For those that do not approve of Obama's job performance

[BzaDem]

Why do you think we will ever get a President to the left of Obama?

I'm genuinely curious here. Does anyone have any actual evidence or persuasive reasoning that there will ever be a President of the United States that on net (including legislative accomplishments) will actually be at all to the left of Obama? Wanting it to happen doesn't count -- I'm talking about evidence that it will actually happen, not evidence that you want it to happen.

[leftstreet]

1. It wouldn't be difficult to be to the left of the Obama administration

No offense to Obama intended.

He didn't run as a Leftist...there is no Left representation in US politics.

I think your question is moot.

[BzaDem]

4. My question is not what you think of Obama's ideology. My question is why in the world do you think

that there will ever be a point where a person occupies the office of the Presidency who will be to the left of Obama.

[leftstreet]

9. Oh. I don't think a Democrat, or a Republican, will occupy the office as a Leftist

If I'm reading you correctly, yes you're correct. The two parties are so far to the right, it'd take an independent or an actual Leftist to serve in that capacity.

[BzaDem]

13. But why in the world do you think someone who isn't a Democrat or a Republican

and isn't running in the middle of those two, will EVER (in your lifetime or the next 5 lifetimes) sit in the office of the Presidency? Why do you think there is even a non-zero chance of that happening?

[leftstreet]

21. The people will eventually form a movement

That movement will be to the FAAAAARRRRRR left of both parties.

I don't know that it'll be in my lifetime, I don't know if it will happen when the Bolivarian revolution heads north. Who knows.

It will happen though.

Nature. Vacuum. Abhors

[BzaDem]

28. What makes you think the "vacuum" is of non-negligable size?

Sure, if there is a vacuum the size of the majority, of course it will be filled. But if the vacuum is of negligible size (as it is today), why do you think it will grow to be the majority? Is there any other reason than you not liking the alternative?

[leftstreet]

35. Well, you've already got 50% of eligible voters likely looking for a movement

There's a reason both parties are losing the branding battle

[BzaDem]

50. Not really. There have been many times in history where people have been pissed at incumbents

(which is usually completely cyclical and dissipates immediately when the economy turns around). EVEN in those bad economic times, turnout was normal and 95%+ of the turnout went to either the two parties or a middle independent party.

[leftstreet]

59. "...when the economy turns around" But it's not going to this time

There aren't going to be some bones thrown to the mythical 'middle class' to keep perpetuating this fraud

Globally, the Predator Class is making its move against the Peons

Class struggle is overtaking social mobility

But then you know all this...

[BzaDem]

64. Oh, it'll turn around. It just might take awhile, and coincidentally happen under a Republican.

That wouldn't necessarily help move the country to the left though. Quite the opposite.

[MichiganVote]

30. We are on the road to a revolt. An armed revolt.

[BzaDem]

33. If we are (and don't worry, we aren't), why do you think that it won't be a RIGHT armed revolt? n/t

[leftstreet]

37. FFS! Why would right ideology need to 'revolt?' It already prevails!

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

39. Not to them. They were just as angry about Bush as you are about Obama. n/t

[leftstreet]

42. I'm not 'angry about Obama.' I think he's an outstanding CEO for the Democrats

The Democrats being further right than Nixon

Nice try though

[BzaDem]

47. Well in that case, Republicans are much MORE angry about Bush than you are about Obama.

So while I think the idea there will be a "revolution" is absolutely laughable, a hypothetical revolution would certainly be more likely to result in a right-wing government than a left-wing government.

[leftstreet]

55. I didn't say a 'revolution,' I said a movement

Nice attempt to keep throwing that in there, though

The revolution is currently happening > > Them overthrowing Us

[BzaDem]

62. You did in post 37, which is what I was responding to. n/t

[leftstreet]

67. Yes, I said the Predator Class is already leading a revolution against us

It's been going on for some time

[MichiganVote]

43. Oh but we are my dear but few will see it for now. Too scary for you.

It won't matter which "side" begins it. A revolt is a revolt. And we are on that road now. There is no calendar for you. Read history. A lot of history. Then you'll know.

[BzaDem]

49. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there will be a revolt, why do you think it will move

the government to the left? Why wouldn't it move the government MUCH farther to the right?

[MichiganVote]

262. It won't matter whether it moves left or right.

[TBF]

244. I see it coming from the right as well - which is why it worries me so.

I'm pro-labor and don't really identify with either party (though voting forces me to choose dems if I participate) - and the thought of revolution with the reactionary right taking over scares the crap out of me. They are the ones who are ready to fight right now, with their leaders Beck & Palin leading the charge.

[Caliman73]

264. Are you really asking that question or do you have an answer in mind?

Nt.

[OrwellwasRight]

23. Because it has happened before.

LBJ, FDR, Kennedy, Carter. All to the left of Obama. Not to mention Nixon. And probably Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.

[BzaDem]

32. Why do you think just because something happened before that it will happen again?

I mean, we used to win with a solid south (significant cache of electoral votes). The south now votes against us by 2-1 or more. In fact, the only reason we controlled Congress consistently was an alliance between Southern democrats/dixiecrats and actual Democrats. Now that the former group is gone from the party (good riddance), what makes you think we will ever elect another LBJ or FDR with Congressional majorities that will allow this new President to enact legislation left of Obama's?

[Caretha]

95. It won't matter if a revolution

moves us to the right or the left, because any revolution is going to bring about Military control for an indeterminate amount of time and your ass will be grass.

[BzaDem]

99. How does that answer the question? How does that produce a President to the left of Obama? n/t

[Caretha]

108. I'm not trying to answer your question.

It's way past that now. I'm just making a statement of fact. Ignore it at your peril.

[BzaDem]

117. Oh, I'm shaking in my boots...

:rofl:

[Caretha]

126. I think you doth protest to much

:eyes:

[OrwellwasRight]

116. Yes. nt.

[Atticus]

130. "Management reserves the right to move the goal posts even AFTER it may appear to

some that a goal has been scored.

You may now resume play."

[arcane1]

48. Not only a person who occupies the office..

but one who has a Congress who sends progressive legislation to his desk!!

