"...decisions that ...will, you know, give my base of voters further reason to give me a hard time."

[Faryn Balyncd]

Here's the full sentence:

"...And I've already shown that I'm willing to make some decisions that are very tough and will, you know, give my base of voters further reason to give me a hard time."

And the full transcript:


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/29/se.01.html



Our President says he is...

"willing to take on . . . sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that, "The tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we're not willing to come to the table and get a deal done," or, "We're so concerned about protecting oil and gas subsidies for oil companies that are making money hand over fist, that's the reason we're not going to come to a deal."

Some are critical of those who sense a sell-out nearing.



Why the rhetoric of "sacred cows", if not to subtly denigrate those who advocate principled victories more enduring than the latest political skirmish of the day?

Is it not appropriate to communicate a clear understanding of exactly what values and issues may indeed be "sacred"?

Is it not appropriate for our President's "base of voters" to loudly remind their executive leader that their are indeed sacred values, values that are not bovine, values of equal or greater importance than that (purportedly) sacrosanct cow of "deficit reduction"?

Is it not appropriate for our President's "base of voters" to loudly and pointedly remind their executive leader that these values include fundamental democratic values that were won only with decades of our sweat and blood, and that defending these values are indeed more "sacred" than getting "a deal done"?

Is it not appropriate for our President's "base of voters" to demand that their executive leader that his job is not limited to eliminating the unwarranted tax breaks the Republicans are uncompromisingly defending, but that his job also includes uncompromising PROTECTION of the safety net programs of Social Security and Medicare that are now in the fascists sights?




These safety net programs are essential economic bulwarks which are essential to our democratic government.

Social Security and Medicare DESERVE to be held in reverence. Social Security and Medicare do NOT deserve to be semantically undermined by referring to them obliquely as "sacred cows", inferentially equating them with the filthy lucre of the Bush tax cuts for billionaires and other Republican/economic royalist special interests.










:kick:

[markpkessinger]

1. This is a very important point you make when you write:

Social Security and Medicare DESERVE to be held in reverence. Social Security and Medicare do NOT deserve to be semantically undermined by referring to them obliquely as "sacred cows", inferentially equating them with the filthy lucre of the Bush tax cuts for billionaires and other Republican/economic royalist special interests.

This argument is, or rather should be, fundamentally a moral argument. But the president undercuts the moral imperative of the debate when he uses terminology like "sacred cows," which has the effect of imposing a kind of moral equivalence between the two opposing sides that simply does not exist.

[zalinda]

28. Correct

On one hand, tax breaks for corporate jets, versus keeping seniors from falling into mind numbing poverty.

Oil and gas subsidies or cuts to medicare or medicaid, hmmmmmm......... now what should we do?

Yup, I can see these things are all the same value. :sarcasm:

zalinda

[cameozalaznick]

33. I wrote today through the campaign website...

I think it's time that every single poster on this site writes either to the campaign or the white house directly. Folks, letters do work if you work at sending them.

[Marnie]

35. I agree absolutely.

Anyway SS and Medicare are not entitlements nor ruminants, they are investments with interest for America's future.

Why would any free marketer not see them as Sacred Icons to be honored and protected?

[eridani]

2. What "giving us a hard time" on Social Security and Medicare will mean

No volunteers over the age of 55 except for us hard-core types who are far more afraid of Republicans. Campaigning to avoid disaster is nowhere near as motivating as campaigning for positive gains.

[Marnie]

36. And campaigning, for no pay, for a liar and a quitter....

[chill_wind]

3. Well at least he didn't refer to it as a sacred "milk cow with 310 million teats",

a reference that was intuitively better left to charmers like Alan Simpson. But we got the general idea a long time ago when he turned the rich crazy old coot loose on all of us, and continued to ignore the arguments and protests of practically every sane progressive economist on the planet.

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. Ha Ha ! .....

Interestingly, he brought up Simpson himself in the speech, mentioning him as if Simpson is the epitome of a rational Republican - - specifically saying that Simpson thinks that Republican positions of holding out for "tax breaks for corporate jets" and "oil and gas subsidies for oil companies" was "not a sustainable position".

So Alan Simpson - - - who wants to destroy Medicare, destroy Social Security, who thinks that the Simpson-Bowles formula to FURTHER rig the calculation for CPI (which was ALREADY RIGGED in the 1990's to ALREADY UNDERSTATE inflation) is TOO MODEST a re-rigging, and who would gladly give up "tax breaks for corporate jets" for getting Obama to agree to allowing the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare - - - this same Alan Simpson is held up by our President as a model of compromise!

And defending Social Security and Medicare is falsely put on the same level as the Republican defense of "tax cuts for corporate jets" and "oil and gas subsidies for oil companies".

