HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So, protest from "his bas...

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:50 AM

So, protest from "his base" can strengthen Obama's hand, eh?

The media has Sister Souljah Psychosis. We are no longer in the 1990's. It is no longer "news" when a Democratic politician rattles liberals. It doesn't stand out as "a refreshing show of independence" to anyone who really matters anymore, like, um, voters for example. It comes across as "more of the same".

The Republicans have religion about respecting the priorities of "their base". They are not going to be seduced by a President who instinctively tilts toward them every time that they defy him, they just bank his concessions and move on from there. "Standing up to Obama" is how Congressional Republicans get elected to their gerrymandered seats.

Can Obama score a few points with some actual voters by defying the fervently held position of his own core supporters? Sure, it's a big country, but really, how many votes? How many moderates are there left out there still supporting Republicans, who Obama can swing Democratic with this type of stance? Contrast that to how many voters are voting Democratic precisely because they believe it is essential to protect, preserve, and even expand the economic safety net in the face of chronic unemployment and stagnant if not shrinking incomes for the vast majority of Americans?

Here is the essential point that mainstream commentators fail to grasp, often willfully. The Democratic base is more in tune with the American public than the Republican base is, which is why Democrats just won the national election, even with an economy that has everyone still anxious. Insecurity about our economic future is why the majority of Americans support Democrats, because the Democratic Party is the architect of our nations economic safety net and it was seen as the Party most likely to defend it.

When Bill Clinton first "stood up" to the base of his own political party America was still just emerging from it's infatuation with Ronald Reagan. Republicans had dominated Presidential politics for three election cycles prior to Bill Clinton. It could be said that Bill Clinton was courting the votes of "Reagan Democrats" by "standing up" to liberals. Can anyone say, with a straight face at least, that the fortunes of the Democratic Party are at risk due to the mass defection of "Romney Democrats" who somehow must be returned to the fold? Now consider the opposite. Would the fortunes of the Democratic party be at risk if the once sharp distinction that separated Democrats from Republicans in the public mind, when it came to defending the economic safety net, increasingly became blurred?

This fight is about much more than the relative value of this or that bargaining chip in budget negotiations with current Republicans in Congress. President Obama, even under his best case scenario as advanced by establishment minded pundits, conceivably could win a small battle for his administration - forcing Republicans to give an inch, but lose the war for Democrats - and for people who have counted on the Democratic Party to protect their economic interests on issues that can literally mean life and death.

92 replies, 9912 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 92 replies Author Time Post
Reply So, protest from "his base" can strengthen Obama's hand, eh? (Original post)
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 OP
graham4anything Apr 2013 #1
bobduca Apr 2013 #2
el_bryanto Apr 2013 #6
bobduca Apr 2013 #7
graham4anything Apr 2013 #8
el_bryanto Apr 2013 #15
daybranch Apr 2013 #20
Fuddnik Apr 2013 #22
zeemike Apr 2013 #36
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #44
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #83
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #84
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #3
BelgianMadCow Apr 2013 #81
HomerRamone Apr 2013 #24
forestpath Apr 2013 #4
99Forever Apr 2013 #5
Nite Owl Apr 2013 #11
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #57
SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #79
randome Apr 2013 #9
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #13
randome Apr 2013 #14
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #59
xchrom Apr 2013 #10
Armstead Apr 2013 #12
forestpath Apr 2013 #16
bemildred Apr 2013 #17
L0oniX Apr 2013 #28
dotymed Apr 2013 #47
bvar22 Apr 2013 #66
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #68
Scuba Apr 2013 #18
Myrina Apr 2013 #19
L0oniX Apr 2013 #26
L0oniX Apr 2013 #29
demwing Apr 2013 #30
Scuba Apr 2013 #31
demwing Apr 2013 #34
Scuba Apr 2013 #51
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #53
h2ebits Apr 2013 #42
Marr Apr 2013 #45
noiretextatique Apr 2013 #92
mopinko Apr 2013 #21
Armstead Apr 2013 #56
mopinko Apr 2013 #64
Armstead Apr 2013 #73
KoKo Apr 2013 #23
L0oniX Apr 2013 #25
randome Apr 2013 #27
L0oniX Apr 2013 #32
randome Apr 2013 #40
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #62
randome Apr 2013 #63
mother earth Apr 2013 #33
L0oniX Apr 2013 #41
mother earth Apr 2013 #48
zeemike Apr 2013 #43
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #61
BrotherIvan Apr 2013 #82
dotymed Apr 2013 #77
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #35
Capt. Obvious Apr 2013 #37
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #38
xtraxritical Apr 2013 #39
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #52
disndat Apr 2013 #46
mother earth Apr 2013 #49
treestar Apr 2013 #50
gordianot Apr 2013 #54
treestar Apr 2013 #70
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #71
Armstead Apr 2013 #55
treestar Apr 2013 #69
Armstead Apr 2013 #72
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #74
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #86
Armstead Apr 2013 #87
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #88
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #58
bigtree Apr 2013 #60
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #65
Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #67
NCarolinawoman Apr 2013 #75
graham4anything Apr 2013 #76
Rex Apr 2013 #78
patrice Apr 2013 #80
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #85
randome Apr 2013 #89
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #90
randome Apr 2013 #91