[BzaDem]

54. Indeed. That is one of my points (you can't get a more legislatively progressive president than

Obama without a more progressive Congress than the current Congress). The only reason we had supermajorities in the past was because of a coincidental alliance between actual Democrats and southern Dixiecrats. That's what produced LBJ's 68 seat Senate, FDR's 69 seat Senate, etc.

[OrwellwasRight]

78. Of course you can.

Bush was significantly to the right of the American people after running as a compassionate conservative who cared about the environment (no, seriously, that is what he campaigned on) in 2000. And yet he got re-elected. Why? Because Americans like strength and leadership. They don't like namby-pambyism, which is what mainstream Democrats have been serving a lot of these days. PS: He had a Dem Senate during some of his years in office (e.g., to the LEFT of him) and that slowed down his far right agenda 0%.

Besides, your electoral argument is incomplete. The Rs also used to own the northeast just as much as we owned the south. There were lefties and righties in both parties, so there has been a realignment, not a numerical shift. The larger trend that you are not acknowledging is that union density used to be much higher when we had Senate super-majorities a mere 30 - 40 years ago. Since we stopped enforcing the NLRA and let corporations get away with union busting, union density has shrunk, and so have Democratic majorities in Congress. The best thing we could do for the long term prospects of Democrats and for liberal policies for hard working Americans is to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Though I don't know why I am telling you this because you are apparently hunky dory with the status quo policies that continue to favor the wealthiest among us, continue to violate our civil rights, and continue to prosecute wars against third world nations.

[BzaDem]

82. You don't think 9/11 had ANYTHING to do with Bush getting re-elected?

And you really think his tax cuts were to the right of the American people? His tax cuts polled extremely well.

"PS: He had a Dem Senate during some of his years in office (e.g., to the LEFT of him) and that slowed down his far right agenda 0%."

Actually, he didn't get his right wing agenda through the Dem senate. Jim Jeffords didn't switch until after the huge tax cut bill passed (purposefully), and we lost the Senate in 2003. Bush didn't pass a single partisan bill that required 60 votes. Social Security privatization was a huge failure, Immigration was a huge failure, and ANWR drilling was a huge failure. He only got through reconciliation bills (which can only be tax/spending increases/cuts, not new programs).

As for the realignment, I was mainly talking about the combination of the electoral votes from the South and the Congressional delegation from the south. The alignment between real Democrats and Southern dixiecrats allowed us to have over 68 Dem Senators for both FDR and LBJ. Since that alliance broke (good riddance), neither party hasn't hit even CLOSE to 68 seats in the Senate.

"The best thing we could do for the long term prospects of Democrats and for liberal policies for hard working Americans is to pass the Employee Free Choice Act."

That might be true, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen. I'm asking about what might or might not happen.

"Though I don't know why I am telling you this because you are apparently hunky dory with the status quo policies that continue to favor the wealthiest among us, continue to violate our civil rights, and continue to prosecute wars against third world nations."

That is actually completely untrue, but I wouldn't expect much better from you.

[OrwellwasRight]

105. Try reading and engaging.

Instead of yelling and insulting.

"Bush didn't pass a single partisan bill that required 60 votes." I never said he did. That's the point. He didn't have to get 60 votes. The Dems rare attempts to filibuster anything were few, far between, and basically no impediment to Bush and his agenda. The Dems went right along with the USA PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War Resolution, NCLB, the Medicare Part D giveaway to private insurance companies, Healthy Forests, Clear Skies, all that shit. Social Security privatization was never a bill that was actually voted on in the House or Senate, but you better believe that Democrats like Ben Nelson would have gone right along with it. My point was that Bush was to the right of the Senate and he still got his shit done. This goes directly to your point that a President can't be to the left of his Congress to get anything done. You have your belief. I offered evidence to support my opposite belief.

"That might be true, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen. I'm asking about what might or might not happen."

Again, I am telling you a way that it might happen. Again, no argument is good enough for you. If we can't prove the future, why do you bother asking? You know how it is going to end . . .

"I wouldn't expect much better from you."

Really? You know me? Because I've never met you. And now I don't want to.

[BzaDem]

114. Your evidence is that Bush got Democrats to cave

(even though Bush's entire second term agenda failed precisely because Democrats wouldn't cave).

But even if we accept your narrative as true, and that Democrats during Republican administrations cave and cave, how does that imply that we can get Republicans to similarly cave? You argument (that we again are only accepting for the sake of argument) provides "evidence" that Democrats cave, not that Republicans similarly cave.

"Again, I am telling you a way that it might happen."

But you are just begging the question. You are saying the way it might happen is to enact the EFCA. But if we could enact the EFCA, we would already have a more progressive Congress than we have now. I'm asking HOW we get there, not what we can do once we get there. Your reasoning is circular.

"Because I've never met you. And now I don't want to."

If you never met me, you shouldn't have made false statements about my policy preferences.

[OrwellwasRight]

134. I didn't make false statements.

You've said over and over that anyone who thinks we can do better is basically an idiot because we can't "prove" to your satisfaction that we can do better. I have never met anyone so resigned to proving that the status quo is the only possible outcome who actually wanted anything different than the status quo. If you did want something different, why not put some effort into making the something better happen instead of investing so much energy in trying to stifle other people's hopes and aspirations?

Furthermore, here is further proof that you have set all of us responders up:

Your original question was "Why do you think we will ever get a President to the left of Obama?"

Your question was "why" not "how." I, and many other posters, told you why: it has happened in the past, and we believe it can happen in the future. You clearly disagree, but that does not undercut our beliefs or the reasons behind them. However, you also told me how you think it is "impossible" because of the geographic realignment. I told you that I think the geographic realignment gained as well as lost us regional votes and that I thought that union density is a more important factor. I also posited HOW we can achieve greater union density to achieve greater Dem majorities: pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That is the "how." You may not like it, but there it is. The "how" we pass that when we ignored it for years is now your problem, given your apparent commitment to the non-leftist approach. My choice would have been to have passed it in early 2009 when we had 256 seats in the House and 60 in the Senate.

Please stop trying to make us feel like we haven't answered your questions when we have. You may not agree with our answers, but you have them just the same.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." I have faith that the unreasonable man will continue to change the world for the better.

[BzaDem]

141. Actually you did make false statements.

"you are apparently hunky dory with the status quo policies that continue to favor the wealthiest among us, continue to violate our civil rights, and continue to prosecute wars against third world nations."

