"Specifically, what is it Obama should do that he hasn't already done?"

[babylonsister]

Posted with permission.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/01/18004000-beltway-assumptions-are-often-hard-to-shake

Beltway assumptions are often hard to shake
By Steve Benen
-
Wed May 1, 2013 4:20 PM EDT


I naively assumed that recent developments in Washington would, once and for all, make it clear to pundits that blaming President Obama for Republican intransigence is a mistake. I thought there just wasn't a reasonable way to honestly and objectively evaluate events, and conclude that the White House isn't doing enough to overcome GOP obstructionism.

Indeed, just today a leading Republican senator said some of his colleagues killed gun reforms because they "did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done," and most House Republicans are "stiff ideologues who didn't extract any lesson from Mitt Romney's loss and are only looking to slash spending and defund President Barack Obama's health care law at every turn."

And yet, Beltway assumptions are apparently tough to shake. Maureen Down heard Obama explain yesterday that he's not responsible for making Congress behave, but she disagrees.

Actually, it is his job to get them to behave. The job of the former community organizer and self-styled uniter is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the stuff he wants them to do. It's called leadership.

It is? That's leadership? We have co-equal branches of government, with the executive in the hands of one party, and most the legislative in the hands of another. If the latter refuses to be responsible, it's necessarily evidence of the former's failure of leadership?

Not only is this at odds with Civics 101 -- the president is not in charge of the Congress and cannot tell it what it do -- it's a superficial analysis. Obama "somehow" has to get lawmakers to bend to his will. How? Dowd didn't say. Just "somehow."

Dowd added that if Obama wants to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, "he should have a drink with Mitch McConnell. Really." McConnell has candidly admitted that he refuses to consider bipartisan proposals, even ones that he approves of, in order to advance his larger partisan cause of destroying the Obama presidency. What makes Maureen Dowd think McConnell will loosen up over a drink with Obama? She didn't say.

I'm struggling to understand this entire approach to political analysis. What's more, it's even harder to come to grips with the fact that it's spreading.

For example, Ron Fournier is, alas, thinking along Dowd-like lines.

Great presidents rise above circumstance. Not Obama, at least not yet. At a news conference Tuesday marking the 100th day of his second and final term, the president seemed unwilling or unable to overcome stubborn GOP opposition.

"You seem to suggest that somehow, these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave," Obama told a reporter. "That's their job."

Obama needs a coach to look him in the eyes and say, "Mr. President, I'm not excusing the other team. They suck. But you need to beat them, sir. That's your job, because if you can't stop them, we lose. And there's no excuse to losing to such a lousy-bleeping team."

Two things. First, great presidents don't "rise above circumstance," so much as they make the most of difficult situations. Let's not forget that presidents aren't kings. They face constitutional limits, a system of checks and balances, and pushback from a co-equal branch of government. If anyone has an example of a president achieving great legislative victories while working with a radicalized opposition party that refuses to compromise, I'm eager to see it.

Second, what I'd like Beltway to pundits to consider is the need for specificity. Obama "needs to beat" the other team, Fournier says. The president must "somehow" get Congress "to do the stuff he wants them to do," Dowd advises.

But how? This isn't a rhetorical question. Specifically, what is it Obama should do that he hasn't already done? What, exactly, is the recommended course of action?

"The president should figure something out" isn't an answer, at least it's not a substantive one. We're talking about a Congress that killed gun reforms with 90% public support, despite spirited presidential leadership on the issue, because Republicans "did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done."

It's easy -- perhaps a little too easy -- for many of us in political commentary to sit back and urge the president to "somehow" "rise above circumstance." But mature analysis requires additional depth.

If pundits have ideas on how to improve policymaking in Washington, I'd love to hear them. Come to think of it, I have a hunch the president would, too.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. He should offer to cut Social Security. Oh wait, he's already done that.

[Sheepshank]

5. oohhhh so inane. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

6. COLA not benefits. It was President Carter with Democrats in both chambers of Congress who

cut BENEFITS, and did so successfully.

It was President Clinton who cut BENEFITS when he signed into law a bill that would tax social security recipients' BENEFITS if they made over $34K per year.

Oh, and let's not forget the champion of social security, Tip O'Neill, who agreed to raise the eligibility age.

But I'm sure President Obama is the anti-Christ, not the above esteemed gentlemen.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Actually, while you are blaming Clinton for taxing SS benefits under certain circumstances,

your President Reagan was the first to do so.

Reagan took the first step to tax 50% of qualifying SS benefits. Clinton, raised it to 85%. He didn't initiate such scheme. He didn't double it. But you can fully expect Obama to again raise it, this time to 100%.

You are also mistaken with respect to your history.

You say that Tip O'Neill was "the campion of social security."

Actually, it was FDR.

[BlueCaliDem]

121. Just pointing out the glaring differences between Carter, Clinton, Tip O'Neill, and Obama

and how who's getting the most FLACK for touching Social Security. It's never been Carter or Clinton or Congressional Democrats. It's - tah-dah-dah! - Obama!

And then you wonder why so many people believe that this undue criticism and sniping from the "loyal left" is race-based rather than fact-based.

As for the champion of social security . . . it wasn't FDR at all. If you want to be factual about it, it was Frances Perkins.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

132. That's as nonsensical as saying that Edison should not get credit for modern illumination because

Benjamin Franklin looked for electricity while flying a kite.

It is commonly recognized by sensible people that the first person to actually implement something is the person rightfully credited for it.

If you are going to credit Frances Perkins, who was her predecessor? Who taught her? How far back does it go? Why not credit the first caveman who shared fire with the elderly?

[BlueCaliDem]

134. Nope. The comparison is false. Why?

Because not only did Frances Perkins had to draft up the social security bill, she had to find a way to get it through Congress in order to have FDR sign it into law. She cleverly used the constitutional power of Congress to tax, because she knew that the Rightwingers even back then would challenge the constitutionality of the bill and bring it before SCOTUS {and they did} - just as they had done with ObamaCare.

The rest of your post is truly nonsensical, and it's a sign you know you've lost the debate. I'm happy with that.

Have a great one!

