Obama Needs to Lead with Strength, Not Compromises

Hello Papamoka Bloggers! I'm beginning to wonder if great Democratic candidates make lousy politicians. I agree with Keith Olbermann when he said on his show last night that President Obama could be facing a serious Democratic challenger in 2012 unless he stops negotiating away real reform.

Leading Republicans are going completely insane all around us (just watch FOX "News" for a taste), providing us with plenty of opportunities to label them unreasonable wackos, yet leading Democrats like Obama and Reid insist on trying to reason with them. What the hell are they thinking? Are they nuts?

We need leadership, not negotiations - and certainly no more compromises! Unless Obama surprises us with an aggressive approach to health care reform during his speech to Congress next week, we could very well be witnessing another great Democratic defeat - a bad bill would be a defeat for many of us. The White House seems hell-bent on getting a health care deal, any health care deal, no matter how horrible the result. What the hell is that about?

Unless the White House is playing a close hand, I'm beginning to wonder if Obama was a mistake. I don't know if Hillary would have been better, but I would like to think that she may have been tougher fighting the Republicans and controlling her own party - something I see lacking with Obama.

I don't think I'm alone wanting an all-out war against the lying and cheating Republican Party today. Screw bi-partisanship! Obama needs to get tougher, and soon.

The media and the pundits could be lying, but if they are correct and the White House is intending to sacrifice extremely important Democratic Party positions in favor of a lousy compromise with a bunch of Blue Dogs (or even one or two Republicans), then we're all in trouble.

A bad bill could be worse then no bill. Most experts agree that it would signal a defeat, and the beginning of a weak presidency.

The only solution is to get tough. There's been too much compromise with their side already. To give away more is unacceptable. Find out what the Blue Dogs want and make a deal - anyway, anyhow! Everybody wants something. Offer them MONEY! Offer them POWER! Offer them whatever they freaking want! If that doesn't work, THREATEN them!

If the White House and the president agree with us that a viable public option (the only way to control costs and abuses) is the best approach to real reform, then why can't they find a way to make it happen? The Blue Dogs must need something of value besides standing their ground on this one issue.

The so-called options to the public option (triggers to form public options, regulations and oversight, etc.) are all highly questionable as to their purported effectiveness. The only way to ensure market stability and control abuse is to form a viable public option now.

Half-ass solutions would also leave the system vulnerable the instant the Republicans regain power.

The dogs need to be tamed, and somebody has to do it. I thought Obama was our man, but if he's really a wimp, then we need to find a new progressive leader. The only viable alternative at the moment would be Nancy Pelosi. She's been talking a lot lately about how a public option is non-negotiable.

Pelosi has been speaking a lot tougher than the White House. She may be my new favorite Democrat.

If Obama and his team wimp out, Nancy Pelosi will be the best candidate to carry the torch for the progressive movement. I'll admit she has been on my bad side ever since refusing to impeach Bush, but those feelings will fade each time she stands up against absurd and unnecessary compromises. Somebody in the Democratic Party needs to stand-up for what is right.

We cannot allow a handful of rural politicians to dictate terms to the rest of us. It's time to let the White House know - NO MORE COMPROMISES!

It's time for the White House to get smart and creative instead. For God's sake, figure out what the Blue Dogs want someplace else and give it to them. Any negotiator worth his salt knows there's always a work-around.

If they don't, like Olbermann said, I think they're risking their second term. I think they will be seen by most of us as unworthy of our support. They will be seen as weak by both Republicans and progressives. Like the slimy Republican Jim DeMint said, it may be their Waterloo.

Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat (and excellent campaigner) to find out that popularity and support fades quickly. Unless President Obama and his team show strength and determination on this issue, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end. I hate to sound negative, but for me, hope is already fading.

Michael Boh
Papamoka's Left Coast Contributor
from Our Rants & Raves blog

ECONOMIC VORTEX FORMING IN GULF OF STUPIDITY (WHY IT AIN'T LOOKIN' A LOT LIKE CHRISTMAS)

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Recently I wrote about the possibility that an economic Nathan Bedford Forrest would come charging in on some economic experts and badly upset their applecarts. And cause a stampede.

This morning I am scanning the business section of news.yahoo.com and three stories are lined up one after the other. The Federal Reserve dropped interest rates another 1/4 point yesterday, despite the fact that the GDP grew at a rate of 3.9%. Ordinarily a cut would be strongly resisted....but...but...there are those issues to deal with involving the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and its spreading effects.

This AP article by Alex Veiga, FORECLOSURE FILINGS SOAR IN 3RD QUARTER, is one part of the equation.

LOS ANGELES - A soaring number of U.S. homeowners struggled to make mortgage payments in the third quarter, with properties in some stage of foreclosure more than doubling from the same time last year, a mortgage data company said Thursday.

A total of 446,726 homes nationwide were targeted by some sort of foreclosure activity from July to September, up 100.1 percent from 223,233 properties in the year-ago period, according to Irvine-based RealtyTrac Inc.

The current figure was 33.9 percent higher than the 333,731 properties in foreclosure in the second quarter of this year.

There was one foreclosure filing for every 196 households in the nation during the most recent quarter, RealtyTrac said.

Next, Oil above $96 on drop in US supplies by John Wilen, AP Business Writer:

SINGAPORE - The price of oil rose to a new record above $96 a barrel Thursday after a surprise drop in U.S. crude stockpiles raised concerns about supplies for coming winter demand. Other energy futures also gained.

It was the second week in a row the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a sharp and unexpected drop in oil inventories.

"The decline in U.S. crude oil inventories has been a key driver of oil prices," said David Moore, commodity strategist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.

SNIP,

Much of that decline was due to a big drop in crude supplies at a closely watched oil terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Cushing supplies have been under pressure in recent months due to differences in the price between front-month oil contracts and those for delivery in future months. This price difference, or spread, has given storage tank owners a financial incentive to sell their oil, rather than hold it in inventory. Analysts have also blamed falling Cushing supplies, in part, for the rally in which oil prices have jumped 35 percent since August

Finally, Stock Investors Fear End To Rate Cuts, again an AP story by Joe Bel Bruno.

Mindful of a warning from the Federal Reserve Wednesday about inflation, the market nervously watched the price of oil, which passed $96 a barrel overnight for the first time before dipping on profit-taking. The Fed, which cut interest rates a quarter point, said in a statement that inflation remained a concern, and oil's ascent to another record raised the possibility not only that the Fed might stop cutting rates, but that it might even consider raising them if inflation accelerates.

These, of course, are just snippets from the articles. I strongly recommend reading each in full. After reading what I've done so far I thought of renaming this "That 70's Show (Again)." If one were to take into account the three stories listed above...and Jimmy Carter was President instead of George W. Bush, there would be hell to pay. We would be talking in terms of a "malaise" or some such. But we're not, because we are being reassured (again) that everything is A-okay.

Am I crazy? Okay, don't answer that...but even if that's been established it doesn't take away the sense of wrongness when I read that oil prices go up because stocks are down because oil price "spreads" caused by the commodities markets give an incentive to keep oil storage tanks dry. Which information is used to further increase the price of oil, etc., etc. It's a nasty circular logic that does three things: makes some people a lot of money, costs many more to spend what they don't have, and screws the pooch on retail sales.

The other day I heard George Will say a couple of things. Bear in mind I admire Mr. Will's logic and prose even when I don't agree with him. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that even if crude oil reaches inflation-adjusted levels of the early 80's it doesn't matter that much since the influence of oil as a part of the economy has shrunk since then.

Oh yeah? Well what is the minimum wage when inflation-adjusted? I'm not arguing for the minimum wage, but rather using it as a standard of sorts since many jobs offer compensation that is compared to the minimum wage. Besides, gasoline at $3 or $4 a gallon is still that....money that would otherwise go elsewhere.

He also made the point that a lot of the subprime mortgage failures were by people speculating in 2nd or 3rd homes. Again, what difference does that make? Whether for a 1st, 2nd, or 5th mortgage, those subprime deals were sold as securities that have evaporated in value. The end effect is the same no matter WHO held the paper.

I'm a capitalist. I once lived in what once euphemistically called a "semi-state" environment and it was terrible. Capitalism is indeed the only form of economic activity that works. But, it is quite caustic in nature and also self-destructive if left unregulated. I live in a fairly stable neighborhood. I never ordinarily have contact with law enforcement. But I know that if a wildman was trying to walk off the property with everything I own I would call the police. They would intervene between stability and chaos. I think they call it the "Thin Blue Line."

For the last twenty years or so we've had one politician after another cutting that thin blue line of economic regulation like a local mayor with oversize scissors opening a county fair. Our nation has changed, as all things change, but not all change is necessarily good.

And the result is that our economic neighborhood is overrun with wildmen gleefully filling their stockings because the police are now forbidden to even look for crime. It is a sad fact that the first Chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission, Joseph P. Kennedy (himself a notorious Wall St. speculator) had to have bodyguards while on the floor of the stock exchange.

Kennedy's job was to pour some unpalatable liquid into many bowls of cornflakes, and the consumers of said cornflakes did not like it a bit. They still don't and that's why they pay out a lot of money to ensure their meals taste sweeter every year.

So if the bottom falls out of the bucket we all can rest assured that in the long run things will straighten out. But like Harry Hopkins once told a Senate committee, " the problem is, people have to eat in the SHORT RUN."

And they have to drive cars to work so as to keep the economy going. And they have to heat their homes (those who still have them).

And they have to hold their noses next November to elect people who like the taste of their cereal and aren't about to allow any cops in THEIR neighborhood.
*********************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com