the congressional record for the day prior to the vote on kyl-lieberman. as soon as i am done, i will post in this thread, even if the conversation has moved on.
Hello Jane – Thanks for putting this out there as you’ve done so often.
It’s not that Obama missed the Kly-Lieberman vote, it’s the pattern of missing votes. I won’t judge anyone on “a once” but I will if it is repeated. The repeated account tells me a lot more than the excuses.
RFK Action Front @ 28
Your post erroneously appears to assume that Obama endorses Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme. That is not true. He supports raising the cap on an individual’s income above the current level of $97,500 to bring greater progressivity into the system. You seem to suggest that, because he wants to enhance the long-term viability of the Social Security system he must be lumped in with anyone else who agrees with that goal even those whose proposals are drastically different like Bush’s. You should clarify this. The raising of the payroll cap would not cause such an increase in financial fees. Were you aware of what Obama actually supports before you wrote your comment?
1,671 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Sister Jane, have you ever wondered about the “Illinois” connection between our organized politics and our organized crime? No, I mean as it has been playin out over the last 12 years…and now we have Obama the Black Joe Lieberman sponsored by the University of Chicago bankin’ money and Mrs. Clinton a native Illinois Republican and a wholly owned subsidiary of whats left of the corporate power structure with Rahm Emmanuel dealin’ the cardz between A*P*C and the Daley machine. And, of course, the Chicago folks not only played a huge role in gettin’ Bill elected both times but were probably the single political force that saved Billie’s ass durin’ impeachment. And , of course there is Fitz and the Illinois corruption trials … I wonder what Fitz gave up to the Daley clan ta keep his prosecutions afloat (and his heart beatin’) includin’ the Libby trial.
Where do ya put the “Chicago Connection” in the bi-partisan political crime structure which is our national politics today?
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION AND YA BETTER HAVE MY BACK WHEN I PUT MY LITTLE ASS OUT THERE!!
Joe Buck @ 83
I think in critical thinking this is called false equivalence.
C’mon, you know it’s as much about the issues at stake as it is any raw number of votes missed. And if Dodd starts campaigning against another senator for a wrong vote he didn’t show up for, I’ll be glad to get in line to kick his butt here at FDL.
FunnyDiva
Obama has said that he favors doing away with the SS tax cap. That would make FICA a flat tax instead of a regressive tax. But it would have the GOP screaming bloody murder about “raising taxes” (yawn).
So there is a fair possibility that Obama’s talk about the SS “problem” is politicking – use their argument (SS has a problem) against them (so CEO’s pay FICA all year round, instead of just the first day in January).
EXCELLENT thread, Jane.
I would really like to hear John Edwards say:
“Social Security aint broke, and if it WAS broke, letting Wall Street “fix” it, will be like letting george bush “fix” Iraq.”
If only our prospective leaders would LEAD. That is what we need and want.
Jonathan Goldberg @ 94
I’m quite aware of what Obama is proposing. Click the “link” in the post that goes to Digby’s post on the subject. I think you’ll find it very clarifying.
JPL @ 13
Yeah, let’s do be accurate as hell:
Senator
WaffleObama…wait for it…here it comes….Missed the vote. An important vote; ’some would say’ a defining vote and Obama ‘misses’ it. I don’t want someone as clueless, the best interpretation you can put on this, or a liar, most probable as President.
We just did that.
And no I give no creedence to the ‘Senator Reid is playing them meme…’ that’s horseshit true or not. Don’t forget, all these campaigning Senators are being paid…..
To be Senators. Does anyone doubt that Edwards would make very vote and then use same to hammer the corporate wing of the ‘Democrat’ Party.
No, the facts are Senator Obama, Clinton and even Dodd are running away from the issues when it suits them.
Which is why none of them suit me.
(It makes you wonder — does he just not know how the game is played, or is it that he simply doesn’t care?)