[NYC_SKP]

137. Edison didn't do squat. Tesla did it all, more efficient lights motors and more.

Edison was a thief and a corporatist's best friend.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. Wow. Didn't know any of that

Frankly, adjusting the COLA rate, while still not preferable, isn't that horrid of a deal if it's part of a broader package that includes protections and closes some tax loopholes. Judging from the reaction of some people, you would think that he's talking about putting it in the stock market, raising the eligibility age (again), or actually cutting benefits.

[Hekate]

98. When one thinks PBO is the Anti-Christ, it's easier to think the worst of him and his motives

Also easier to just make shit up.

[JDPriestly]

99. I'm a senior who relies on Social Security for my income. The chained CPI will cut my income.

It will cut Social Security. How anyone can claim that the chained CPI is not a benefit cut I do not understand. It is.

If it weren't Obama would not have proposed it as part of his plan to reduce the deficit.

[JDPriestly]

97. You present the best argument against the chained CPI which is, in fact, a serious cut in our

Social Security benefits. That best argument is the fact that Social Security has, over the years, been cut enough. It's time to stop the cuts. Raise the minimum wage instead. That should cause all but the top CEO pay to go up, even out the income gap between rich and poor just at tiny bit, increase the money paid into the Social Security Trust Fund and at the same time increase the money paid in taxes just a trifle. Plus ordinary people will take a little more home in their paychecks. It a winner for the vast majority of Americans.

Let's get a Democratic Congress in 2014 so that we can keep Social Security and raise the minimum wage.

[BlueCaliDem]

123. Once again

basic benefit payouts {what you put in rather than what the government now subsidizes} was FDR's original intent. He never meant or wanted social security to be a welfare program, or as he called it, "the dole", which it now is. Through amendment, amendment, and amendment {as Frances Perkins called it}, it has become a much-needed welfare program. As a matter of history, COLA wasn't even instituted until 1975. Before that time, there were a few cost of living adjustments, but it wasn't mandatory.

That said, how many cost of living raises have you received in the past two-three years under the current COLA calculations? None. Now, do you consider not having received a cost of living raise for 2-3 years a cut in social security benefits? That's what you're saying the proposed C-CPI is because it proposes to cut 0.3% of 1% of the rate of growth per year without touching basic benefits.

But I agree. Let's work hard to get a Democratic Congress {specifically the House} and get another stimulus, more jobs, and raise the minimum wage to ensure nothing happens to Social Security, unless it's to raise the benefits.

[JDPriestly]

125. Actually, I think we have had two COLA increases. They weren't large, but I think we had them.

The Social Security system started out as a money in, money out system. It now has a huge surplus intended to support the retirements of the baby boomers.

When Social Security came in, the move we saw in the 1930s of increasing numbers of farmers to towns and cities had become a tremendous problem for seniors. That is because older people who owned their farms could either live on the farm with their children or sell the farm and live on the proceeds after retirement.

With so many seniors in towns and cities, that was not possible.

In the 1950s, 60s and on until Reagan, a lot of American workers, maybe even most, had work-related pensions.

That is no longer the case. A lot of the buy-outs, the Romney-style buy-outs of American industry and American companies, enriched people like Romney who bankrupted the companies and then took the pension funds that had been promised to employees at lower levels. This is just one of the ways in which American seniors were impoverished.

We pay a good percentage of our income into Social Security. We receive back modest amounts. The average recipient gets between $1200 and $1300 per month. It is not welfare. We paid into it. It is not a large pay-out. The seniors you see who are living well usually earned well when they worked and were able to save or were lucky enough to get pensions in addition to Social Security.

Remember, when I started working back in the 1950s and 1960s, pay was much lower than it is today. It may appear that we receive a lot more than we paid in, but if you adjust for inflation it is not out of line. There have been periods, such as in the 1980s when interest rates were very, very high. At this time, I believe that they are the lowest they have been in my memory, and I am not young.

[still_one]

106. Gee, thanks, I guess that makes it alright for other Democrats to do also... NOT /nt

[BlueCaliDem]

124. Not saying that at all. Just debunking the myth that "no Democrat ever touched S.S. so Obama "

is EVEEEEL or a Republican-lite, or a Reaganite", because as our history shows, that's not true. Plenty of Democrats not only went there, but they cut basic benefits - something President Obama has NOT proposed in his comprehensive budget proposal that would include instituting universal Pre-K and raising taxes on the wealthy as well as stopping any more billion dollar subsidies to Big Oil, Big Agri, and Big Corporation.

[still_one]

128. I know you weren't

[markpkessinger]

127. From an accounting/budgeting perspective, chained CPI is technically not a cut. BUT . . .

. . . for an elderly person relying in whole or in part on Social Security to meet his or her living expenses (which is to say the real world, as opposed to the abstract world of the budgeting process), it most certainly IS a benefit cut. It seems, at first glance, like a very small cut, but by changing the formula for calculating COLA increases from one based on the standard CPI to one that is based on the chained CPI, that "small" cut has a cumulative effect over the years. After 15 or 20 years, the difference in what a person would have received under the existing formula, versus that under the proposed, chained CPI formula, becomes quite significant. You can say it's "not a cut" all you want, but the bottom line is, recipients will receive less money than they would have otherwise.

Now to your point about Carter, Clinton and Tip O'Neill, all three of those men served in a very different time, and a very different economy, than the one we find ourselves in today. When they were in office, tax rates on the wealthiest segment of our citizens was not at a 70-year low as they are today. The 401(k) scam had yet to completely overtake traditional pension plans, and wealth inequality was nowhere near the all-time high it has reached today. Thus, in this, our current, context, a proposal that will have the effect of reducing benefits (even if it is not, in a technical accounting sense a 'cut', becomes an issue of fundamental fairness and economic justice.

[winter is coming]

2. No matter what the President does/wants, the Republicans have vowed to oppose him,

regardless of the cost to their constituents. The time for pretending that conservative Republicans or their ideas are reasonable/plausible has long since passed.

[TheKentuckian]

30. What opposition has been mounted to stop education deform?

How about roadblocks to warrant-less wiretapping?

Are they cutting of drone funds?

They let shit they favor go through but no they have no ideas of value including the bullshit Obama pursues that they pretend they oppose for partisan spitballing like GingrichCare and binding deficit commissions.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. A LOT of DUers would benefit from reading this in-depth and factually correct piece.