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:54 AM

1. President Obama ropes the dopes again. 100% of the time.

 

His admirers can sit and laugh.

It works.

This is an 80 year war.

Stop wanting instant gratification and keep voting democratic candidates in this time.

He is winning the war, and annhiliating the republican party.

wave on wave on wave on wave on wave on wave on wave
Operation Neptune redux.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:55 AM

2. 80 MORE YEARS!

80 MORE YEARS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:03 AM

6. Depends on when the war started. Maybe it started with the election of Bill Clinton in 92?

In which case wee only have 60 more years.

So . . . that's better?

I do agree that Obama has certainly roped a dope though.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:05 AM

7. Sorry I was swept up in the excitement of 20 more obama terms

Just have to figure out how to lift term limits, and extend life by about 150%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:08 AM

8. It could have been 80 years had Adlai,LBJ,Jimmy and Gore kept it going.

 

fracture ruined all the later
Fools voting for Reagan1(Ike) over Adlai started the downhill procession

The back/forth always resets to zero

Foolish to keep putting the Clintons down.

If one wanted, they could have had Jerry Brown in 1992, yet racism stopped it from happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:20 AM

15. Well it's only foolish if you agree with the Clintons middle of the road corporate liberalism

If you disagree with the policy of being Pro-Choice Wall Street candidates, than it makes sense to highlight the way that the Politics of Clinton were not the best.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:37 AM

20. the question now is

would Hillary be as big a corporatist as her husband?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:05 AM

22. You're in Reagans 9th term right now.

2 Reagan
1 Bush
2 Clinton
2 Bush 2
2 Obama

9

Jesus Christ. What ever happened to my party and my country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:10 PM

36. I could suggest an answer.

That it has been marginalized and diminished through creeping triangulation...playing the middle against the far right to move them right...
And it works well when we make excuses for it like playing 3D chess and rope a dope...all the while compromising on principles with the radical right.

Frankly most of the PTB think we are a bunch of dopes...and perhaps they are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:30 PM

44. And Obama includes people who disagree with him and are to the right of

him in positions of power and preparation for more power.

But people to the left of him are given no roles that could lead to their becoming viable candidates. It's all corporate in the Obama administration.

The only exception, possibly, is Hilda Solis. And I don't really know how she stands on a lot of issues. The rest of Obama's cabinet is conserva-Dems and Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:38 PM

83. So, let me get this straight. Obama will include us if we disagree with him. OK, we can

 

try that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #83)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:23 PM

84. If, in addition, you are to the right of him.

He does not include people who disagree with him and are to his left. And this latter group includes most sensible, caring people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:57 AM

3. War is Peace. Retreat is Progress. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:55 PM

81. Greed is good. Society doesn't exist. Austerity brings growth. Depositors are investors.

The economy needs oxygen (the corps need more profits).
Wellfare is evil.
Ignorance is strength.
Slavery is freedom.
Wages are a handicap.