That's what you said. And it is false. The fact that I see the obvious structural impediments to a more progressive government that could please people here does not mean I'm happy about it.

[Radical Activist]

140. Yes, it would be difficult if you're talking about actually passing a bill in Congress.

It's damned near impossible to be to the left of Obama given the current political realities.

[TBF]

243. Eisenhower for example was left of Obama - he EXPANDED rather than CUT social security. nt

[Pharaoh]

2. Kennedy

Dead........

[BzaDem]

5. ... who cut marginal tax rates on the rich significantly. Though I'm talking about the future. n/t

[bvar22]

135. who cut marginal tax rates on the rich significantly

LOL...The Right Wing Limbaugh argument!

Yes.
Kennedy cut the top rate...
From 90+% to 70% which he felt was about right.
I agree with Kennedy...The Tax Cutter
:rofl:

[BzaDem]

164. So you admit it.

Kennedy cut marginal tax rates significantly, making the tax code less progressive than it was before the cuts. You and others would have been going even more crazy than today.

[rurallib]

3. so his negotiating with himself and compromising that looks like caving

and backing down on campaign promise after campaign promise. should just be accepted because it is 'the best we can get."?

And all this about "make me do it (fulfill his promises) was just what? a show?

[Angry Dragon]

18. +1000

[AnArmyVeteran]

83. What kind of a 'leader' says "Make me do it" ?

What a joke. Obama isn't a farm animal to be urged on with a cattle prod. He's supposed to be a damned leader. And leaders do courageous things and they LEAD. And they also advocate for the people who entrusted them to do the job they SAID they were going to do. Obama has violated our trust and he has given in to the enemy time after time, without getting a single republican supporter. I would have rather Obama tried and failed, than to sell us all out in little baby steps until it left us totally betrayed. I can say now with 100 percent certainty that President Obama is no leader.

I wasted a year supporting him. I gave money. I gave time. I was one of his delegates. But his constant concessions to the same gang of mobsters who have plundered our country during the previous decade is just too damned much. As of today, after hearing his continuing blather of compromise, his presidency is officially over.

[JTFrog]

239. "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

No doubt. What kind of a "leader" says that? :eyes:

[treestar]

241. Why take that so literally?

They all say things like that in the campaign, but we know what the Constitutional system is. We also have to "make" Congress do it. Even then, the courts can strike it down.

What is this obsession with having someone to FOLLOW? If you need a LEADER to LEAD you so you can follow either - 1) Vote Republican so they can change the system to give the Executive unlimited power and make Congress and the Judiciary purely ceremonial - no Democrat will do that or 2) just follow Obama and do as he says. He is the President after all, the one you made a Messiah out of. He knows best, why are you questioning him. Or if you know better, quit voting as one voter of millions and expecting the winner to obey you. Win yourself and LEAD (I guess you'll be better at getting complete obedience from Congress and the Courts and the rest of us.)

[political_Dem]

242. [phone]. Exactly. I've been curious about this myself.

[AnArmyVeteran]

248. I am not expecting too much to want a president to competently represent me.

I have been an advocate for others all my life. I know how to stand up for others who cannot stand up for themselves. That is the least I should expect from a president. If a president has no intention of representing those who supported him then he has no business being their president. I know several people on my neighborhood block alone who could lead more forcibly than Obama. They (nor I) would shake at the knees in the mere presence of a republican. They would stand up to those who almost destroyed our country.

All I expect is competency and honesty. If my expectations were any lower I would be pleased with what Bush did during his eight years. I supported and voted for a democrat who claimed to be a champion of the middle class and the economically oppressed. But then after being elected he has raised one white flag after another to Wall Street, big business and the republican party. If someone professes to be a leader they need to act like a leader, or get the hell out of the way so someone else can lead. A leader is someone you would follow into a fire, not push in. I'm not obsessed with having someone to follow. That is absurd. I expect competency.

[JTFrog]

274. So what do you think of the guy that said: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."?

[Arkana]

272. I wonder--would you have declared FDR's Presidency "over"

after his first term?

Because the distinguished gentleman from New York said those exact words, and the people elected him four times.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XemaSab]

7. If we never get a president to the left of Obama again

then this country is dead.

[BzaDem]

8. Says you. But my question is why you think there is a chance it will actually happen.

Giving your opinion on what will happen if we don't doesn't at all support the idea that we will. There is a huge difference in life between what one wants and what one gets.

[Toucano]

10. Slightly off topic: How does one provide evidence that something "will actually happen"?

Can you photocopy a crystal ball or does it require an actual visit to the future in a time machine?

[MichiganVote]

263. I think you have to channel Sister Palin

[ProSense]

11. It's wishful thinking

None of the people whose names are being thrown around are going to run. The last thing this party needs is another 2008-like primary.

The notion that anyone would govern to the left of Obama is wishful thinking. It's likely they'd operate to the right.

Not only would they likely hold less sway, but can you imagine them trying to rein in Lieberman and Nelson?

They'd fall out of favor faster than the blue dogs.

[mmonk]

12. Personally I'm bored with this argument.

Being left of Obama is not that difficult. Many Democratic presidents have been.

[leftstreet]

14. Nixon was left of Obama

But in all fairness to Obama, the Democratic party itself is further right than it was just a short time ago.

[OrwellwasRight]

19. Word. Never thought I'd be complimenting that

guy and thinking fondly of his policy initiatives.

[BzaDem]

24. Nixon was in the past. My question is about the future. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

27. Yes, and the best model for

what can happen in the future is what has already happened in the past.

[BzaDem]

40. No, not really. In the past we always won the South by landslides.

That was what allowed us to consistently control Congress with supermajorities. An alliance between actual Democrats and Southern dixiecrats.

Things have changed.

[OrwellwasRight]

65. things always change

and things always stay the same. Ask any historian, economist, futurist. They will tell you the best predictor for the future is the past.

[BzaDem]

84. If you told any American historian or political scientist what you just told me

they would not be able to stop laughing. The best predictor for the future is the past, except when it isn't. Your statement is meaningless.

[OrwellwasRight]

113. I never said "except when it isn't."

I said things change and things stay the same. Neither proves anything.