Maybe they'd understand what exactly co-equal means. Currently, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I guess they're still suffering the brainwashing of the "omnipotent Executive" that Duhbya and Dick tried to usher in. It's time they wake up and realize we are a democracy not a dictatorship.

and rec'd

[Skittles]

52. apparently we're only under "dictatorship" when repukes are in office

[Jamaal510]

60. +1

"Duhbya"

[Hekate]

4. Kick. Rec. POTUS does not equal "king"

I'm so sick of this. The US President is not a King. In fact in monarchies today, even kings are not king, because of that whole constitutional monarchy thingy. So I guess the takeaway from this is that US Presidents are not dictators. They're just not.

Good post. Thanks, Babs.

[unblock]

7. the analysis is simple. he's expected to achieve results, and all failure is his fault.

republicans know this and this premise is at the heart of their obstinancy. the "no, nothing" congress isn't to blame. no matter how many filibusters the senate minority does, no matter how often the house majority refuses to pass reasonable legislation, it's somehow always the democrats' fault.

the republican strategy relies heavily on this notion that republican refusal to follow is a failure of obama's leadership.

[babylonsister]

10. The obstinancy is not just with the rethugs. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. And ...

“the republican strategy relies heavily on this notion that republican refusal to follow is a failure of obama's leadership.”

it’s actually a damned good strategy, especially when you get it to the point that the Left carries your water for you. For every 1 goper I hear whining about leadership; I count 5 saying it right here.

[JDPriestly]

107. The Republicans' recalcitrance and lack of cooperation or good will are problem enough. Obama

plays right into their game by trying to cooperate with them too much. Obama should go over the heads of the Republicans in Congress and straight to their constituencies and to all American voters.

That is where Obama's strength is -- his appeal to voters, the rapport he has with ordinary people.

Obama needs to put the Republicans on the defensive. The best way to do that in my view is to go to the people directly. Obama should spend a lot of time out of D.C. holding real meetings with voters explaining what he wants to do and why.

That is what I think he should do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. Worked like a charm on Gun Control ...

right?

[JDPriestly]

118. Just wait. A little patience and we will see. We will get gun legislation.

People are still paying attention. Sandy Hook will not be forgotten for a long, long time. You can't expect to succeed on the first try. Obama should just continue to go to the people. And he should not make his stances or proposals more conservative just to please Republicans. That is exactly what Republicans want him to do. Obama just needs to be stubbornly Democratic and liberal. That will get him definition, and voters who support him will come out in droves in 2014.

Remember, it isn't how what proportion of the population that supports a candidate that matters but rather what proportion of voters that supports a candidate. If Obama gets liberal, progressive voters including union members, teachers, etc. out to vote in 2014, Obama can get the Congress he wants. The problem in 2010 was that the Republicans with their Teabagger movement got their voters out. We on DU voted, but a lot of Democrats who are less committed did not. So, Obama should forget about trying to work with Republicans and instead work on trying to oust Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

103. I suggested this earlier.

Instead of complaining about Republicans, Obama should go on a tour visiting people who have benefited from the legislation that was passed when we had a Democratic House, a split Senate and Obama as president. Why is he dwelling on what he can't get. He needs to grab the conversation and turn it to the people who are benefiting from his achievements.

He should stop trying to get anything through Congress. Instead, he should veto bills he doesn't like and make Congress work for its pay.

[indepat]

8. Amazing how Maureen Dowd can get her own head up her own

ass.

[StatGirl]

11. Simple -- blackmail

I think these pundits are pining for simpler days, when the president had picture evidence about who was screwing whom (perhaps collected by J. Edgar Hoover), and wasn't afraid to use it.

(Of course, those were the days when members of Congress would be terrified of having such things made public. But Vitter has shown them that no one actually cares about these transgressions.)

[Octafish]

12. Prosecute Bush and Cheney for treason and war crimes, for a start.

Then start jailing the banksters.

And don't forget to free Don Siegelman.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Tell me ...

How does the answer the question?

[Octafish]

110. Five years on and the rich are worth trillions more.

...money gained from corrupt wars for profit and a tax code that rewards tax dodgers and fraud and.

Meanwhile the middle class and poor Get poorer as they pick up the tab for bailing out billionaires and too big to jail banks.

And the little people still lose their homes to banksters or bankruptcy and their jobs to wherever Wall Street most profits.

Instead of a New New Deal, all we've gotten are four more years of Trickle Down and Empire for the connected.

That's how the warmongers and traitors responsible walk free.

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. Nice rant ...

Now exlain how that is related to the thread or my question.

[Octafish]

133. What Luis Armstrong said when asked, ''What is jazz?''

"Man. If you got to ask, you'll never know."

[Vincardog]

13. He could reschedule Marijuana and tell his DOJ to quit attacking State licensed dispensaries.

He could release the illegal detainees in GitMo.
He could tell the country and his party that
"The vote is too important to privatize and no unverifiable vote counting machine should be allowed."
He could lead the effort to amend the Constitution and overturn Citizen United.
He could start negotiating from a LIBERAL Democratic position and only move to the right after the other side moves their position to the left.
He should quit beginning all negotiations on the RW terms and parameters.
He could and should start jailing the banksters.

He should free Don Siegelman IMMEDIATELY.

[MindPilot]

18. +googleplex

and the posts before and after

[Progressive dog]

14. K&R

Who the hell elected this congress or did the President pick them?
"Obama needs a coach to look him in the eyes and say, "Mr. President, I'm not excusing the other team. They suck. But you need to beat them, sir. That's your job, because if you can't stop them, we lose. And there's no excuse to losing to such a lousy-bleeping team.""
I don't think he picked them, but may be he's just a glutton for punishment.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

32. "a glutton for punishment"?

Or a seven-dimensional chess-master who is several steps ahead with a well-planned retirement plan.

[MindPilot]

15. I think it is because we no longer have much governance from the 3 branches.

It is one big long slog down a never-ending campaign trail. From the big guy on down, everything they think do and say has the primary focus of raising money for the party. Their jobs have changed; it is not about us any more.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. Unfortunately, he can't send the "children" to their rooms

but we can, every election until there's none of them left in office!