The amount of doublespeak has reached stratospheric heights, and with it, doublethink.

I shouldn't have re-read 1984. But I'm glad I'm not alone seeing the writing on the wall - I post on the Guardian as well, and there's a pretty wide audience exposing doublespeak now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:38 AM

24. hope your grandchildren still have an inhabitable planet after 80 years of climate inaction nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:58 AM

4. K&R PBO is ensuring a 2010 rerun.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:59 AM

5. This is the largest political blunder by Obama, yet...

... of which there has been no shortage. This will cost the Democrats any chance at taking back the House and possibly losing the Senate in 2014.

What a HUGE mistriangulation.

Unless, of course, that was the plan all along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:15 AM

11. He doesn't care about the party

his agenda is different. His rich donors want their payback and this is it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:04 PM

57. I really think it is also - by far

I think Obama believes "entitlements" must be cut since Republicans refuse to be taxed. I suspect that his thinking on this is firmly inside the mainstream box

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:36 PM

79. "Unless, of course, that was the plan all along.

No reason so far too think otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:13 AM

9. You mention what mainstream commentators fail to grasp.

That's not going to change unless there is a groundswell of support for something different.

I don't believe Obama is perfect. But who do you think he's 'preaching' to? It's not just his base.

The media has to get on board. Even Republicans have to get on board. We can turn this sinking ship around but it takes a lot more than just 'sticking to your guns' while nothing gets accomplished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:16 AM

13. In the 21st Century we are part of the media - as small a part as any individual blog may be

We are now a part of the media mix and larger outlets sometimes pick up on themes that we as individuals ground break on. The one thing we can not afford to be is silent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:19 AM

14. But even you mention the importance of 'mainstream commentators'.

The majority of people still get their news -and form their opinions- from mainstream media.

That's another part of the puzzle that needs to be 'won over'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:06 PM

59. Of course

Changing facts on the ground as they say is part of that - refusing to go along with the meme that liberals can be rolled. Look, this OP took me 30 minutes of concentrated effort to write. I couldn't think of a more productive use of 30 minutes and even if there are lots of them there still are plenty more hours in the day. Do what we can do when we can do it, and keep on at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:14 AM

10. du rec. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:15 AM

12. "forcing Republicans to give an inch, but lose the war for Democrats"

That pretty much nails it.

You may disagree with this, but to be perfectly honest, I believe if Mitt Romney were not such a total jerk, I suspect he'd be president today. I honestly think Romney and the GOP energized Obama's "base" more than Obama did.

Obama was weakened by his attempts at triangulating, not strengthened by them. His supporters were disheartened, his opponents were unchanged and it gave the perception of a weak leader to those who were uncommitted.

If Obama returns to that pattern of capitulation, it will be the Democrats who will have to pay the tab for not listening to what Americans really want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:20 AM

16. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:23 AM

17. Triangulating is a stupid strategy unless you don't want to win.

Then it makes sense. And in this case, it does make sense, the last thing the national elites in the Democratic Party want is to crush their friends in the Republican Party, because time and time again they refuse to do it.

This happens to be precisely the case with Obama, who wants to unite us all, not crush the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:48 AM

28. Obama is a great speech giver but a WEAK president IMO. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:40 PM

47. That is why Obama has made it very hard for future Democrats to win an election.

No-one will believe them. Candidate Obama and President Obama are entirely different personalities. Candidate Obama told us what we wanted to hear. President Obama has proven that the d&r parties are just two arms of the PTB.
Candidate Obama used (probably the last) of the proven "peoples party" goodwill to get re-elected in another election where Americans were forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
It is now totally transparent, for anyone willing to look, that our two "viable" parties are just different arms of the same oligarchs.

