Yeah, I heard Keith and I heard Rachel on how much a bad deal this tax deal is. I think they both amazingly impassioned and energized and dead wrong.
Keith position seems to be that Obama should have barnstormed around the country campaigning against the Republicans. a) He spent all summer doing that already and b) there's not enough time to put the
screws to them before the rise of Speaker Boehner and all bets are off the table.
Rachel proclaimed repeatedly that this deal wasn't as good for Dems and the middle class as Obama said ti was, but these are the number via thinkprogress.

What Obama GOT in this deal helps 30 TIMES as many Americans and provides them with $80 Billion more than Republicans got from it.
Here's a newsflash. Obama is not a Progressive. He never said he was a Progressive. He came to Washington to get things
done, and if that means cutting a deal - then that's what it means. The principles people seem to think he's betrayed aren't
His principles. He's a pragmatist and a problem solver, not an ideological crusader.
What he's done here might not be good for Democrats, it might not be good for his Presidency, but it's good - or at least far better - for the nation than the various alternatives.
This nation wasn't founded in perfection. It doesn't exist in perfection now. The original Constitution as it was ratified as a
Deal made between the North and the Southern States. It included a clause that specifically
prohibited Congress for makling one law.
Congress was NOT ALLOWED to ban the importation of African Slaves until 1808.
It also included the 3/5th apportionment clause for taxation and representation of African Slaves, as well as the Fugitive Slave Clause which required Northern States to act as the police and recovery squads for slaves who escaped from the south.
It was because of clauses such as these that the Dred Scot decision was made where it was said that the Constitution
Does not Recognize Africans as Citizens protected by the Laws of the State whether they be
Slaves or Free.
Quite literally they didn't count. They had no rights.
That was because of the deal, but would standing up for the
principle of true equal rights at that time have prevented the nation from forming as a single unit? The Articles of Confederation with it's incredibly weak central government had alraady failed. Would the Southern split that led to the Civil War have simply occured 70 years earlier if Northerners and anti-Slavery proponents have dug in their heel against the cold hard stump of
principled perfection.
Admittedly it's hard to say in hindsight, but I dare say this wouldn't be the nation we have now if they had.
When Obama says that compromise is what this nation was founded on, he's absolutely correct. And sometimes, many times, it's not pretty.
This is a point that only Lawrence O'Donnell made last night.
No comments:
Post a Comment