[mercymechap]

65. Amen and Amen............n/t

[kentuck]

17. For starters....

Don't give the Repubs a victory with immigration reform. Make them compromise on what bill you want. They need it badly because they need the Hispanic vote to win the White House. Don't give an inch on it. Show them that two can play this game.

What not to do: Don't agree to a Republican version of immigration reform. Don't say that is a victory because it is not if you give them something and get nothing. Only offer to compromise on immigration if they agree to pass background checks. You are holding the strongest cards on this issue, Mr President. The Repubs are playing hardball. You need to show that you can play hardball also.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. So ...

President Obama should “make the gop cooperate” by making them cooperate.

Is that your answer/solution?

[kentuck]

90. Is that really the way you interpreted my comment??

Republicans want immigration reform bad. Why?

Obama can ask for whatever he wants in the immigration bill? Politics is about negotiation. Once he gives away the immigration issue, he has very little left. What would you do in that situation? What could he possibly ask for in return for signing the immigration bill?

Or should he just sign it, give the Republicans a victory, and declare it a "victory for America"? There are several options. Which would you choose?

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Yes, I did ...

But to say politics is about negotiation suggests you neither read the article, nor have you have not been paying attention. Politics with the modern gop is broken.

Besides, the gop doesn't want immigration reform ... not badly, not at all; except for maybe 7 legislators in both Houses of Congress and they don't have sway over the rest of their conference. Immigration is going no where.

And President Obama can kill anything coming out of Congress with respect to immigration, simply by endorsing it.

[kentuck]

100. The GOP doesn't want immigration reform??

Are you kidding. They covet the Hispanic vote. They need immigration reform in the worst way. The Tea Party faction is the only thing preventing the Republican leadership from making a deal on immigration. The Repub leaders understand that they cannot win the White House without Hispanic voters. They want it bad.

This is an issue where Obama can ask for a lot. The Repubs will negotiate. The President can beat them at their own game if he plays it right. Bet on it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. I agree that the gop wants the Hispanic vote ...

but they neither want immigration reform, nor do they want anything to do with Hispanic people.

You correct that the tea partier, and the fear of being primaried, is what is stopping, and will stop, anything from happening on immigration.

You are also correct that the gop leadership understands that they cannot wim the whitehouse without the Hispanic vote; but the vast majority of their conference cares far more about their seats than the whitehouse.

Again, President Obama's endorsement of any immigration deal will be the deal's kiss of death ... see: Gun Control.

[kentuck]

116. Gun Control and Immigration Reform are apples and oranges.

True, the Repubs never had any intention of agreeing to background checks or doing anything to piss off the NRA or their Tea Party base.

But Immigration Reform, they need. They just have to figure out a way to sell it to the nutcakes in their Party?

It will be very interesting to watch how this plays out. The Repubs do not want the Obama immigration bill - it is too lenient. They want the "illegals" to go back to Mexico for ten years and then re-apply for citizenship. Their plans are as different as night and day. But the Repubs are desperate to convince the Hispanics that they really do support immigration reform.

The Republican Party is a top-down Party. They prefer the White House over either the Senate or the House. They like a king figure like Reagan to tell them what to think.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. That argument is not grounded in reality ...

The gop doesn't want to piss off the NRA or their tea party base; but is willing to piss off 90% of the electorate over background checks; but is willing to piss of their base to capture maybe 20% of the Hispanic vote? Okay!

I think you, at this point are just arguing to be arguing.

[kentuck]

141. We shall see.

Immigration reform and background checks are different issues. I just happen to believe they want the White House very badly and will try to pass some type of immigration reform to convince Hispanics that they are on their side. But you are correct that they do not want to piss off their base that does not want immigration reform. This is the powder keg they are sitting on. I just happen to think that the President should demand a lot from them on immigration issues. He should not give them a "victory" that is shallow in content.

[1StrongBlackMan]

148. You were saying ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251303715

What say you now?

[kentuck]

149. I would say that they have a tiger by the tail.

The Tea Party does not generally support immigration reform but the old horse in the Party know they need it to win the White House. They sit atop a dilemma. How it will end is still open to question, in my opinion.

[byeya]

19. He could have a Sec of Ed. that support free universal public education - not Duncan.

He could order the Att'y Gen. to start trust busting and enforce the laws on the books.

He could forbid BP from bidding on oil drilling.

He could at least make the appearance of supporting EFCA, and also make it easier to organize unions even if he has to give the courts the skunk eye for the unprecedented - in the legal sense - ruling on recess appointments.

He could admit the USA helped overthrow the elected president of Honduras and open a reign of terror in that poor country.

He could close a few hundred overseas military bases.

He could closed the School of the Americas at Fort Benning and divulge the names of all the students for the past 25 years and dismiss the entire staff of instructors from military service.

[thesquanderer]

20. Best plan: work to get Dems elected in 2014 (n/t)

[babylonsister]

22. Did (a lot of) you folks even read this article, written about republican intransigence?

How come some of you have no problem with that?

[byeya]

25. Obama enables RepubliKKKan obstructionism and people here are listing things

President O can do without them.

[babylonsister]

26. You didn't read it either. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. True ...

or just willfully ignoring the question.

Everyone’s answer is: So President Obama should “make the gop cooperate” by making them cooperate.

[n2doc]

27. I would suspect every DU'er knows that and 'has a problem with that'

But the OP is about what Obama should/can do.

Personally, I would like for him to more aggressively campaign in house districts, starting now. And I sincerely hope he uses that fund raising machine that he built for 2012 to fund house and senate campaigns.

[Octafish]

36. Dowd brought up 'leadership' in the OP...

...an important point I have shared on DU:

Why doesn t President Obama ask America to call their Rep s and DEMAND taxes be raised on the RICH?

If President Obama wants to move Congress into action, he doesn't have to wait until the next election.

All he has to do for action is to ask the American people to get off the sofa and onto their representatives' pimply backsides.

[jeff47]

58. Background checks had >80% support, and you think a few phone calls will get taxes raised? (nt)

[Octafish]

70. It'd be worth a try, instead of sitting back and waiting for Divine intervention.

In my experience, it's been better to hop into action personally. It's how you beat the Devil.

[jeff47]

72. We need electoral intervention, not divine intervention.

Democrats need to stop sitting elections out when the Democrat isn't "good enough". Especially when that Democrat isn't on the ticket.