If any change is to be made that will benefit the 99% it will not come from either current party. Unless we can, beyond a doubt, recapture the spirit and deeds of the original Democratic party, we will have to rely on another name for that party. Are Americans progressive enough to get behind a Democratic Socialist party? Our most pro-people Senator IS a Democratic Socialist (Bernie Sanders) who uses the moniker of Independent party (for reasons that I understand). We may have to do the same to field FDR Democratic politicians in order to make them "viable" and acceptable to the average voter.
Whatever it takes, I will not vote for another dlc candidate who wants to ride his/her way into politics by misrepresenting the name of great Democrats in order to make themselves appealing to average voters. Obama has probably ruined that possibility anyway...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #47)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:59 PM

66. ^^THIS^^

It is going to be difficult for ANY Democrat to run on Protecting Social Security, Renegotiating NAFTA, and Helping the Middle Class now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #47)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:06 PM

68. The Public now sees two parties each promising to reform Social Security by cutting it

One more compelling reason for maybe if it's a presidential election year voters to turn out to vote in the midterms. Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:29 AM

18. If Dems want more votes, they should move left where the disenfranchised reside ...

- Creating jobs through infrastructure and education investments

- Raising the minimum wage

- Medicare for All

- Strengthening /expanding Social Security

and ...

- Higher taxes on the wealthiest to pay for it all.


Support these policies - plus legalization - and watch the ranks of lefty voters swell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:37 AM

19. ^^ What Scuba said ^^

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:45 AM

26. The worshippers here don't care about SS, poor people, the elderly, disabled and vets. Dino's ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:54 AM

29. You're making too much sense. Stop now or be attacked by Dino's. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:57 AM

30. But they dont, do they?

They don't move left. Why?

Moving to the left would be moving away from the money.

Until we solve that issue (and I don't mean that we should be leaving it up to the foxes to regulate the hen house) we will see more and more disenfranchisement on the left, and more and more bat shit crazy on the right to scare the hell out of the fence sitters on the left.

We have to set out on a more drastic path. The old tools are all co-opted. We need a game-changer...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:58 AM

31. A general strike?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:06 PM

34. That would be a great, non-violent option

but it would have to be widespread, and participants would have to be willing to go the long haul.

Maybe there are other ways that are more effective, if so I don't know them. But my gut tells me if we don't figure out a way to end the political gravy train peacefully, then the next gen of voters will have to do the job through force.

I don't want to see a French Revolution solution. I think we have the opportunity to avoid it, which means we have a responsibility to avoid it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #34)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:03 PM

51. A one-day general strike wouldn't require "long haul" sacrifices ...

... and would make a great point, if there were sufficient participation. If there's not enough positive results, then perhaps a 3-day strike with longer strikes as options.


I really don't know what's right, but it's imperative that the People regain control of our government bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:25 PM

53. Because they have the money, we need the enthusiasm

That part, at least, is a simple equation. Deflating the zeal of Democratic Activist base makes as much sense for Democrats as opposing Citizens United does for Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:24 PM

42. I agree

These points are why I voted for Obama. I feel deceived. It is hard to imagine that Obama's advisers are so willfully ignorant that they would encourage altering SS as part of the budget and deficit reduction. How many times do we have to scream at him that SS does not contribute one penny to the deficit. There is no justification good enough for Obama to have included SS in his budget recommendations.

The Senate already took a vote and declared that they wouldn't touch SS--thanks to Bernie Sanders. I guess it is really up to all of us to scream even louder to stop this action. This is a PEOPLE issue--not a political football!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:33 PM

45. Where's the money in that? /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:58 PM

92. alienating the Democratic base stregnthens obama's ability to deal with republicons

that's what the very , very serious people are saying.

So as a governing document, it’s dead on arrival. But it’s still useful: By taking a step toward the center on this one element, Obama demonstrates a willingness to go against his political base – and that base has helped him publicize that point by vocally and publicly objecting to his proposal. By extension, his move on chained CPI could be helpful in dealing with other elements of his agenda.