The fact remains, regardless of how much change you do or do not see, that the past remains the best predictor of the future.

Do you EVER stop putting words in people's mouths?

[BzaDem]

120. I wasn't quoting you. I was mocking your "past => future" argument.

If I were quoting you, you would see these little quote things, like this

"

"

[OrwellwasRight]

137. You're so clever.

[mmonk]

34. The future is my utmost concern.

If no one can draw any line in the sand for us, then we are doomed to never being represented in the same way the opposition is.

[BzaDem]

41. OK, but that still doesn't answer why you think we will ever have a President who is to the left of

Obama.

[mmonk]

53. Unless we are to live out the rest of our lives under Republican ideology

and framing, because we have done so before.

[BzaDem]

56. Saying "it will be really bad if it doesn't happen" does not provide a shred of evidence that it

will actually happen.

I'm genuinely curious why people think it will actually happen (not the consequences of it not happening).

[mmonk]

87. Simply put, we have before so there exists a possibility we can again.

[Bobbieo]

44. The next president of the US will be chosen by worldwide corporations, in unison.

The people have no voice any more, thanks to the US Supreme Court

[BzaDem]

16. Not since Democrats lost the South (and other areas). So the question is for the future. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

15. Why? Because the alternative is death. Our path is far from sustainable.

[BzaDem]

22. But that of course isn't an answer to my question. You not liking the alternative

or even the alternative being objectively "death" is not at ALL an argument as to why it will ever happen.

Many people when they are 5 think the alternative to them not getting what they want is "death" (or some other horrible word). That doesn't mean it will ever happen. Similarly, many Republicans think not getting a Republican to the right of Goldwater will be death (and are just waiting for the inevitable collapse/revolution to make it happen). That doesn't mean they will ever get what they want.

So again (if you feel like answering), what makes you think it will actually ever happen?

[TheKentuckian]

98. Necessity is the mother of invention. We will grow, change, or die. That is life.

You're caught up in desire when the issue is critical need.

There is also a few thousand years of examples that nothing is forever. Rome fell, the sun sets on the British empire, the Pharaohs went into the sand.

You know this nonsense isn't sustainable and therefore will collapse under its own weight, be overturned by a downtrodden population with too little to lose, the voices in the wilderness will be heard, or something unexpected will happen as it often does.

Hell, if nothing else oil depletion and environmental havoc will create a deathwave to much of what we know.

You are all but certainly wrong. There is no example in history of the effect you are working so hard to convince people of.

Your desperate siren call to accept the unacceptable, lie down in the dust, and die is beyond worthless and all the evidence needed to see where you come from and what you are about.

The future is always in motion.

[BzaDem]

101. As I said, Republicans say exactly the same thing.

The whole "the world will change to my view because I am so correct" is no less intellectually bankrupt from the Left than it is from the Right.

[TheKentuckian]

127. What I want is beside the point and a distraction to legitimize your solid state model of existence

I have no doubt that your opposite number in the TeaPubliKlan party during the Eisenhower administration was saying the similar stuff and now virtually every single Republican and most Democrats are more regressive than Ike.

Paradigms shift. Happens all the time. Not that long ago, as the world turns black people were slaves right here in this country and now a black man is President. Things change, just four or five generations ago some of my ancestors were property.

A few hundred years ago most people believed the world was flat and you could fall off the edge and that rulers were kings by divine right.

Things won't remain as they are because YOU like it. We make our own future.

[BzaDem]

133. I actually don't like it, so things surely won't stay the same because I like it.

"A few hundred years ago most people believed the world was flat"

"We make our own future."

Sure. The problem is the number of people who agree with your future and care enough to bring it about is quite small.

[TheKentuckian]

186. It takes but a single candle to hold back the darkness

The majority is wrong and that's not opinion but fact. I say fact because the cake they want has already been baked and it is a fucking mess.

Tickle down supply side economics is a bust. Imperialism enslaves our own citizens.

The Universe imposes certain penalties on the willfully stupid. Eventually the capacity exhausts, either you go extinct or do something different.

You can pretend I'm being ideological but the reality is the answers aren't where we are looking for them. It doesn't matter what some Reich wing nut or "sensible centrist" might go on about, their ideas have utterly failed the majority of people over and over.

There is no such equivalence because all the worn out ideas have not worked and have been given plenty of chances to be executed over the past 150 years or more. Much more in some cases and it is all a fuckload of fail.

Why expend energy on the defense of insanity??? Because it is popular? That is way fucked up.

[BzaDem]

190. "Why expend energy on the defense of insanity"

I'm not defending the policies as good policies. I likely agree with you on many policy matters. I'm simply stating the obvious fact that just because you SAY policy X is wrong doesn't mean a majority of the country will EVER agree with you that policy X is wrong, no matter how much you state your opinion is fact. Just because you think Y is a fucking mess, or Z is a fuckload of fail, or that A is insanity, or that most people give a shit about foreign policy, etc etc etc doesn't mean a majority will ever be won over.

I have no doubt that year after year, decade after decade, you will continue to say that they are wrong (and that's all factual and everything). They will continue to elect people that you don't like. You will continue to say "oh but they are factually wrong, i'm right, memememememe" and you will continue to be disappointed. It is a cycle, and it won't end (for you). You will go through your life saying you are factually right, but you will be consistently disappointed.

And we won't go extinct. There's a word for people who think we will go extinct if people don't start agreeing with them.

[TheKentuckian]

209. I'm not discussing opinion or hypothetical. The majority policies have failed.

If people can't feel the reality biting them in the ass then I can't work with that.

Its not like this situation hasn't happened before and won't happen again without a structural rebuild rather than patches and overhauls as we have answered such phases in the past.

Like on about everything, minds change. At least for a while, till the pain is forgotten and dumb, shortsighted, and greedy ideas get a little extra sheen from being out of circulation and the usual suspects work to undo it and blow everything up again.

A couple of lost decades and real hardship will cause a shift in opinion. May not take that much. Your perspective seems overly rooted in the present. You are in a valley and so believe there is no horizon, only hillside.

I'll be here, unless called away. The wind will change and this valley has an end if we only keep walking.

[BzaDem]

215. "then I can't work with that"

That's really my point. I'm not claiming you can "work with it."