You organize and vote on "good enough" in primaries. You organize for and vote for the Democrat in general elections. Even when they're a blue dog asshole. And you use the next primary to get rid of that blue dog.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. It must have been the Republicans who opposed his appointment of TIMOTHY GEITHNER?

And it must have been the Republicans who opposed his appointment of various Bush hold-overs plus other personnel from Goldman Sachs?

Where was all that Republican intransigence?

[babylonsister]

40. What a surprise to see you here, trashing another thread. Got it!

Start your own, whydoncha?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. Why don't you answer, "Specifically, what is it Obama should do that he hasn't already done?"

Or could it be that there is nothing?

Everything in fine?

[woo me with science]

64. The vast majority of betrayals on this list

had nothing to do with Republican obstructionism:

Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like:

A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. And let's not forget Tim Geithner.

Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
Entrenchment of exorbitant for-profit health insurance companies into healthcare, through mandate
Legal assault on union rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers
New policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns,
New policies of awarding medals for remote drone attacks,
Appointment of private prison executives to head the US Marshal's office
Massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons under US Marshall's office

[Demo_Chris]

146. epic.

[Occulus]

150. None of his defenders EVER respond to that when woo posts it.

It shames them into silence every. Single. Time.

[Demo_Chris]

152. I suspect that Obama's defenders share his agenda...

They are personally doing fine and concerned with window dressing and pseudo-liberal legislation. It's easy to tell how someone is doing personally -- you need only know what issues they care about the most.

[theaocp]

23. Here's an easy one

STOP calling Republicans things like friends, others, some, the opposition, etc. For fuck's sake, they are REPUBLICANS and they have goddamn NAMES. He should try using those names. They use his name constantly and it sticks in peoples' minds. He is basically too goddamn nice with those who obstruct him and won't stand up and call them out.

Oh, and deep-six the Keystone Pipeline yesterday and explain VERY CLEARLY why he's doing it.

[JEB]

24. If he's going to grant immunity to spying telecom corps,

give big banksters a pass look forward past war crimes including torture, perhaps he could curb the prison industrial complex. And if he must use drones perhaps Yertle the Turtle would be a good target.

[Number23]

28. But...*sputter* the corpse of FDR was a better leader!1

Even though he faced many of the same unhinged criticisms from the left that Obama does now. People simply REFUSE to learn. ANYTHING.

This is a great read. A poster here in GD (a newbie too) said almost the exact same thing yesterday re: an almost radicalized and deranged Republican party and the president's "supporters" on the "left" who are almost as quick to toss him to the wolves as any teabagger. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2779863

[sheshe2]

44. Our Newbies,

Have a lot of spunk, 23!

[Number23]

62. I have never understood the prejudice against newbies here

Sure, some of them are trolls. But shit, a hell of alot of 2001-2003 posters with 50 gazillion posts are too.

[graham4anything]

59. note-they were never supporters to start off with. Most would again vote for Nader given 1/2 chance

[JanMichael]

102. Clinton 2x, Gore, Kerry, Obama 2x. Do I have the right to be critical?

In the primaries I went to the left (except Clinton 2nd time). In the primaries. Nasty comment on your part.

Uncritical or noncritical folks are the problem with this country. Take off the rose colored shades.

[graham4anything]

130. Bush was seated instead of Gore and Jeb is running in 2016

you have to be patient so that everything is done to secure it forever.
Wars take time and battles are not perceived as to why they were not won til the war is.

It will be Hillary vs. Jeb. pick your choice.

To win the long time war, its more important to show President Obama is being the reasonable one nationwide for all America (not just far left blue America, as to get to 80-20 it will take the republicans who are sick of their party...

much like LBJ needed the republicans when the Wallace Racist DixiecRats did not vote democratic.

It took Dr. King decades and there were many battles lost before LBJ signed those acts that others yammered about but only LBJ was brave enough to bet his entire capital on signing
(and others in the party yammered that there was more important stuff than these social issues, much like the left now is doing today, when in fact, that was the most important thing ever signed in American history).

[HeiressofBickworth]

29. What could he do that he hasn't done?

For republicans he would have to turn white and join the Republican party -- and then, maybe (and only maybe) some useful legislation could get passed.

[babylonsister]

41. Yep, in a nutshell. nt

[Demeter]

31. Resign

but that wouldn't be macho.

[Cha]

37. It would be stupid.

[Demeter]

94. If honesty and integrity are stupid, then we need more stupid people

especially in leadership positions.

From taking an unearned Nobel, to handing "get out of jail free" cards to the banksters, to putting people's very existence on the table (cutting the safety net, droning, Gitmo, and so forth), this President is as Miserable a Failure as the previous one, but with better visuals and speech patterns.

[Cha]

105. Resigning would be Stupid. End of story.

[babylonsister]

112. Your stupidity is showing. If not our Dem Prez.,who? nt

[Demeter]

117. There is a Vice President

and I never took you for one of the mob on this website who feel free, if not actually compelled or maybe even paid, to insult people whose arguments you don't like.

[Summer Hathaway]

122. And yet you feel free

to insult someone whose arguments YOU don't like by calling them "one of the mob", and to suggest that the opinions they post here are "compelled", or that they are "maybe even paid" to do so.

The irony is delish.

[Demeter]

131. If you don't see the irony of defending Group Think in a Progressive Forum

then you don't know much about being an American. And if you deny common knowledge, well, that's more a tactic of the other team.

[Summer Hathaway]

142. Nice attempt at deflection

The fact remains that you insulted someone whose opinion you disagree with by accusing them of insulting you.

As for the 'group think' aspect, yes, there's a lot of that here - like self-declared "progressives" parroting RW talking points.

[Cha]

33. Obama Hate Rules the goplutocrats..

Easiest thing in the world.

It's easy -- perhaps a little too easy -- for many of us in political commentary to sit back and urge the president to "somehow" "rise above circumstance." But mature analysis requires additional depth

.

thanks babylonsistah

[sheshe2]

45. +1

[Cha]

74. ..