“Obama is cleverly using it as a bargaining chip to give himself wiggle room on other key agenda items like gun control and immigration reform, while still leaving open the minuscule possibility of reaching a budget grand bargain,” says Republican strategist Ford O’Connell.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0410/Obama-budget-changes-Social-Security-Are-Republicans-on-board?nav=655577-csm_article-leftColRelated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:56 AM

21. this is utter false equivalence

the republican base doesn't get rattled, they can't think. the party does not give a shit if they like what it happening or not. they are all watching duck dynasty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:02 PM

56. Um, the Republican base is scaring the shit out of that party's leadership

Hate them if you want, but the Tea Party base is driving the agenda. The GOP leadership is scared of them because they know the consequences of going against their base.

The Democratic leadership just thumbs its nose at its base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #56)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:49 PM

64. um, the tea party was built to give them cover for what they really want.

the tea party is not the base. it is the puppet of the koch brothers. they love being able to make the tea party happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #64)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:06 PM

73. UM, I think the GOP leadership is mlore centrist than the Teabaggers

They may want similar things, but the Tea Party has a definite direction in mind and are less compromising.

Boner, for example, would probably have struck a deal with Obama on the budget long ago were it not for the Tea Party pressure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:14 AM

23. "...give an inch, but lose the war for Democrats

He's been giving so many inches since he was first elected it's now becoming apparent to more people that those "inches" may turn into "miles" in the next almost four years of his second term.

And, agree it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Thanks for this post Tom. Hope some here who think this is Chess or Poker or that "he had to do this because of those Mean, Dirty Fighting, Crazy Republicans"....will wake up. If Obama doesn't know what he's doing to the party then heaven help us or we take the Party back in whatever way we can...using what ever creative ability and skills we can muster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:42 AM

25. Obama is no FDR ...and never could be. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:47 AM

27. Did FDR have an obstructionist Congress comprised of the opposing party?

Obama is doing what he can, IMO. We all have to work with the tools and the conditions that are available. Unless that rare circumstance occurs where we can change the conditions to our liking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:59 AM

32. FDR used the bully pulpit against them. Our coward wants to be friends with them. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #32)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:19 PM

40. I get you.

But this is a different century. You can't 'shame' Republicans or the Tea Party or the racists and homophobes among them. Maybe the best thing to do is box them into a corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #40)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:36 PM

62. Who has boxed who into a corner?

All the action in Washington revolves around budget cutting and austerity despite a terrible recession and a jobless "recovery".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:46 PM

63. IF he wanted to drive home the point that Republicans are all that's standing in the way...

...he has done that. I admit I don't know if that's the best course of action to take but I honestly don't see any other. We will have 2 years of doing nothing until 2014. Maybe he thought this was worth trying to peel a few of them off in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:00 PM

33. Doing what he can? He gives great speeches, why isn't he firing up the country & calling them out?

Instead, he bargains with the bastards that lost the election...how many times does he give his power away, even if it is to fucking stand like a rock for something WE the people want. Represent us for once, I'm so sickened by his giveaways.

I feel like his base doesn't matter, and if we don't matter, it's obvious we are all screwed. If the party can win the election, & still be fucked...what the hell does that say? It means we are done, and that is exactly what is playing out. The people no longer matter. All hail the oligarch, corporate reign with zero oversight, zero law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mother earth (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:22 PM

41. ...because he is weak ...and now the repukes are smelling blood. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #41)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:50 PM

48. Weakness by design, how sweet for the benefactors, sucks for the taxpayers though. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:26 PM

43. Look up the CCC

Civilian Conservation Corp...
FDR started that program less than a year after he took office...and it was up and running before his critics could get their pants on...and it worked.
He met lots of resistance to the new deal...but that did not stop him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:20 PM

61. Consider this

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)

We had I think a couple of trillion dollars in new revenues per decade locked into place starting last January 1st when ALL of the Bush tax cuts were due to expire. This Social Security cut will "save" the treasury about 110 Billion a decade - a tiny fraction of the revenues letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have raised. There were other things due to happen on January 1st, like the Sequester kicking in. Some horse trading took place. We go 600 Billion in new revenue, extended unemployment benefits and a few other relatively small temporary concessions from Republicans, and Sequestration got kicked back three months.