While you say these policies failed, your metrics for failure are not the same as those for others. We both want an educated populace, healthcare for all, a reduction in income inequality, more civil liberties, lower incarceration rates, lower poverty rates, lower carbon emissions, etc.

But there are a huge number of people who couldn't care less (or actively disagree with) every single one of those metrics. There are similarly plenty of lower-income people (who happen to be from geographic areas which have disproportionate electoral power) who do not care at all about income inequality and would never vote for a Democrat for this reason in their life.

Furthermore, many people who are hurt the most by these policies don't think that government caused their problems, or don't think government will fix their problems (and vote on other issues). Still others believe they are hurting because our policies are not right enough.

You should stop assuming that people view success/failure the same way you do, or that all people view government policies as the cause of their problems (EVEN IF they view success/failure the same way you do).

[rucky]

231. We've been at the brink before, then FDR came to power.

Many of us saw the parallels between 2008 and the Great Depression and expected an FDR-type of solution, based on the closest thing in history and what worked then.

[eleny]

17. Settling for less - the new Democratic Party ideal

[DJ13]

20. Why do you think we will ever get a President to the left of Obama?

When people voted for "change" they werent expecting more compassionate conservatism wrapped up in a thin coating of faux liberalism.

They honestly expected a 180 degree turnaround from the GOP.

It didnt happen, and the Democratic party just paid a heavy price last month.

In light of those events its obvious that the voters really want a genuine move away from the current conservative politics, and a liberal (one who isnt a marketing creation and wants to remain a liberal once he/she wins) could actually win.

I mean why not, thats who the average voters thought they were electing in Obama.

[BzaDem]

45. Actually, the vast majority of liberal Democrats approve of Obama's job performance, so perhaps you

shouldn't generalize your own opinions to what others thought about "change."

"It didnt happen, and the Democratic party just paid a heavy price last month."

Not sure if you noticed, but the party that actually won last month was the GOP. Moderate independents voted for the GOP in a landslide. Democrats got 90%+ of the Democratic vote.

[DJ13]

63. Those who dont follow politics closely are still enthralled with his image

Theres a reason his 08 campaign won a prestigious advertising award.

Look at many of the responses in to your thread, those who post here frequently, who follow politics intently, are more inclined to see Obama as more conservative than you or those poll respondents do.

[BzaDem]

66. Very, very few people follow politics intently. Even among voters, the vast majority don't.

And no, DU is not a representative sample of any group other than DU (even of Democrats who follow politics closely).

[OrwellwasRight]

89. How do you know that

"DU is not a representative sample of any group other than DU"? Have you done a statistical sampling of DU and compared it to other known groups of Democrats?

For someone who keeps asking for "actual evidence" of what will happen in the future (which no one will be able to provide, btw, because the future is unknowable), you seem to be pretty confident of your own "evidence" and "conclusions."

[BzaDem]

91. Sure. For example, there are lots of people here that oppose Obama

but in an actual representative sample, almost all progressive support Obama. No matter who does the poll. (Gallup, Pew, all the media organizations, etc)

The fact that you actually think DU is even close to a representative sample shows what a bubble you live in.

[OrwellwasRight]

109. I never said I thought it was representative.

I asked for your evidence that it wasn't. Those are VERY different things.

Your response was to give me your anecdotal experience of DUers. Not a scientific number of how many DUers oppose Obama compared to the same number for other subgroups of Democrats. You have just proved my point. You made a conclusion without have real evidence to back it up.

[BzaDem]

118. Do you believe less than 14% of people on this board do not approve of Obama? n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

125. I have no idea.

I haven't surveyed them. I only have anecdotal evidence from fun people like you.

Moreover, statistically, DU has many "lurkers" who rarely post and whose opinions could never be known without a survey so I wouldn't recommend that anyone who is looking for a real answer should just "guess."

[BzaDem]

132. Fine. I will restrict the population I am referring to to those who post at least 10 times a month.

Do you actually think that less than 14% of that group oppose Obama?

[OrwellwasRight]

136. I don't pretend to have statistical evidence I don't have.

sorry.

[BzaDem]

138. If I were to tell you that the percentage of Apples that are neon blue was small,

you would not be asking me for statistical evidence that it were so.

The same principle applies here.

[Edweird]

25. Because Candidate Obama's wildly successful campaign of 'hope and change'

gave people the impression he was significantly to the left of President Obama. I'm sure it'll take a while for people to get over the bait and switch, but it is certainly a possibility.

[ZombieHorde]

26. We have had Presidents to the left of President Obama, so I don't see why another one would be so

improbable.

[leftstreet]

31. In all fairness to Obama, a 'left' Prez couldn't represent the Democratic party

Not in its current state. It's pretty hard right at this point

[AnArmyVeteran]

85. Nixon was left of Obama!

[AnArmyVeteran]

86. EVERY republican president before Reagan was LEFT of Obama...

[BzaDem]

93. So? The Republican party (and Independents) have moved far to the right since then.

Furthermore, you would have complained just as much about Nixon/Eisenhower/etc as you are about Obama.

[paulk]

29. ????????????

There have been plenty of Democratic Presidents to the left of Obama. Heck, there's been Republican Presidents to the left of Obama - the question really is - why you think this wouldn't happen again?

[BzaDem]

38. We haven't had a Democrat to the left of Obama since we lost the South.

The Republican party has moved far to the right, so having a Republican to the left of Obama is not going to happen.

Given the modern electoral map over the past several decades, why do you think it will ever happen again? You could of course say that 49-state loser McGovern was simply a "bad candidate." or that 49-state loser Mondale was simply a "bad candidate," or that 40-state loser Michael Dukakis was also coincidentally just a "bad candidate," but that doesn't explain why you think we will actually ever in the future have a President who is to the left of Obama.

[laughingliberal]

51. As centrist as he was, Clinton did raise taxes on the rich. Obama won't even commit to that and he..

...campaigned on it.

[BzaDem]

58. Clinton did that in a good economy (where Congress was agreeable to it).

Clinton also signed welfare reform. So while I think the economic conditions make the tax policies of both presidents somewhat incomparable, Clinton was more conservative in net than Obama in any event.