Michael Cohen @speechboy71

The single most under-reported story of the last 4 years is the Republican Party's unhinged hatred of Barack Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/01/pat-toomey-confirms-it-obama-is-right-about-gop/ …

http://theobamadiary.com/

[Number23]

75. Holy crap. Cha, you should really make this into an OP. That WP story is astounding.

[Cha]

87. Really?! I just saw it and posted 'cause I had to leave and need to

do so again right now. But, I will read it when I get back and see what happens. Thanks, 23.. unless you want to post it.

Feel Free!

[DallasNE]

34. One Day After Jonathan Karl Writes Obama Off

For being in over his head with his "juice" comment other pundits jump on the bandwagon claiming that Obama is already a lame duck. This sounds a lot like John Sununu all over again. And where did that get the Romney campaign? And what has Sen. Flake's vote to filibuster on background checks gotten him?

It is not easy seeing our great nation being taken down by the total obstruction of Republicans. Too bad the pundits are in cahoots with the take down. But the American people will resolve this, make no mistake. And it will catch the pundits flatfooted, just like election night caught Mitt Romney flatfooted.

[kentuck]

35. If I may ask, what do you think he should do, babylonsister?

??? Do you have any suggestions?

[kentuck]

39. I think something we may not be privy to..?

Obama does not have to run for re-election so he can take all the blame for legislative failures and the Democrats running for re-election escape the blame and have an easier route to re-election. I would be surprised if this has not been discussed.

Also, there is a big difference in offering suggestions and in criticizing with no constructive purpose. It is much like the difference between governing and playing politics. President wants to govern - Repubs want to play politics. There is no middle ground.

[Lordquinton]

42. We are all on one team

The proper analogy would be that Obama is the coach of a team, and the defense is amazing, nothing gets by, but the offence just goes onto the field and sits down, saying that scoring a goal would be helping the coach. The coach can't fire them either, they are appointed to his team and they know it.

Most importantly is that this is not a game, this is a country, and a minority in congress are actively working against it, and have stated as much, and publicly say 9and have said for years) that they will not work with Obama under any circumstances, not even a little.

[babylonsister]

49. Very nicely stated, thank you! nt

[Lordquinton]

73. It really hit me when I was watching Billo

(not intentionally) and he was talking about the Ryan budget, and another budget, and how one of them has to win. It occurred to me that no, that's not how it's supposed to work, they are supposed to get together and agree, make compromises, and work together, not take two ideas and one has to win. They are all on the same side. We are all on the same side, red or blue, we're all Americans. All human.

there are no sides, just us, and we will rise and fall together.

[madfloridian]

43. He could change position on privatizing public education. He could speak against safety net cuts

instead of putting them on the table.

He could be more aware of the serious harm being done to our school systems because of his policies and his appointment of Arne Duncan.

He could speak about the harm being done to the elderly under sequestration. He could use his bully pulpit to speak out on these issues.

[sheshe2]

46. Back seat drivers,

Like Dowd, should STFU unless they have concrete ideas on how to change things. Take the drivers seat, Maureen. You should be shouting from the roof tops, loudly and daily about the obstructionist's. Take them down and not this President!

Thanks, b'sister!

[zeemike]

47. Well there is one thing the POTUS can do

And congress can't do a thing about it....he is commander in chief and he could order the military to close Gitmo and the congress could do nothing about it.
But let's face the facts...he needs some one's permission to do that... And they did not give it.

[jeff47]

56. 'fraid not.

Congress can forbid money to be spent to close Gitmo. And has.

Or were you planning to abandon the prisoners in place?

[zeemike]

61. Only if they ask for additional funding.

If Obama were to call the general in charge of that and tell him "I want that closed in 6 months you can count on it being closed in 6 months....or get fired like Truman did to Macarthur when he bucked the CIC.
No additional funds would be needed...just take out of general operating funds

I think the greatest fear we all have is finding out the CIC is not really the CIC at all.

[jeff47]

63. Nope.

Congress's 'power of the purse' doesn't end when a budget or CR is passed. They can pass additional laws any time.

Also, it's against the law to decide that "operating funds" are to be spent in a way not approved by Congress. That's why Congress had to pass a law to fix the FAA-caused flight delays. If the administration could just do things out of "operating funds" as you claim, that would not have been necessary.

Theoretically, Obama could veto a law forbidding the closing of Gitmo. But it already passed with a veto-proof majority, thanks to terrified congressional Democrats.

[zeemike]

68. I don't think you understand how the military works.

Or is supposed to work

IF the CIC orders you to disband the prison camp then you had better find a way to do it...and you don't need permission from congress to do it.

Besides it would cost very little to put them on a plane and take them back to where they got them or charge them with a crime and let the judicial system deal with it....no additional funds would be necessary...so no congress calling the shots.

So no excuses please...no more "bad cop won't let us do it" reasoning.

[jeff47]

71. Actually, it's you that doesn't.

Because you're not supposed to obey illegal orders. In fact, following an illegal order is supposed to get you court-martialed along with the person issuing the order. That's how all those low-ranking people took the fall for Abu Ghraib.

If the CIC called up and ordered the troops to rob banks, do you think they should?

Besides it would cost very little to put them on a plane and take them back to where they got them or charge them with a crime and let the judicial system deal with it

If it costs more than $0, including the pay for the people flying the plane, and the fuel for the plane, and the maintenance on the plane, or the salaries for the judges and prosecutors, then Congress can stop it.

And already has.

Congress passed a law explicitly making civilian trials illegal for Gitmo prisoners. In 2009.

[zeemike]

76. Now how in the hell is dealing with prisoners an illegal order?

The congress does not give orders...the CIC gives orders...that is separation of powers and is in the constitution...
And if the CIC tells the general to deal with this matter it is a legal order and he must follow it...
but you can believe the bad cop/good cop shit if you want to, but not me.

And by the way, the military has cargo flights all the time...put the prisoner with a guard on one of them and he goes home free...hell defense contractors take advantage of that all the time.
And believe me, if they wanted to take them to be tortured in another country the congress would not have to approve it and no special appropriations would be needed.

[jeff47]

77. Because Congress passed a law

Last edited Wed May 1, 2013, 10:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Same reason that anything else is illegal. Congress passed a law making it illegal.

And if the CIC tells the general to deal with this matter it is a legal order and he must follow it...

No.

Again, we prosecuted soldiers for torture at Abu Ghraib. They were just following orders, and we imprisoned them.