It's true that Obama and many other key Democrats didn't want all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, they wanted cuts for the middle class. That's fine if we don't need that money to keep the economic safety net intact, but according to the pols we do, and we don't have it, so we have to shrink the net. Americans did OK with the old tax rates under Clinton and Social Security and Medicare were much more solvent to boot. Americans don't want Social Security cut. Polling shows they are willing to pay higher taxes if it comes to that to keep our current benefits, so what part of that are Democratic leaders failing to hear?

Not only did we allow continued Bush tax breaks for "the upper Middle Class", we made them permanent - no more sunset clause like last time. We also caved and agreed that people making up to $400,000 a year deserve continued tax breaks, but our elders now have to take a hit.

Oh, and that Sequester which we were so eager to avoid that we made tax cut concessions in order to avoid, well the Republicans suckered the Democrats and did what everyone said they wouldn't - they let them kick in automatically after the delay and Democrats couldn't lift a finger to stop them. But we have lost all of the leverage we once had on taxes by now letting the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled when Republicans had no power to stop that then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #61)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:22 PM

82. Excellent post and and excellent OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:24 PM

77. FDR had a fucking armed coup, but he kept pressing for the average person. efom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:07 PM

35. It's this vast undecided "middle" that exists only in the minds of the DC Villagers.

Oh. And let's just look at the losers the Democrats offered in the prior elections.

First there was Carter where the media claimed he was weak for not wanting to bomb everyone. Next the Democrats offered Carter's Vice President Mondale as a sacrificial offering followed by someone nobody ever heard of with a name that sounded like you were saying, "Do cock us". This was followed by Bill Clinton who RAN as a Liberal but then governed as a Republican to the delight of the power elite. He didn't win with a majority either time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:14 PM

37. Bill Clinton stood up to the kill whitey faction of his base

just like Obama is standing up to the free ride grandparents of his base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:14 PM

38. "Standing up to the Left" is much easier than Standing up to the Republicans for Obama.

Just as it was for Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:16 PM

39. Is your brain smoking? Or, what are you smoking? Try decafe.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #39)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:06 PM

52. Thanks for the Kick n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:35 PM

46. The Republicns won't accept

anything Obama will come up with, even if Obama eliminate S.S/Medicare completely, even if Obama gives them the moon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disndat (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:00 PM

49. Then he should be blaring it over the soundwaves, he should be using his presidency for that at the

very least, but instead he is throwing us all under the bus, for what? The lobbyists and the corporations, it's plain that's what the GOP is about, and now, apparently our very own Democratic POTUS who promised transparency and an end to the obvious hijacking of the now corporate-owned government. SCOTUS has even approved personhood for the greatest heist ever, plain as day, in all of our faces...it's not even debatable any more.

Maya Angelou said Believe someone the first time they tell you who they are.

I get it, DINO, there's no other excuse, not any more. Both parties in power are the same, with a few lone democrat voices still trying to actually represent us. We all know those names. This is so blatant now, never before have we seen such an obvious display.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:01 PM

50. He did win the 2012 election

After four years of the "base" saying they were going to abandon him.

The country does not have a lot of fervent leftists, and most fervent leftists realize that, and that all change will be incremental and there will be backslides.