[laughingliberal]

71. I don't agree with a lot of what Clinton did but he did raise taxes on the rich & the economy...

was in recession in 1993 when he did it-not in a good economy. His economic plan, you may recall, passed without a single Republican vote-so, not a friendlier Congress, either. Gore had to break the tie in the Senate.

With Obama we're getting cuts to our social safety net and no tax increase for the wealthy. He is to the right of Clinton. Barely, but he is.

[BzaDem]

77. "With Obama we're getting cuts to our social safety net"

Obama expanded the safety net in a bigger way than any President since LBJ. Sure, there are a few liberals who think otherwise, but there were plenty of liberals trying to kill Social Security at the time too (because it wasn't left enough). People who think HCR somehow isn't expanding the safety net will soon become just as irrelevant as the liberals who thought Social Security wasn't a good idea as passed.

And no, the recession ended in March of 1991. Even looking at unemployment alone, that peaked in mid 92.

[laughingliberal]

97. He's not through cutting the safety net

We still have cuts to SS/Medicare/Medicaid coming. Also the jacking of the CPI will see COLA's reduced and all forms of public assistance will be shaved in response to the disingenuous numbers. Not only that, but wages will be adversely affected.

LOL at your defense of HCR. Obama already admitted it was a Republican plan. As for changing HCR, it'll be changed, all right. Just not in the direction you think. Once they do away with the employer tax credit for providing benefits it will be Bush's ownership society plan with a mandate.

Regardless of when the recession technically ended, workers and middle class people were still not recovering. Clinton did not pass his tax increase for the rich in a 'good' economic climate. He passed it after 12 years of increasing wealth disparity. Oh, right, I guess that would mean it was good economic times for the top-much like now.

We're heading for austerity, American style with poverty already skyrocketing. After 5 or 10 years of the 'new normal' the people will be way over the 'conservative' approach to economics.

[BzaDem]

106. You may laugh, but you are in a tiny minority of Democrats. Most approve of HCR.

The idea that a Republican would actually pass this plan is ludicrous. It expands government-run Medicaid by 15 million (HALF the insurance expansion). As I said, there were plenty of liberals during FDR's time who worked to kill Social Security, and you will be no more relevant than they were.

[paulk]

75. where is Obama to the left of Bill Clinton?

Clinton rescinded the Reagan tax cut without a single Republican vote. Obama had a filibuster proof Senate - but didn't have the political courage or will to do the right thing. He still doesn't, if rumors about the coming compromise on Bush's tax cuts are true.

ps - there was still a recession in '93 - it wasn't a "good economy"...

[BzaDem]

88. He passed the biggest expansion of the social safety net since LBJ

(which has the approval of 80%+ of Democrats). 31 million newly insured, 15 million of them on government program Medicaid, pre-existing conditions, etc. Sure, there are some liberals here that don't like it, but they will go down in history just as irrelevant as the liberals who opposed Social Security from the left.

[paulk]

96. yes, it's wonderful that we have gotten everyone health

insurance - really showed all those more liberal countries out there - the one's with single payer - pretty much the rest of the western world - the right way to do things!

What an achievement!

[BzaDem]

119. Your argument is that the bill wasn't as good as X. That is not logically an argument that it wasn't

good (or the biggest expansion of the social safety net since LBJ).

[Better Believe It]

61. So if you think a liberal Democrat can never be elected President what do you think should be done?

I think you're coming close to concluding that Wall Street and corporate America are holding center stage in the "big tent" and progressives are mere spectators sitting in the back rows.

[BzaDem]

69. Why do you think there is something to be done that can remedy the situation?

As I said below, our country has an electoral college that gives huge influence to right leaning sparsely populated states, a Senate that gives huge influence to right leaning sparsely populated states, and a gerrymandered house that gives huge influence to right leaning sparsely populated states. Further, to actually enact progressive policy, you would need progressive majorities/supermajorities in not just 1 or 2, but all 3.

We currently do not have a progressive majority in either the House or the Senate. I do believe we have a President to the left of both the 218th House member and the 60th most liberal Senator, but he can't sign what they don't pass and has to work with the Congress he has. And this state of affairs is after the best election for Democrats in a very long time. I'm not sure why so many people here conclude that it is actually going to get much better (in terms of progressive policy) than we have it now.

[paulk]

70. because if I believed that I would have no choice but to blow my

brains out in despair. We have to have a President to the left of Obama because if we don't get away from conservative policies the country will not survive, imho. We need a President who is able to articulate and persuade the American people of the rightness of his/her liberal beliefs. Which isn't Obama, because he's not a liberal.

[BzaDem]

73. But that isn't evidence that it will happen. That is just evidence that you won't like it if it

doesn't happen.

What makes you think that you just won't go on, not liking it, for the rest of your life? Why do you think we will get a President to the left of Obama?

[paulk]

79. sea changes do happen in politics

all it takes is a real leader

hopefully the Democrats can come up with one sooner rather than later

[BzaDem]

81. The election of 2008 from a purely electoral perspective was a huge sea change.

The political climate in 2008 was the best in a long time. And yet the 60th Senator was Snowe/Nelson and the 218th House member was deep into the blue dog caucus.

So just because "sea changes happen" doesn't mean we'll get a more progressive President/Congress than Obama.

[paulk]

100. weak argument

2008 wan't a sea change, especially in light of this month's elections.

"Sea change" denotes permanent change, real change, not empty sloganeering like

"change we can believe in", for example

[larkrake]

36. Corporations will not allow a left in office

[laughingliberal]

46. Whether it will happen or not, it does not mean I have to applaud or approve of right wing policy.

I believe it will happen. Quite a few countries who underwent the horrible years of IMF style austerity finally kicked out their oligarchs and elected leftist leaders. I'm sure America will, too, after they've lived a decade under the new austerity, American style.

[arcane1]

52. We are several generations behind Central America

since we live at the Epicenter, we're the last to notice the effects.

[Capitalocracy]

57. Neocolonialism is coming home.

We're starting to feel it.

[BzaDem]

60. Other countries have different governmental systems.

Our country has an electoral college that gives huge influence to right leaning sparsely populated states, a Senate that gives huge influence to right leaning sparsely populated states, and a gerrymandered house that gives huge influence to right leaning sparsely populated states. Further, to actually enact progressive policy, you would need progressive majorities/supermajorities in not just 1 or 2, but all 3.

So comparing our system to other countries is not very instructive.

Furthermore, as for the actual policy of austerity, one of the reasons it affects people in other countries is it reduces benefits people already have. But in this country, Austerity from the Republicans (if it passed) would mainly come in the form of voucherizing Medicare/etc for people who won't be Seniors for a decade or more. So perversely, the fact that we have such a small safety net now will make austerity somewhat less politically painful for the population than in other countries.

[laughingliberal]

68. No worries. After a decade of IMF style austerity, people will be ready for change.

I think people are going to be shocked to see what a normal standard of living looks like even 5 years from now.

But you just go on like nothing's changed. Denial is often easier than facing something like this.

[BzaDem]

72. Even if a majority is ready for change, that isn't even close to enough to enact more progressive

policy than we have enacted in this country.

The election of 2008 took place in one of the most favorable climates for Democrats in recent times. Yet it produced a Senate where the 60th most liberal Senator is Olympia Snowe/Ben Nelson, and a 218th House member who is in the middle of the blue dogs.

Why do you think that even if benefits are changed by Republicans for people 10+ years after the law is enacted (removing accountability mechanisms), we will get a president to the left of Obama that has a willing Congress (given that our Democracy is extremely biased towards sparsely populated right-leaning states)?

[laughingliberal]

74. In 2008, people hadn't been through a decade of the 'new normal.'

Some haven't felt but a little nip of the wringer, now. But they will. And it will change things.

You act as if you think this country is going to be basically the same in 10 years. It's not. Not even close.

[BzaDem]

80. No, I'm not acting as if the country will be basically the same in 10 years.

I'm trying to explain that even if it is totally different, the structural bias inherent in our Constitution will prevent the type of election that is required to enact progressive policy.

[laughingliberal]

102. People will not be in the mood to vote for any more mean spirited, wealth revering conservatives.

There's going to be very few areas not affected very badly by all this. People vote their pocket books. A few years of living under the new austerity and they'll not be voting for any more 'free markerteers' or 'supply siders.'

[BzaDem]

121. People consistently vote for Republicans when they think they are voting their pocketbooks.

Most have no idea what supply side economics even is.

[sat110]

76. We are being played like fools

For Starters I would not call Obama a Democrat president, true he used Progressives
like myself, as fools to get his foot into the office, and has been a sellout ever
since. as to your question I do not think it is possible to get a pro middle class
president anymore. the money needed to run is just to much to run against right wing
Millionaire and Billionaires as well as the Ultra right wing Chamber of Commerce.

I do not think we will see a Democratic President even if its in name only under this
system as it stands today. why would the Right wing Chamber back a "Republican light
Democrat" when they own the real thing? and why should a Democrat Voter like myself
vote for a Democrat President who keeps the same right wing people in his administration
and policys? this is 101, on what happens when you back stab your base.

I pray I'm wrong, but don't think I am, watch come 2012, Pesonally I will not vote for
him again and after he passes the full Bush tax cuts for the Wealthy 2% to the tune of 700
Billion off the backs of middle class workers he will lose the rest.

Does anyone think the US chamber of commerce which spent Millions backing right wing
candidates, and who also I might add represent the very company's that make the Voting
machines, is it any wonder voters get no confirmation copy, the problems not just the
money its the machines them self, which no one even talks about. I don't believe the vote
count coming out of those machines is even legitimate.

TP

[BzaDem]

90. Oh, you'll come crawling back to the Democratic party just like the Naderites did after 2000.

There is only so much putting your head in the sand you can do before reality comes back to bite you in the ass. You'll be back (even if you don't know it now).

But that wasn't really my question anyway.

[leftstreet]

92. Hey! That could be the 2012 campaign slogan

Along with the new logo......

[BzaDem]

94. That's the bueaty of it -- it doesn't need to be. It will happen all by itself. n/t

[donco6]

103. Here you go:

[laughingliberal]

107. That's it

Really inspiring, huh? Actually, it should be, "They suck slightly more every now and then."

[donco6]

112. Hey, I made it a few months ago - things change.

And not for the better! LOL!

[leftstreet]

110. lol

:spank:

[Mimosa]

255. ^ ROTFLMAO!!! at Donco's graphic ^

Another slogan could be from BZADem. "You'll come crawling back to the Democratic party." Inspiring, that.

[donco6]

258. That's even better.

[laughingliberal]

104. Reality for me is I have nothing left to lose. I can't see one thing worse that could be done to me

and the rest of the non-rich than what's going on right now and what's coming in this next year.

[BzaDem]

124. For example, Nader's enablement of Bush (and therefore Citizens United)

didn't just make things worse now. It made things impossible to get better later. It will take at least a generation to reverse that decision (if ever).

So not only are things going to get worse for you (despite your denial), but enabling Republicans will actually structurally change the system to prevent things from ever getting better for you. If you enable a Republican victory and allow that to happen, I don't see how you could possibly call yourself a progressive.

[laughingliberal]

147. Things are going to get worse for everyone except the top 2%. regardless

until we throw the oligarchs out of both parties. It will take some years but people will wise up. I have nothing left to lose. It's just my intention to keep telling the truth about the damage right wing economic policies do to real people no matter whose enacting them. They will hear it when they've had enough pain. I am not ever going to say a right wing policy passed under a Democrat is somehow superior to the same right wing policy passed under a Republican.

You can spout all the BS you want about demographics, blah, blah, blah...but it will never make a right wing economic policy work for the majority of Americans. It's still bad policy. It has always been bad policy, it's bad policy, now, and it will be bad policy next year and the year after and five years from now and so on. Nothing will ever make me say these policies are good for real people.

[BzaDem]

165. Something that is bad policy to you and me is not necessarily bad policy to many others.

I'm not trying to make you say the policies are good, because I agree with you that they are not good. But I am suggesting that you take your head out of the sand and realize that many people oppose your economic policies with the same vigor that you oppose right wing policies. As I said with healthcare, the status quo (despite you and me not liking it) is quite politically stable. That's why it's so hard to change. There are many more healthy people than sick people, etc etc.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

111. Are you kidding me? JFC, if you measure from how far right the GOP has gone,

Obama may have just crossed the Nixonian meridian. The 'Left' is barely acknowledged by this administration in its actions.