Couple this with the stench of his religious pandering and giant “DANGER” warning lights and bells should be going off in all democrats and progressives heads. Obama is a bad actor. Its not clear exactly what it adds up to, but like the sound of a snake’s rattle, its a warning for people to steer clear, especially when there are other choices without the dire aura.
No one should be fooled by Obama’s slick oratory. There is something fetid being hidden by all that perfume.
.
especially when there are other choices without the dire aura.
and this is NOT a reference to Clinton…another prime opportunity for democrats to get burned.
.
Jane Hamsher @ 100
I have now reviewed Digby’s post and I completely stand by my point. Digby assumes that, because Obama supports Social Security reform that he is endorsing Bush’s privatization. The huge management fees would be gained by the banks in the event of privatization not in the event of raising the payroll cap. Again I ask “do you oppose raising that cap?” I believe its been long overdue. Maybe Obama is using some hyperbole about the extent of the Social Security problem. But the key question is “would it be appropriate to raise the cap as a modest measure to thwart a problem that would probably only surface in 40 years or so?” Another way to phrase it is “Is it fair that people making under $97,500 pay a higher rate of their income into the SS system?” To tie him with Bush’s privatization plan when Obama has specifically rejected it is not just incorrect but extremely unfair. It would be like me saying Ted Kennedy is a Bush protege because he worked with him on education issues.
Obama misses a vote on passage of a bill his vote could not have prevented anyhow. That’s his fault. Clinton actually votes “aye,” and does so after she claims she learned how Bush operates the last time she voted “aye.” And the Clinton media machine prints her up a pass.
To which I say: Never. Ever.
Harper’s Index indicated that something like 76% of Democrats believe Clinton will remove all troops from Iraq within a year. The fact is she won’t even commit to that by 2012.
But still: 76% think she’s pulling out the troops within a year? Clinton is rushing to disabuse Democrats of this misinformation about her war position like Bush rushes to disabuse the public’s incorrect linkage of Iraq to 9/11.
And Obama is the “disingenuous spinner?” Uh, yeah, right.
If you want indefinite occupation, Hillary is your gal. Tough on terror like Bolton with a bone, yet tender and vulnerable to piling on by all those big smelly men when triangulating on drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants. A DLC Republicrat with credentials even Rupert Murdoch can love, a true candidate for “all” of America, from the board room to the beach house, from the villa to the chalet, from the yacht to the private jet.
I’ve never felt so taken for granted by a candidate. I’d rather have my eyes plucked out with dull teaspoons and have the empty sockets packed with hot sand than vote for this woman.
And I have some advice for her: just sit there and keep counting your chickens. You’re a shoo-in.
Jonathan Goldberg @ 104
It doesn’t matter if Obama is linked to bush or not. Saving SS is a STOOPID non-issue to raise. Its a distraction. Sure it would be great if SS taxes were less regressive and hit the well off harder. It would be even better if the top marginal rate were raised, bush’s dividend giver away revoked, offshore tax heavens eliminated, and the estate tax quadrupled – all much, much more worthy than bringing up social security because A) SS is not in the least bit of trouble for many, many years, and B) because the other measures would pay for current expenditures instead of Congress stealing from SS like it has been for years rather than actually saving for SS.
.
Funnydiva2002 @ 91
A seahat? Doesn’t quite fit the stereotype of an Iowa sodbuster (and one of my great grandfathers was an Iowa sodbuster!) Don’t be too quick to fire the stereotype cannon.
BTW, you know how you can tell a real Iowa sodbuster, don’t you? They’re well-tanned all over– except on their foreheads, which will be as pale as any other part of their body that rarely sees the sun. If they’re of northern European ancestry, that is. Their faces are a peculiar sight, if you haven’t seen it before.
Bob in HI
Jane Hamsher @ 100
Hey, Jane! You mean you actually *read* all the links that you include in your posts?!?!? How are you ever able to write more than one post a day??? :-)
Bob in HI
My plan will eliminate income taxes for about 7 million seniors making less than $50,000 a year. Twenty-two million more won’t even have to file a return, which also means they won’t have to hire an expensive accountant.
