Objectively Worse Than President McCain

Is it Time for Democrats to Fight Obama?

Cenk Uygur, Huffington Post

Posted: December 15, 2010 10:43 AM

You want to hear something really depressing? If John McCain had won the presidency, there is almost no chance he could have gotten the Bush tax cuts extended for the rich. Think about it. How was a Republican president going to get an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate and House to pass those tax cuts that they hated under Bush?

No, only a Democratic president could get a Democratic Congress to agree to tax cuts for the rich. So, in this sense, progressives are worse off for having a Democratic president than a Republican one.

…

Democrats would certainly have fought a surge in Afghanistan if Bush was in charge. They would be complaining about warrantless wiretapping if Bush continued that program instead of Obama. They would have hated the monopoly that drug companies got in the health care legislation (because they went nuts over it when Bush made the same deal). And they would have gone apoplectic over these huge tax cuts for the rich. But under Obama, the defense contractors, the rich and the powerful have gotten almost everything they wanted and nary a peep was heard from the Democrats in Congress.

Here is the new memo – fight him, he’s not on your side.

As was shown in 2010 and will be again in 2012.

Anyone who claims to care about Electoral Victory is a LIAR!

Update:

‘Democrat’ Is No Longer A Brand

Howard Fineman, Huffington Post

Updated: 12-15-10 07:23 AM

As the lame duck tax debate slogs towards its inevitable conclusion — nearly $1 trillion worth of extended and new tax cuts over two years — I’m wondering: what does the brand “Democrat” mean?

…

The fact that extension is being touted by the White House as a major “get” is a sad commentary on how far to the right our politics is now moving, no matter how many times Tea Party types call Obama a socialist.

…

Isn’t a nearly $1 trillion bill full of tax cuts and industry giveaways what Republicans do? Isn’t a bill with an absurdly generous inheritance tax break what Republicans write? Aren’t Democrats the “party of the people?” Aren’t they the party that believes government programs and policies have a role to play in leveling the playing field, or at least giving everyone a fair chance? Aren’t the Democrats worried that all of this tax cutting now will starve the social programs they supposedly cherish? Do they know that they won’t be able to push through a change in taxes in 2012 over GOP objections if the economy in fact improves?

…

And if they do vote “yes” for the most part, what does it signify — other than a desperate desire for survival — about the meaning of “Democrat?”

It means “Coward”.

Thanks for nothing Barack.