And by the way, the military has cargo flights all the time...put the prisoner with a guard on one of them and he goes home free

Did you forget the "with a guard" part of your solution?

And you're also running into the other problem, no countries have been willing to take the prisoners. That's why there's so many "cleared" people still at Gitmo - no country will take them.

And believe me, if they wanted to take them to be tortured in another country the congress would not have to approve it and no special appropriations would be needed.

That would be covered under funding already appropriated. The difference is you are proposing using money that was appropriated for something else to do something Congress explicitly forbade money to be spent on.

ETA: You are trying to repeat Iran-Contra.

[zeemike]

86. Congress cannot pass a law that the CIC cannot order his generals.

Let me repeat it again in different words...the congress has no jurisdiction in giving orders to the military...there is a chain of command and it ends with the CIC.
the capture and holding of combatants is a military affair and is totally done by the military.

But I know you can run this around in circles until I get tired of saying the same things over and over....but that does not change the facts that any such orders given would not be against our constitution or moral law and so no officer or soldier could or should disobey it...and no special money needed to make it happen...all the military is already on the payroll no matter what is done.

[jeff47]

144. You should start paying attention

the congress has no jurisdiction in giving orders to the military

They do, in two ways.

First, if they make something illegal, ordering a general to do it is illegal. If Congress passes a law saying it's illegal to wear green hats, the President can't order a general to wear green hats.

Second, Congress has absolute power over how money is spent. So if a president orders a general to spend money in a different way, that is an illegal order.

the capture and holding of combatants is a military affair and is totally done by the military.

And the military spends money to do so. Who's got control of the money? Congress.

But I know you can run this around in circles until I get tired of saying the same things over and over

Well, you're still not understanding that there is such a thing as an illegal order, nor that Congress controls all government spending. Once you get those, you might stop making the same error over and over.

and no special money needed to make it happen

The money doesn't have to be special. "Making it happen" requires an absolute minimum of paying the soldier's salaries. That's spending money.

Again, this is what made Iran-Contra a scandal - the executive branch spent money in a way that Congress had forbidden.

[zeemike]

145. So I hear you saying that the congress has dictatorial power over the CIC.

All they have to do is make it "illegal"
Well then the corruption is even more advanced than I had thought.
And people are even more brainwashed than I thought.
If you believe that the congress has the power to tell the CIC he cannot deal with prisoners the military had taken into custody then you are lost my friend...totally lost.
And I find it hard to understand why you want so hard to believe this good cop/bad cop thing.

[kentuck]

50. Would that make you happy?

???

[hrmjustin]

51. What?

[Skraxx]

54. BULLY PULPIT!!!!!.....or sumpin'....

[sulphurdunn]

55. A President or any politician

runs a campaign. During that campaign her or she lays out a list of things to be done. If that politician fails to deliver or seems to be selling out those who helped elect him, then it's pretty sorry to whine about how he couldn't get anything done because of the big bad minority opposition he has been courting for nearly 5 years that made it clear from the start they had no intention of working with him and have kept their word by continually fucking him over. It would have been better had he kept his word too.

[jeff47]

57. And not providing that list would have done what, exactly?

Btw:

then it's pretty sorry to whine about how he couldn't get anything done because of the big bad minority opposition

Majority opposition. The Republicans control the House, and thus can block any legislation. Even if there isn't a Senate filibuster.

[sulphurdunn]

138. If Obama

had governed the way he campigned in 2008 there wouldn't be a Republican majority in the House or a Senate filibuster.

[jeff47]

143. Because we elected him dictator, right?

He could do as he pleased. He was never hamstrung by Congress. The one stimulus bill wasn't slashed in half by Congress. And "Obamacare" was entirely of his design.

Oh wait, that's not reality.

[sulphurdunn]

147. How would anyone know

if he's been hamstrung by Congress or not? Don't you find it even a little strange that the same President who is a virtual dictator on foreign policy and national security is hamstrung by Congress on domestic issues? Why do suppose that might be?

[mercymechap]

66. Well, he could tell Republicans

to go to hell and start signing Executive orders, but I'm not sure that would work well.

[Jamaal510]

67. I've been trying to hold my tongue about this for a long time,

Last edited Wed May 1, 2013, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

but lately I've noticed that this isn't unique to their side of the aisle. Some "progressives" have all but dismissed Obama's accomplishments thus far, saying that he is a corporatist, a sellout, center-right, a DINO, etc. Never mind that he was the 1st president to endorse gay marriage (which has in itself, done a lot to help people out of the closet and create dialogue about gay rights), he signed the Fair Pay Act, did the auto bailout, lowered the deficit, has steadily lowered unemployment, kept the country safe from terrorist attacks and killed OBL, and did what other Democratic presidents have sought in pushing for health care reform. Can anybody honestly imagine a Republican president doing any of this? And regarding chained CPI, this was not his ideal budget plan, but he did it mainly to try avoiding gridlock and to make more people realize how unreasonable the GOP is. What I feel doesn't get mentioned enough about the proposed deal is how there are parts of the deal that the Left would've liked and the Right would hate, such as tobacco tax hikes for pre-school and more revenue. People act as if it's so lopsided, but when you look at this from a Republican POV, it doesn't look so delicious.

Everybody should look at what the Congress has been doing to oppose him. They've blocked his jobs act, they've tried blocking equal pay for women, they blocked the public option, gun control legislation, and higher tax revenue from top earners at the expense of low and middle-income Americans. In fact, it is incredible that there have even been over 30 consecutive months of job growth under his watch, with all this obstruction. We did not elect a dictator or king. Even somebody like Warren or Sanders would be blocked and be in the same position right now as president.

[Bonobo]

69. Here's a big one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022782546

[rhett o rick]

78. It's not his fault. The Republicans are making him do it. nm

[Bonobo]

93. It's hard to hold a person's feet to the fire...

when they have applied such a thick coating of "Don't blame me, it's the Congress" fire-resist, squirm jelly to their legs.

[rhett o rick]

111. Seems to me like there are only a few possibilities. He is helpless against the nasty Republicans.

Or he is hapless, and just doesnt know what to do, Or things are going just the way he wants.

Someone posted that the president is the weaker of the three branches of government, so it isnt Pres Obama's fault. Those people apparently dont remember the Bush years where a nitwit got to do everything he wanted.