This tax cut is needed especially because since 1993 seniors have been bearing an unfair tax burden. That year, a national tax hike raised the amount that millions of seniors had to pay on their Social Security benefits, which meant that their actual benefits were reduced. My tax cut will give these seniors a break without threatening Social Security.
But the truth is, if we’re serious about making retirement security a reality, mitigating the effects of this tax hike is not enough. We have to ensure that Social Security is a safety net that today’s seniors and future generations of Americans can count on.
As the cornerstone of America’s social compact, Social Security has lifted millions of seniors and their families out of poverty. Without Social Security, nearly fifty percent of seniors would live below the poverty line. Here in Iowa, nearly 20 percent of the population – and more than 95 percent of seniors – receive Social Security. The full measure of Social Security’s value for its recipients – as well as for those who look after and love them – is incalculable.
But we all know the system is not perfect. Some have argued that the problems are severe and that Social Security is fundamentally broken. This is an exaggeration. The underlying system is sound and the actual problem, a projected cash shortfall over the next 75 years, is relatively small and can be readily solved.
A return to fiscal responsibility, so we are not borrowing billions from the Social Security trust fund, would help strengthen the program for the long term. If any additional steps are necessary, we should carefully weigh our options. And as president, there are some basic principles I would honor:
First, I will fight against efforts to privatize Social Security, as I and others did when President Bush proposed private accounts a few years ago. Privatization is wrong. It tears at the fabric of Social Security — the idea of mutual responsibility — by subjecting a secure retirement to the whims of the market.
(OBAMA)–from Jane’s link
pluege @ 106
I agree with all the measures you suggest (and bet that Obama agrees with most of them as well) but don’t believe a candidate should abandon a sincere position just because he may open himself to attack. (Remember how Gore downplayed his environmental concerns in 2000 giving Nader a fatal chance to take votes from him) HRC’s comment that it would be a huge tax increase was the comment most likely to come from the GOP playbook at the Nevada debate. I agree SS is not a problem now but we can ensure it won’t be by adopting Obama’s measure. The hatemongering (and exaggerating) going on about him is out of control. The fact he would be tied to privatization although he is against it is slanderous.
Embee @ 37
i’m sorry, but that link does not, imo, give evidence to support your position – especially as 1) there is no date/time stamp on the quote given, and 2) “near future” can mean anything from the next few hours to the next few years – it depends on context, and 3) the link to the congressional record goes nowhere – i don’t fault the author for that though, thomas links are a devil to work.
here’s the relevant bits (non-related senate floor statements are not included) i could quickly find from the senate floor on 9-25-07 (times are approximate):
10am – reid’s morning statement on the schedule:
10:15am – kyl’s statement begins (my bold):
10:25am – graham’s statement begins (my bold):
11 am – brownback statement begins:
11:40am – webb’s statement begins (this is the one we all cheered):
12 noon – reid’s statement on the schedule:
12:20pm – levin’s statement on the schedule:
2:20pm – reid’s statement on the defense authorization bill (this is the bill for which the kyl-lieberman amendment is being considered) and the schedule:
5:10pm – levin’s statement on the schedule (video here, at about 5 minutes in):
5:25 pm – durbin’s statement on kyl-lieberman begins (video here, at about 20 minutes in):
6:15pm – some discussion on schedule issues (video here, at about 1:10):
6:35pm – reid’s final statement of the day (video here, at about 1:30):
the senate adjourns shortly before 8pm.
