The president is basically free now to let his true colors fly since he has no elections to worry about for the remainder of his presidency. Perhaps that is why he’s taking a strong position on Net Neutrality today, but I wonder why in the hell he didn’t make the announcement before people went to the polls. Personally, I probably should care at least a little bit about this issue, but I really don’t. Plenty of people do, though, and they’re precisely the kind of people who would take one look at how Ted Cruz and John Boehner have responded and found a good reason that was otherwise lacking to go out and vote against the Republicans.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Saying something about an important topic after it could have mattered is actually classic Democratic Party behavior.
Perhaps that is why he’s taking a strong position on Net Neutrality today, but I wonder why in the hell he didn’t make the announcement before people went to the polls.
I know you know who David Cohen(Rendell’s one time CoS) is. It all, again, comes back to big donors.
it wouldn’t have changed anything, the amount of people who actually understand and care of this is a very small number
Yep. It is not important electorally. Whose vote would have changed based on Obama’s announcement?
issue for voters. The economy is.
Lifting a comment to my diary:
So, good move on Obama’s part. There may be negative to “net neutrality,” but on balance, it appears the positives outweigh the negatives.
However, the “inner Obama” is what I fear — TPP and the “Grand Bargain.”
I’m certain that there were many phone calls from frightened Democrats running in tight racess begging the President to do exactly nothing, say nothing, and keep his dark skinned face away from the cameras.
Blaming Obama is a classic miss the big picture mistake. It is the Democratic Party that keeps failing. They don’t fight, and they’ve not been supportive of their own president or even their own policies, which are demonstrably more popular than the GOP policies.
It is not enough to be right. You have to win, and Democrats just never seem as ruthless and loud and motivated as the GOP is. It’s a huge problem, and it won’t go away with a new President, or by trying to make Obama the scapegoat.
iirc, Republicans kept GWB’s light skinned face away from the cameras in 2006 and 2008.
Personally, I think it was an effort on the part of Democrats to make Obama irrelevant more then two years before the end of his term and pave the way for the Clinton restoration. The constant chatter about Hillary ’16 energizes Republican voters and depresses progressives and liberal Democrats.
She acts as a lightning rod on both sides, a bit of a jinx, fairy, why don’t she and her partner call it quits so everyone can breath a sigh of relief? All right, already, you’ve proved your point: your absolutely great. They already have so much, but still demand so much, deserve so little. But ambition and greed are evidently mutually reinforcing and self-regenerating.
What drives those that seek fame, power, glory, and/or money is a mystery to me. Best I can come up with is that there are “to be” and “to do” people. Some “to do” people do achieve fame, etc. but that’s not the driver and isn’t all that important to them. “To be” is the be all and end all for “to be” people even though they do have to do some things along the way, often exactly what their sponsors tell them to do.
It would be a goddamn shame if they succeed, because I always felt that Obama ran for President to end Clintonism in the Democratic Party.
WTF is the vast organization that elected Obama twice doing now, anyway?
The answer is “Getting ready for Hillary.” Because winning is everything.
The was the change we hoped for. A shame Democrats refused to notice that the hope was dashed as soon as Obama began making his executive appointments. Worse they actively trashed those like me that pointed it out.
Interesting replacement for Holder, too, it is proving to be.
When Lynch was being floated as the possible AG, I read a brief bio on her — not much more than what she’d done as a US attorney — and my head and gut said, “No. Wrong person for this job.” Then with all the noise on the left in support of her, thought maybe I’d been too quick in my assessment. So, took another look and it’s worse than I initially thought. Guess Obama is going for the “I proudly protected torturers and banksters” award. History will not be kind to the man.
btw — now that Obama took a royal thumping in the mid-terms, “the Clintons as the saviors” for the party is an easier sell. Because partisan Democrats have as little vision and as much unrealistic arrogance as the Clintons.
Don’t expect them to “get it” even after Hillary loses to whichever younger and more appealing Republican they choose to nominate.
I sure hope you’re wrong about that, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
You could probably get good odds right now in a betting pool with women.
Like my then tennis instructor who took Bobby Riggs over Margaret Court with all his nice women students. He cleaned up on $1 to $5 bets and crowed about it.
I waited to wager with him until the Riggs and Billie Jean King match. But insisted on what for me then was serious money, $20. Having lost on the first one, most of the women that lost in the first match declined to bet on King.
To answer your question, Marie posted the answer right above. It can be found here too:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2014/11/10/145054/62#5
Even so, I stand by my point. Sure Hillary and Bill are mendacious. Lots of politicians are.
It makes me mad that for the next 2 years I’m going to be looking at republicans going in print and on air, and spouting all this crazy stuff and no one will push back. It’s already started, Ted Cruz is calling Net Neutrality Obamacare for the internet. They’ll be blocking everything and trashing Obama 24/7. It’s going to be 10 republican voices for every democrat. The Democrats that do speak up will be whimpy, self-deprecating, or blue doggy.
Why the fuck is this?
“Democrats just never seem as ruthless and loud and motivated as the GOP is”
Obviously you have never lived in Cook County Illinois.
are you serious? Net neutrality would have brought someone out to vote?
come on, now.
Only because they don’t know what it means. I bet it’s one topic Hayes, Maddow and the rest of the MSNBC crew never touches. Otherwise their bosses might get pissed.
Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I’m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works.
Dear Oatmeal,
Sorry, you lost me at “equally”.
Yours,
Senator Ted
Excellent – I came here to post the exact same thing.
I think one of the reasons people don’t understand how big of a deal it is is because it has such a boring name.
Maybe we should take a page out of the Republican Branding Book and refer to the loss of net neutrality as “Data discrimination”, “Big Brother Browsing”, or “Telecoms ACTUALLY want to kill your puppies – ALL of them.”
You’re right about Obama’s new circumstances, Boo. I’m just afraid that his “true colors” are what we’ve been seeing all along.
I remember reading that Senate Dems in tough races asked him to hold off on his immigration EO. Maybe they pressured him to hold off on anything that might be controversial. He’s been raising money for the Democrats for months and is very good at it. He campaigns for Democrats and works harder for his party than any President I remember. Maybe he was pressured to back off. I don’t know.
What I do see is that he is going to get support right now when he needs it. The GOP thought they could just tromp all over everything and that’s not going to happen. He said it wouldn’t and it’s not. He needs support now to deal with the GOP and he will get it.
You used the word, “tromp.” You’re OK with me!
Here’s a serious question:
For the last couple of years, we’ve been told that Hillary Clinton could potentially put together a coalition in 2016 that could overcome the structural obstacles to the Democrats retaking the House and give us back a Democratic Congress in 2016 instead of 2022 (at the earliest). After the results of last week, does anyone still believe that? I had my doubts before, but now I don’t believe that at all. I don’t believe that constituencies that voted for Obama in record numbers will back Hillary at similar levels and I don’t believe that Hillary has any magic elixir to put Arkansas and Kentucky in play. So what’s the premise of her campaign again?
Not only do I find it ludicrous that we can take the House, the entire logic of “demographic inevitability” of Democratic politicians is now revealed as total bullshit. 2016 is looking more and more difficult.
of her campaign is simple: it is HER turn.
I was at an event in Nashua two days before the election. It was her first in New Hampshire since 2012. The turnout was unimpressive. But make no mistake, there is a hunger among many activist for a woman President. This includes people on the left who have little in common with her political positions.
I think someone will actually make a dent, but I don’t believe beating her is possible.
“The president is basically free now to let his true colors fly since he has no elections to worry about for the remainder of his presidency.”
So the drone-strikes on gun shows is a “GO”, then?