As if there is an equivalence between an essential bulwark for our democracy, and a penny-ante theft by corporate grifters and their Republican enablers.

If one was paranoid, one might be tempted to think both the "milk cow with 310 million teats" and the "sacred cow" analogies both emanated from Frank Luntz's semantic think-tank. (Luntz could not have done better.)







:kick:

[chill_wind]

10. It emanates from within the WH itself. The stuff of his very own lieutenants

denigrating the "strident left", like the his former OMB Peter Orszag for example--

Peter Orszag and the Drive to Cut Social Security (Dean Baker)
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/peter-orszag-and-the-drive-to-cut-social-security

Peter Orszag Makes Up Stuff To Justify Cutting Social Security
http://my.firedoglake.com/scarecrow/2010/11/04/peter-orszag-makes-up-stuff-about-social-security/

And then there's the defict hawk DLC thinkie-tankie Progressive Institute cohorts, whose founders once enjoyed the senior consultative services of Austan Goolsbee, before he rose up the power rungs to the highest eschalons- Obama's inner economic advisory circle.

The contempt for the left in those quarters couldn't be more forthright in its continuous expression of it.

http://progressivefix.com/in-praise-of-the-debt-commission

Only New Democrats could find anything at all to embrace in the Ryan Plan, if it meant an opportunity to bash the left.

http://progressivefix.com/one-cheer-for-the-ryan-plan

[sabrina 1]

31. Yes, the 'cow' theme seems to be 'in' at the WH.

The mention of Simpson was simply stunning, imo. This president seems to find it difficult to find a Democrat that he can use as an example of someone he respects. Has he ever done that?

Simpson, who stated that US Veterans 'were heroes when they fighting' in Iraq/Afghanistan, but according to Simpson, they were no longer heroes now because they are 'taking benefits' that they should be willing to give up.

He also referred to retirees as 'greedy old geezers' who were 'unwilling to give up some of their benefits' for the good of the country.

I think most people have concluded that this president is either very weak and in constant need of Republican approval, which he will not get (although Cheney did grudgingly say that he is learning which franly made me even more worried) or he shares their goals and methods of reaching them.

[jaxx]

4. In context.

So we’re going to have to look at entitlements -- and that’s always difficult politically. But I’ve been willing to say we need to see where we can reduce the cost of health care spending and Medicare and Medicaid in the out-years, not by shifting costs on to seniors, as some have proposed, but rather by actually reducing those costs. But even if we’re doing it in a smart way, that's still tough politics. But it’s the right thing to do.

So the question is, if everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done. Or, we’re so concerned about protecting oil and gas subsidies for oil companies that are making money hand over fist -- that's the reason we’re not going to come to a deal.

At a certain point, they need to do their job, you know.

And so this thing, which is just not on the level, where we have meetings and discussions and we're working through process, and when they decide they're not happy with the fact that at some point you've got to make a choice, they just all sit back and say, "Well, you know, the president needs to get this done."

They need to do their job. Now's the time to go ahead and make the tough choices. That's why they're called leaders.

And I've already shown that I'm willing to make some decisions that are very tough and will, you know, give my base of voters further reason to give me a hard time.

But it's got to be done. And so there's no point in procrastinating. there's no point in putting it off. You know, we've -- we've got to get this done.

I don't see the lack of appropriateness....or the outrage.

[TBF]

14. Your context sucks and is misleading as usual -

referring to Social Security as an "entitlement" is wrong and nasty. It is an insurance that myself and many others have paid into for years. It is not our fault that asshole hawks raided the kitty and spent it all on defense. Now the only thing to do is CUT DEFENSE in order to pay the OBLIGATIONS of the program. If you think folks will not sue the USA if their social security is taken away you are grossly ignorant. And if those cases are denied by our Courts then I suspect that is one thing that would spark mass unrest. Frankly, the party deserves it if this is the path you choose to go down.

Not to mention the fact that Eisenhower found it in his heart to EXPAND the number of folks who qualify for Social Security, and Obama is trying to find ways to cut it speaks volumes about both men.

[PoliticAverse]

30. Suing the federal government won't restore any social security cuts...

The Supreme Court already determined that no one has a contractual right to any
specific amount of social security no matter how much they've paid into the system.

See: http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

The Social Security retirement age was raised in 1983 and there was no mass unrest.