Unreasonable emoprogs/trolls are another matter. They are posting the same thing over and over again here on DU. Yet more and more threads with this stuff. And some of the most irrational foot-shooting declarations, some so out there that you Better Believe It is trolling. Trying to get the base to stay home in 2014. Not going to work this time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #50)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:56 PM

54. You are correct there is no where else to go, that being said this is decline of American Democracy.

Plenty of reasons why, no use in laying blame until total disaster befalls us. I fell for the "One America" line so I share the blame when it comes. If nothing else I have a new appreciation of the Democratic Senators who voted for the Iraq war. I will continue to make mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordianot (Reply #54)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:45 PM

70. It is not a matter of where to go, you live in a society

If you are progressive and to the left, the fact is we are all surrounded by Republicans, and we have to be realistic about that. Whether we can convince them to move to the left, or show them to be total douchebags so those who pay less attention are less likely to find something in their schtick - that is the real state of affairs. We should deal with it rather than simply finding someone to blame for it. Every person in this country has the right to vote and the right to free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #70)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:51 PM

71. We live in a Society in which...

Based on solid reputable polling: The public opposed the Bush tax cuts to begin with, but we got them anyway The public voted in a President (Obama) who promised to repeal those tax cuts during his first term but didn't. Then he promised to repeal them for those making over $250,000 a year - but left them in place up to $400,000. The public strongly opposes cutting Social Security Benefits but that is being proposed now. The public supports raising taxes if needed to preserve current Social Security and Medicare benefits, but that is not being considered. etc. etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #50)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:58 PM

55. Romney won the election for him

I suspect that if Romney were not such a bumbling butthead, he would be president right now.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #55)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:43 PM

69. Wow you will not give Obama credit for anything

Not even winning the election.

The whole attitude is that voters have no control over who they vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #69)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:01 PM

72. I give him credit for some things...but he often disappoints

Ands voters don't have a lot of control over who the GET TO vote for....The folks with Big Money get to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #72)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:42 PM

74. I'll give him credit for guns right now for example

On GLBT rights for another. But yes, he often disappoints. But this really doesn't revolve around giving credit or not to President Obama, it comes down to what makes sense for the American people. Shrinking the economic safety net doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #55)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:57 AM

86. Yes Romney bumbled, but more damning is what he openly represented

Romney personified the 1%, and is opposing Romney Democrats were directly fighting back against the class war waged against us. In the coming mid term elections there will not be a single Republican leader of that Party to similarly unite us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #86)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:24 AM

87. That's what I indirectly meant with the word "butthead"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #87)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:26 AM

88. gotcha, lol n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:05 PM

58. the sister souljah thing was 100% theatrics. sister souljah is a fake too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:09 PM

60. so how/where does all of this political trouble for Obama manifest itself?

. . . he's not running for anything.

I agree that he's spitting in the wind every time he makes attempts to reach out to republicans by offering them part of their cynical agenda. I'm not sure that the end effect is much different, though. Republicans have made their careers dependent on being obstructionists to, not only Democrats, but to the progressive policies that are so popular among majorities out here. That's not going to change until they're made politically accountable for that at the voting booth.

Yet, I think it's a mistake to assume that the president actually expects 'compromises' like Chained cpi to actually see the light of day. It may not have occurred to folks that this budget proposal that's sparking all of this reflection on the President- which is doa in the Senate and is tied to items that everyone knows republicans will never accept - is unlikely to be a sincere effort from the WH; rather, another political attempt to show that he's still determined to deliver the bipartisanship he has said is the panacea to our democracy.

What I think he's up against, is a necessary division of interests between parties which was supposed to be resolved by the last election. At some point, he has to just throw down and refuse to budge; instead of throwing these ignored entreaties to republicans which threaten to politically undermine everything he campaigns for.

We need more firmness going into the midterms - much like he practiced on Romney in the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:51 PM

65. Unfortunately, his 3rd Way base is NOT protesting his conservative policies.

Rather they are embracing them and condemning the left for protesting them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:01 PM

67. if the protest involved the base supporting something unpopular - that could - but the base and 80%

of America stands in solidarity with opposing cuts in Social Security. How could that possibly strengthen the President's hand?