[rhett o rick]

79. Are you saying the president is powerless? Helpless against the overwhelming power

of the Republicans? I understand as he couldnt even get all the Democratic Senators to back enhanced background checks.

And the Republicans are forcing him to appoint the likes of Tim Geitner, Lawrence Summers, Ben Bernanke, William M. Daley, Jeff Immelt, Alan Simpson, Dave Cote, Jeb Bush, Robert Gates, Gen Stanley McChrystal, Jacob Lew, Rahm Emanuel, Jeremiah Norton, Gen Petraeus, John Brennen, Chuck Hegal, Michael Taylor, Jacob Lew, to only mention a few conservatives.

[treestar]

89. Is Congress powerless?

They don't get to stop a President?

Why doesn't Congress pass a bill repealing SS and then when the President vetoes it, get called powerless.

The President and Congress are equal and separately in power, one is not boss of the other.

No the President isn't powerless, Congress cannot make him do the things they'd like. Do the freepers sit around trashing Boehner for not forcing Obama and twisting his arm?

The Presidency involves one person and people seem in love with the idea of one powerful person who can "lead" everyone where he wants them to go (or where they want him to lead everyone else to go). I say thank God we don't have that.

[Doctor_J]

92. That seems to be the thinking of the fan club

They have apparently conceded the rest of his term to the republicans - there is nothing to be done.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. I've noticed ...

No one has answered the article’s “simple question.”

what is it Obama should do that he hasn't already done? What, exactly, is the recommended course of action?

Maybe the question is too difficult for the supposed reality-based partisans.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. I raised a related post yesterday ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11029494

So since the response to this thread are so closely related, I’ll pose the question from that post:

What amount of bully pulpit usage, or emotional/intellectual argument, or intellectual or even physical force from a republican, would cause you to turn your back on Medicare or SS or Medicaid or any other deeply held tradition?

Nothing ... right?

Then what makes you think that President Obama can use any of those tools on this extremist brand of gop ... All he can do cut the best deal out there, while attempting to flip enough independents and moderate republicans; in order to govern this nation ... you know, that luxury that none of us have to worry about.

[treestar]

88. The Republican vow to oppose him no matter what

Even on things they agree on? They should be called out on that. On the racism that it is. It's just plain evil and wrong, period. Why isn't Dowd after them?

[Doctor_J]

91. here is what I want him to do, specifically

'We were informed yesterday that the republicans blocked background checks just to make me look bad. I want you to think about that. They are willing to put the lives of children and other innocent people at risk just to humiliate me. That is at least disgusting and border on criminal. And before you and the rest of the republicans media minions say that I am politicizing tragedy, save it. Mitch McConnell and the rest of his party already did that, and my response is not going to cost lives.'

[JDPriestly]

96. My view is that at this point after so many failed attempts to make deals with congressional

Republicans, Obama should simply forget trying that route and go straight to the people.

Further, he should stop proposing appointments from the corporate sector, should stop nominating appointees he think the Republicans in Congress might support and go for people that the people want. And by the people, I mean the majority of the people, mostly Democrats or leaning Democrats who elected him in November.

He is wasting time trying to rise above circumstances.

It's time to go directly for and to the people. If Obama does that, Congress will sit up and take notice. Actually, Obama did that on his gun legislation.

He could do it on a lot of other things. He should stop being a shill for GE, BP, Monsanto, etc. Those are international, not really American companies. He should start being the president of the American people and put job creation before everything else.

If he follows the plan I have proposed here, the Republicans in Congress will either follow or he will get a more Democratic Congress in 2014.

[winter is coming]

101. ^^ This. n/t

[kentuck]

104. Or he could try this simple approach?

It is obvious that Repubs do not want to deal with Obama. So, he steps back and delegates Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Renny Stoyer, and Nancy Pelosi to do the negotiating with the Republicans. When they work out a deal, they can send it to his desk. Hopefully it will be good enough so he can sign it into law. Then he should take a week off and go golfing. He could declare that he is through trying to negotiate with the Republicans. They need to pass legislation for the people they represent.

[JDPriestly]

108. Sounds good to me. I think that is what a president is supposed to do.

[kentuck]

109. I don't know how he got sucked into this unilateral negotiating with the Republican Party??

It is a recipe for failure, in my opinion.

[DallasNE]

126. Kent Conrad - Budget Chair, Max Baucus - Finance Chair

I think that largely answers your question.

[winter is coming]

119. He could stop pretending that austerity economics are viable.

If we go into 2014 pushing the "but the stock market's doing great!" and "shared sacrifice" (which usually means "shared" between the poor and the soon-to-be-poor) memes, we will lose in 2014... and we'll deserve to. And along those lines, he should do what he can without Congress to go after the banks.

Income inequality and the Wall Street casino are killing this country, and the first party to come up with a plausible platform to address those issues will win and win big. Since the Republicans are still vacationing in Egypt, we have a huge advantage, if we're bold enough to seize it.

[grahamhgreen]

129. NOTHING. Had he done nothing, the Bush tax cuts would have expired. Even that was too much for him.

[kentuck]

139. Nothing??

If he had done nothing and had let the Bush taxcuts expire, we would not be discussing the "deficit" right now. Nor would we be discussing the sequester. Those taxcuts are costing us dearly.

[JoePhilly]

135. Usually, the anti-Obama folks don't have a plan for what they'd have done differently.

Obama was just supposed to do something else.

[kentuck]

140. Do you think he should be doing anything differently JoePhilly?

Or are you perfectly OK with how everything is going?

[Skittles]

151. according to JoeP if you wish Obama to do better you're an Obama hater

simplistic bullshit at its finest

[LWolf]

136. That's an easy question to answer.

He should represent DEMOCRATS. He should fight for our issues, instead of constantly compromising them away to Republicans. He should ACT like a DEMOCRAT, instead of a Republican.

He should appoint people from the left to his administration. He should embrace the left, instead of constantly pushing harmful neoliberal policies.

He should FUCKING APOLOGIZE to teachers and to seniors, and then start aggressively supporting PUBLIC education and educators, expansion of SS, programs for seniors.

I could go on. And on. And on. There are things he should be doing on just about every single issue that he hasn't done.