[JuniperLea]

21. Thanks for showing the rest of the tree...

From whence the cherries were plucked.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

6. Starting in The Middle, and moving RIGHT......AGAIN!

"Centrism"...because its so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!!!
:party:




"The only thing in the Middle of the Road
are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos."--Jim Hightower

[sufrommich]

7. He also said this:

"We can’t get to the $4 trillion in savings that we need by just cutting the 12 percent of the budget that pays for things like medical research and education funding and food inspectors and the weather service. And we can’t just do it by making seniors pay more for Medicare.So we’re going to need to look at the whole budget, as I said several months ago. And we’ve got to eliminate waste wherever we find it and make some tough decisions about worthy priorities. "

and:

"And that means trimming the defense budget, while still meeting our security needs. It means we’ll have to tackle entitlements, as long as we keep faith with seniors and children with disabilities by maintaining the fundamental security that Medicare and Medicaid provide

And:

"It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we’ve got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we’ve got to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make."


And:

"So we’re going to have to look at entitlements — and that’s always difficult politically. But I’ve been willing to say we need to see where we can reduce the cost of health care spending and Medicare and Medicaid in the out-years, not by shifting costs on to seniors, as some have proposed, but rather by actually reducing those costs."



He's talking about reducing the cost of healthcare and being pretty specific that he does not want any cuts to seniors paychecks.

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. Thanks for comment...

Those are some nice excerpts.

And they represent some reasonable centrist sentiments.

The right, as we know, is unrelenting, and has a most effective propaganda machine.

We have seen the results when we start from a reasonable, centrist, compromising position, and then try to compromise with uncompromising people.

It would appear, that if the results are to bear any resemblance to the reasonable centrist sentiments expressed in those excerpts, that it will require an enormous counterbalancing effort from our side.

And it would seem that by accepting and using the frames and the language created by the right's machine, we are repeating past mistakes.





:hi:

[StarsInHerHair]

27. fine then he intends to get wholesale pricing for prescriptions?

[Marnie]

37. But he could cut 4T out of the military and CIA budgets

and make the world a safer place.

[roody]

11. How about the sacred cow of war?

[russspeakeasy]

15. roody...how dare you cast aspersions about our "need" to

perpetrate war on whoever ? Just being sarcastic roody.

[Hydra]

16. That seems to be the ultimate sacred cow

Or was that "Too big to fail"?

Or was it "Tax cuts for the rich"?

I'm losing track of all the elephants in the room.

[Jakes Progress]

12. Equating the destruction of the social contract with private jet subsidies

is obscene. But that is what the Democratic party in Washington has come to.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

[Myrina]

13. Or in other words:

"I fart in your general direction, liberal voters, and you will LIKE it ... "

[Hydra]

17. Aka:

"Who else are you going to vote for? Sarah Palin?"

[PATRICK]

18. It seemed to me

that a general comment about unions and management putting keeping people at work above all other considerations had a strong flavor against union bargaining actions and rights.

A strong Reagan flavor that has been a consistent and most unfortunate element of his political compass. There is a lot of discredited Reagan fudge rolling in the Dem agenda gears. This seems(only seems)to also admit to the right of his base to sacrifice, grumble and submit with grace- which the GOP base will never do. There is no definite betrayal in the words but a trajectory to imbalanced, hypocritical pain which the GOP is guaranteed to make worse. That is not really a course anyone can cheer about- even if it satisfies the narrowest self interest of the board of the NAARP for example.

Nor is there much hope than an austerity budget with a scuttled, uncertain growth side can even deliver anything except more fantasy digits locked away in investment vaults saying humanity can't do anything but die.

[placton]

19. It's the Obama way

shit on the base, tell us we are the problem, then sell out to the right wing. Actually, he AGREES with the right ring on most issues - see almost all of his decisions. He is not "caving in" he is a DINO.

[mochajava666]

32. Well said

[emilyg]

38. You are right.

[JuniperLea]

20. A sacred cow isn't necessarily something principled...

That was your first error.

The sacred cow to which he was referring was clearly spelled out. Too bad you missed it.

[Better Believe It]

22. K & R

[hfojvt]

23. why do I sense

that we are about to get yet another 'compromise' that gives Republicans 90% of what they want while Obama promotes it as a huge victory/accomplishment for his administration? "That's not change, that's more of the same."

Bush gives his base trillions of dollars in tax cuts. Obama gives his base, mud in their eyes. With friends like that ...

[truth2power]

24. Recommended. And bookmarked to reply to later. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. You want a merit badge? You already have the "compromise" one.

Look here! Here's one you don't have.

[StarsInHerHair]

26. President Clinton DIDNT NEED AUSTERITY "MEASURES" & HE GOT RID OF GOP

CREATED DEFICIT. Please pass this fact around everywhere.

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. Great post!

[Marnie]

34. Obama has worked very hard to ignore and insult his "base."

At that, at least, he is succeeding.

He may awake an find he has no base.
Independents and moderates are not ideologues, we are not guaranteed to anyone. They are no one's base.

And the ideologue liberals and progressives have been lied to, insulted, and ignored to such an extent that, as ideologues, they may not be able to support or vote for someone they find insupportable.