It seems to me they only advocates for cutting Social Security and Medicare are the mainstream media who keep howling about finding the middle ground between the far right and the far left - defining the far left as those who oppose cuts in earned benefits or what they call "entitlement reform." - a position the mythological far left of the mainstream media holds with about 80% of Americans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:53 PM

75. I think Obama's Social Security cuts, and that is what the local

Raleigh tv news is calling it, will trump any comparison with that Sister Souljah moment.

The Raleigh/Durham local news extends over all of Eastern North Carolina, as well as covering the central area of the state. Probably more watched than the national news here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:00 PM

76. So, you are saying you should have voted for Hillary-gosh darn, we all are going to in 2016

 

and you are welcome to vote for her too.

I know I will.

And nothing will change my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:27 PM

78. Evidently the Left doesn't play Hyperchess.

Like the Center and Right-of-Center does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Original post)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:22 PM

80. Agreed. Now name what political price you will pay for what you want. PO has never had the backing

that would allow uni-lateral action on this or any other issue. Protecting Social Security will cost us ground on another issue. That's how the Congressional numbers are, ever since 2010.

Your OP is right, but you don't get a free lunch. Name your price and please don't say you'll give up something you didn't want in the first place. What are you willing to lose in order to defeat the CPI?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #80)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:36 PM

85. I would not have cut a fiscal cliff deal before all of the Bush tax cuts expired.

I knew that was the only revenue increases the Republicans couldn't block. I understood that . sequestration would have kicked in immediately. Even more painful, unemployment benefits for many long term unemployed would have lapsed. But that was our moment of greatest leverage. If push came to shove I would still agree to go back to the Clinton era tax rates on all Americans - giving up the middle class tax cuts also - not as a bargaining ploy but as tax policy.

Now I am willing to risk total gridlock in Washington rather than cut Social Security. That would include I assume Republicans holding up Court appointments and the like and potentially a partial government shut down further down the road - which includes things like Social Security checks being delayed if that is what it comes to during a climatic showdown. I am certainly willing to risk higher annual deficit numbers for a couple of years if we don't budge on "entitlement" cuts and they don't budge on new revenues. I would not blink first on defaulting on our nations loans if the Republicans threaten to take us over the debt limit cliff. I would mint the trillion dollar coin if need be rather than be blackmailed by them. I would take our case to the American people and fight on those grounds in the next two election cycles.

I would agree to another dollar in new budget cuts for every new dollar of revenue raised to shrink the deficit.but would count the trillion dollars in cuts from the last budget round, and the sequestration cut figures in that equation along with counting the $600 Billion in new revenues from expiring Bush tax cuts. So the Republicans owe us more revenue already. I would accept some means testing for medicare and a much higher earnings ceiling for paying into the Social Security trust fund. I would agree to slightly raise F.I.C.A.taxes if nothing else worked. I would insist on raising the minimum wage to a living wage, indexed for inflation. In return I might agree to the Chained - CPI kicking in on Social Security ten years down the road, because then benefits would be calculated off of a much higher base line for those ten years for those who are most vulnerable, and more people would have had a fighting chance to accumulate some savings if the minimum wage was a living wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #85)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:32 AM

89. I'm sure if you took a poll of 20 people, you'd get about 45 different ideas...

...on what Obama 'should' have done. But micro-managing the Presidency is just a thought experiment for most of us.

We're not there on the front lines so we don't know what options are or are not available.

Obama is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but he's an intelligent man. Absent some egregious behavior such as, oh, I don't know, invading another country for the hell of it, I'm more inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt on most things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #89)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:40 AM

90. I was only offering a direct answer to a direct question

I did not run for President. But there is a reason why people get to vote in a democracy, we are called on to make judgements on the people who seek to lead and where they intend their leadership to take us. Elizabeth Warren, for example, is an intelligent woman who opposes what Obama just opposed and no one call call her an "Obama hater - she served in his administration." Intelligent and well meaning people can disagree. I am not what one calls a low information voter - I do not put my citizenship on automatic pilot when a Democrat is in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #90)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:50 AM

91. Understood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread