Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-04-27 at 1.58.13 PM
Your host at work.


  • ***


« An insult to fraggees | Main | Unrestrained lunacy »

July 31, 2011



Dear Mr President,

I wrote you a longer letter yesterday on the topic of a Radical Republican Party, a party that could not possibly achieve the harm to our social compact, our economy and our global status through any normal legislative or political process.

So, that Radical Republican Party is now attempting to normalize extortion in the legislative and governing process.

We now know with certainty that they willingly, in cold blood, would rather destroy our economy and our credibility in order to achieve their singular objective - protect the wealthiest few from any societal responsibility.

We are fortunate you are President at this time because I have every reason to believe you will not compromise with extortionists - extortionists blatantly violating their Oath of Office and terrorizing all Americans by their actions.

Please exercise your Constitutional authority and halt the extortionists.

Thank you,

Yes.We.Can. ... DO.More.Together!



The default of the USA would make Lehman's look like a picnic; I can't imagine how the world reacts to the implosion politically and economically of a super power.

That wouldn't be hell, it would be Armageddon and no one knows what would happen much less if the genie could ever be put back into the bottle. That we are at this point is because of massive institutional failures. The myopia inherent in your post is mind-boggling and sad.

You can't kill the hostage to save the hostage.

You Don't Say

Yes, a deal to avoid Armaggedon which may lead to ... Armaggedon. Yippee!


As with the last budget deal, let's see what the final details are and then decide how much has been sold out.

Also, now it sounds like (according to Lindsay "Butters" Graham) that this isn't a deal conservatives can support - so maybe they'll vote it down or block it in the Senate, and we may have to have the 14th option.

Then they get to try to impeach the President. We know how that worked the last time.

Plus every one who votes against such a deal is up for the legitimate campaign charge that he/she voted to send the country into default.

If we do get a deal, we'll also be better prepared for the crazy in December. And the President can ramp up the "protecting millionaires and billionaires (oh, sorry, I meant "job creators") at the expense of the middle class" rhetoric from now until then. That's going to be the theme of the election, I suspect, and it doesn't play well for the GOP.

Please note that I said "middle class", not "seniors", "students", "those in need". One thing the Democrats would be wise to learn from the GOP is the importance of casting your audience in the broadest terms possible.


I'm an independent w/ sympathies mostly on the left. Obama is entirely the problem.

He is a weak negotiator...very weak, and everyone knows it. While he seems to walk away from governing saying, "Look, I'm the adult, we got this done and compromise is good” (health care, taxes, a bigger stimulus, debt talks now), the reality is he lives in a fool’s paradise and spends all his time getting his ass handed to him apparently without knowing it.

Half measures and weakness – what the country always worries about with Dems, btw – have hurt Obama, the Democrats, and the country. I find myself wishing Hillary was elected, someone with some actual backbone. The country would be in a far better place.

Robert Lipscomb

As I understand the tenative deal (per Plouffe), It is $1.2 trillion (over 10 years) in Phase 1 to get the debt ceiling raised sufficiently to extend past the presidential election. Then, there is some vauge somethin'-somethin' for Phase 2 that will be implemented over 10 years.

First, let me have a sidebar discussion. One congress cannot tie the hands of following congresses for 10 years. So forget all this trillion dollar crap who hear. So what we have here is $200 billion deal over two years which might be followed by another $2-300 billion over two years that can be cuts, taxes or both - depending on "the committee" decides. As a second sidebar, I assume the president will retain veto power, as will future presidents.

A week or so ago, I recall the senate Democrats having a proposal to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion (over 10 years) that was primarily comprised of ending the Afghan Ware and the Iraq War. Both items are already scheduled but have not been entered in the budget.

So, I am sticking with my prediction that Obama is essentially getting the clean debt ceiling increase he wanted.

As a third aside, quit worrying about cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. They are coming. I hope and pray they come, but not in coverage. In 1970, the US and Canada both spent about 7% of their GDP on healthcare. In 2010, Canada's spending had increased to about 10%, while ours had increased to about 17%. So, I posit we can cut our spending on healthcare by about 40% and give everyone full coverage. This is why Obama is willing to put Medicare and Medicaid on the table. It is why he went after healthcare first. And it is why he will not be selling out seniors and the poor.

the headlines won't read this way, but Obama won.

You Don't Say

^^ You lost me with your second sentence.

CK MacLeod

Robert Lipscomb: Agreed that the wailing and gnashing should be held until after the facts are known. That won't stop a lot of people (see, for instance, the estimable Greg Sargent already this AM).

If the progressive left is serious, and wants to be taken seriously, it should be organizing ahead of the next round or rounds to be sure that its bottom-line positions (progressive taxation, protect the vulnerable, create jobs), which on this subject it can credibly claim are those of a super-majority of citizens, are taken fully into account.

It's as though the left has completely forgotten its entire history, and thinks that complaining in 200-comment blog posts under 36-pt headlines linked in twitter feeds is an adequate substitute for political action in the real world.

Robert Lipscomb

CK: hat has been a constant complaint of mine. I am confident that those that whine the most on blogs do least in hands-on politics. Say what you will about the policy ideas of the Tea party, but they went to work and took over a political party, and they did it through grassroots work.

I promise you that if 10 maybe 20 progressives joined non-urban Democratic county parties, they could take control. For metropolitan parties, 50 would be enough.

But that takes time and effort.

Marilyn in Virginia

I am confused how a President that gives the orders to shoot Somali pirates or Osama Bin Ladin is weak.
This professional left narrative has got to stop. The Democrats and Independents who keep parroting this drivel do not think.
President Obama is the only thing standing between the American citizenry and the hostage takes (TeaRepublicans). If you are an person who is not considered a "Bush have more person" you have to review your priorities because trust me, the TeaRepublicans are not interested in government of a republic, they are interested in ruling a theocracy.


The liberal obsession with "weakness" mirrors that of the far right. This not "My dad can beat up your dad."

The comments to this entry are closed.