here’s my interpretation of the above – two amendments (one of which was the kyl-lieberman amendment) to the defense authorization bill were expected to be one of two major items (in addition to the break for conferences) on the agenda for the day. the senate managers were not able to come to agreement on the kyl-lieberman amendment (and biden amendment – the two were to be considered together), and so no vote was taken. i read reid’s final statement as saying that there would be no vote that evening – not that there would be no vote the following day… (and this is also what the c-span2 announcer says). indeed, from what i’ve seen so far, the expectation should have been that a vote on the kyl-lieberman amendment was likely the following day, september 26, the day the vote was taken.
in conclusion, i can find no support for the claim that that senator reid said that the “the Kyl-Lieberman amendment would not come up for a vote for several days.” as far as i can tell, the congressional record shows that a vote should have been expected to be likely on september 26.
disclaimer – the above is a quick survey of the events on the sentate floor during september 25 and 26, and by no means thorough or complete – i’d need more time for that. but, at this point, i think the responsibility for evidence lies with people claiming that obama was absent from the kyl-lieberman vote because he did not know that the vote was likely to occur when it did.
p.s. sorry about the links to different places – the thomas db of the congressional record went down in the middle of doing this, so i went to the louis db for the final part. also c-span didn’t have all the clips up, so i had to resort to the complete webstream of c-span2’s coverage for the last part of the day on the senate floor.
dear mods – thank you for releasing my comment above, i knew it is way too long and has way too many links to make it through the filters.
In the interest of full disclosure maybe Jane Hamsher should help posters to the fact that she was one of the bloggers who met with Bclinton in 2006 to plot strategy for the coming elections.Is there any doubt why she seems to go after Obama at every turn.
BMcGarth @ 113
Actually, if you look back to the time of that meeting, it was widely reported… right here in these pages.
I’m just glad there are finally a few people showing up who are willing to call bullshit on those who appear to regard themselves as God’s Own Anointed Callers of All Bullshit.
If that’s being a “troll” — I say, bring on the billy goats.
Or sheep, as the case may be.
selise, do you have the transcript of the night before?
I read somewhere he had announced that it would be coming up sometime the next day then too.
Either way, it’s appalling that Obama is again using GOP talking points and lies in his campaign–who is he trying to attract? Joe Klein?
Jonathan Goldberg @ 104
If Senator Obama ONLY wants to raise the social security payroll cap on he should say, “I want to raise the payroll cap.” Period.
Instead, Senator Obama has starting using the “social security is in crisis” meme. The made up “crisis” is a Republican code word — a euphemism for privatization.
My comment pointed out that Senator Obama’s own economic adviser had done a pretty good job of showing the evils of privatization — so it’s strange that Senator Obama is using the Republican code words that evoke privatization in the minds of many voters.
If Obama has categorically ruled out privatization, he’s doing a lousy job of communicating it. Instead, I think he is once again engaged in dog-whistle outreach.
amberglow @ 116
it’s all in the congressional record – which is not so easy to navigate (see my 111 for links to the floor statements from the day/night before the vote.
and if that doesn’t make any sense, feel free to shoot me an email (at speakeasy dot net) and i’ll walk you through it tomorrow (or someother time) in the threads or off – it’s just that now it’s getting late and my brain is turning to mush…
Raising the spectre of privatization at a time of subprime mortgage meltdowns in the banks and brokerage houses is just utter idiocy.
RFK Action Front @ 117
He has specifically rejected privatization. For you to suggest that using the term “crisis” means that he is in favor of privatization or that because he hasn’t screamed it loudly enough is just plain dishonest. I noticed that Bob H (Comment 119) made a comment on privatization apparently following your deliberate misinformation about Obama’s position; i.e. people are relying on bogus claims to make their impression about a candidate. Do you find that acceptable when members of the MSM engage in your tactic?
I believe Obama is not as bright as he is made out to be. Having a Harvard pedigree is no assurance that all your marbles are in place,
Now, English is my second language, but even I can see that hope is what keeps faith alive, and is in no manner audacious. Action, on the other hand, can and should be in some instances audacious. To title a book “The Audacity of Hope”, an oxymoron if ever there was one, immediately raises the question: is anybody home?
The reality is that “social security needs reform” is the mantra for the privatization crowd. Period.
How many bills has Barack Obama sat back on till the last minute, equivocated and then given a position at the last minute? I seem to remember the same stanking tactics from Holy Joe (on Alito for instance. Other people remember Clarence Thomas much better than I do.), before HoJoe came out as a full-blown stinking neocon. I don’t like it, I don’t like it one bit.
Joe Buck @ 48
Yeah — call me cynical but Reid’s son is, afterall, on Hillary’s er.. team.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/200…..orgnv.html
Again, I’m just far too cynical… not to expect backroom deals and backhanded maneuvers.
selise @ 111
Thanks for providing the links, however, from the context you have provided — it occurred to me that neither vote was coming up anytime soon?
“There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future.”
What have I missed?
CheckingIn @ 123
sorry i missed this comment yesterday…
i think this is another case of reid getting unfairly blamed (lord knows there’s plenty he can be fairly blamed for). reid announced the likely hood of the mukasey vote that evening before 10am in the morning (when he gave his morning schedule briefing to the senate floor).
CheckingIn @ 124
anytime soon here means in the next few hours – ie it won’t be done tonight. it’s clear, i think, from the context that that is the meaning, and if you listen to the c-span video you can hear that the c-span announcer understood it that way too – that the vote wouldn’t occur that evening, but make the next morning.
selise @ 126
I watched the video, and I don’t think it clearly concludes the the vote would be followed next day. From my take it appeared the announcer was generically saying that there would be more votes tomorrow referring to the ‘Defence’ bill overall,not specifically referring to a revisit of either the Biden or Kyl-Lieberman amendments vote?
However, I’m wondering what Reid meant when he said “…bring more clearness on the issue…”? So, was there more ‘clearness on the issue’ that night to then justify Reid coming back next day and having the vote called 12:44? — What had ’signficantly’ changed either in front of the camera’s or behind…? The wording of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment still had Webb’s knickers in a twist?
BTW — I’m not an Obama supporter, but I still think the context and timing was a bit fishy…
selise @ 125
Again, tho’ what was the rush? Not giving Dodd [and others] NOT in the DLC/A*P*C interest faction of the party a chance to spread some of his doubts on Mukasey… Nah! Reid is spineless, and I have a feeling that as a daddy == there may have been just a tiny tiny bit of discussion on his his son’s future political career/… within a certain administration?
Jonathan Goldberg @ 120
I think perhaps we’re talking past each other a bit here.
I want to acknowledge your point: Senator Obama has spoken out against privatization. From Senator Obama’s website:
“Barack Obama fought against President Bush’s efforts to privatize Social Security. As president, Obama will preserve Social Security by stopping any efforts to privatize it.”
Also from This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
“OBAMA: Privatization is not something that I would consider, and the reason is this: Social Security, I think, is — that’s the floor. That’s the baseline. Social Security is that safety net that can’t be frayed, and we shouldn’t put at risk.”
I should have included these references in my comments and I think you are correct to point out this omission.
At the same time, if you oppose privatization, don’t you think Senator Obama’s rhetoric on this issue has been strange? By using the crisis meme he is using a Republican code word that evokes privatization. He also says things like “Everything should be on the table.” And strategically he’s put an issue back into play that has already been won in the Democrats favor.
Furthermore, I find Obama’s post partisan, ‘can’t we all just get along’ rhetoric to be dangerously naive. As he showed with the homophobic gospel singer fiasco — Obama’s big tent strategy apparently has room for gays and lesbians and homophobes. To the extent that there is confusion over his position on social security, don’t you think that this confusion has partly been sown by Obama himself in the attempt to show that his big tent has room for both privatizers and those who oppose privatization?
The problem for me is that I can’t tell whether Obama’s use of mixed rhetoric is clever like a fox or another Joe Lieberman in training.
MyDD does a better job of explaining the issues (here).