[brentspeak]

115. You are the same individual who claimed that we had to give Goldman Sachs billions of taxpayer $$

in order to "save" the financial system?

Ok, just wanted to verify.

[girl gone mad]

122. 2012.

Bloomberg.

[MadHound]

123. So we shouldn't even hope for change anymore, eh?

Just pack it in, give it up, face the fact that in this country the best we can hope for is a Republican lite corporatist president who is willing to throw the poor, the elderly, the middle class along with what is left of the greatness of this country under the bus in exchange for enriching the wealthy and a handful of magic bipartisan beans.

Sorry, but people, times and attitudes do change. We have gone from a genuinely progressive country that looked out for the weak to a greedy corporatist hellhole, and back and forth again during our history. The true questions that remain are how that change will occur and when it will occur. Will it be relatively bloodless or quite violent? Will it happen sooner rather than later?

But to settle for this, sorry, I'm not that cynical or defeatist. Why are you?

[BzaDem]

129. Why do you assume what you define as change will happen just because you want it to?

Given the structural biases towards small right-wing states inherent in our Constitution (Senate/Electoral College/Gerrymandered House), that were only overcome from 30s-60s because of a coincidental alliance with Southern dixiecrats (producing 68+ seat supermajorities in the Senate and three digit majorities in the House, never to be seen again), why do you think that just because something happened in the past means it will happen in the future?

[MadHound]

142. Wow, you're that clueless on history

So the abolition movement,labor movement, institutions installed by FDR, civil rights movement, anti-war movement, none of that means nothing in your thinking. The populist movement of the plains, the socialism of Long in LA, none of that rings a bell.

Politics isn't static, it is always fluid and in motion. In my lifetime I have seen a dramatic swing to the left followed by an equally dramatic swing to the right. These things are cyclical, periodic and have been so throughout our history. The corruption and greed of the Gilded Age was followed by the triumph of labor, whose power is now being diminished in this the new Gilded Age.

People change according to the own needs, and when the pressure becomes too much, that change happens. Our body politic moves from right to left, back and forth. What seems set in concrete now changes in the space of a decade. To think that people won't change again is foolish and narrow minded. Sadly, it is a mistake that far too many people in positions far more powerful than yours and mine have made time and again.

To think otherwise is to take a short view of history and a static picture of politics.

[BzaDem]

146. Oh I think people will change again.

We'll definitely have another Democratic president. We might even get one that you enthusiastically vote for. But within a year you'll be complaining about him JUST as much as Obama, because he is going to be facing the same governing realities as Obama. Same thing with Clinton, same thing with Carter (though Obama easily got more done than both of them combined, due to a few extremely close breaks in Senate elections for Democrats in '06 and '08).

If we lived in a parliamentary system with proportional voting (or something similar), you might have a point. But my point is that we don't live in such a system. We live in a system with extremely large structural impediments to progressive change (that have a lot to do with geography) that are getting stronger by the day, and have only been going in one direction for decades. In 10 or 20 years, we might find it difficult just to sustain a simple 51-seat majority in the Senate WITH blue dogs, EVEN if we consistently win the majority of the popular Senate vote.

[laughingliberal]

151. People will keep voting for right wing policies until they've had enough of the pain and start...

connecting the dots about where the pain is coming from. I can't change that but I'm not shutting up about where the pain's coming from-right wing economic policies, regardless of whose passing them.

[BzaDem]

152. But at that point, why do you think they will elect a President to the LEFT of Obama?

And you also overestimate who feels pain. On healthcare, a significant majority of America tends to not get sick and will therefore be happy with the healthcare/insurance they have. That's why Single Payer isn't going to happen (at least for decades).

[laughingliberal]

155. I'm talking about economic pain and it's more and more people feeling it all the time

The stagnation/decline of wages has been going on for 30 years. People are starting to get it that they've worked for years only to stay in the same place or fall behind. With Austerity, American style headed our way, it will accelerate. It may take a while before the BS razzle dazzle of the 'free marketeers' and 'supply siders' is thoroughly discredited but it will be and I'll keep telling people that until the blinders come off.

BTW, if the CFC idea of doing away with the tax credit for employers who provide health care gets adopted, we'll be seeing a whole lot more who aren't 'happy with what they have' cause they'll have nothing but a mandate that costs them a lot more than they've been paying at work.

[BzaDem]

158. "cause they'll have nothing but a mandate"

No. They'll actually have premiums guaranteed to be less than 9.5% of their income at 400% of FPL (or less than 2% at 150% of FPL, or less than 5% in the middle, etc). The government pays the rest.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People here who criticize the healthcare bill have NO IDEA what's in the healthcare bill.

[laughingliberal]

171. Still more than they've been paying as their part of their plan at work & a bronze plan is

...worse coverage than most have at work.

If this goes through, the answer is, "If you like what you have..Tough. You'll take what you get." I know what's in the health bill. I also know I never paid anywhere near 9.5% of our income for any employer sponsored health plan and never had a plan that only had 60% actuarial value.

[BzaDem]

173. "I also know I never paid anywhere near 9.5% of our income"

Do you actually think that employers are giving you healthcare for free, just because you don't see it on your paystub?

[laughingliberal]

177. No matter. Employers won't be giving that money back in salaries and all most people will know is...

they are now paying $5000 a year for a much crappier policy than they had before and the government is going to fine them if they don't.

[BzaDem]

183. The government is actually not going to fine them if the silver (70%) plan costs more than 8% of

their income. The mandate affects people who can afford the policies.

"Employers won't be giving that money back in salaries"

If employers had a choice not to give back the money in salaries, why didn't they just exercise this discretion you say exists to lower everyone's wages by thousands of dollars much earlier?

[laughingliberal]

192. Great! Only 8%!

Still more than they've been paying and for probably less coverage. And if it's more than 8%, and they can't afford it-Wow! They don't get fined!!! But, guess what? They still don't have health care!

If they liked what they had, too bad.

LOL! Let me know when everyone's employer's give them huge raises after they drop their benefits. I'll be holding my breath til that happens.

[BzaDem]

196. As opposed to today, where if it's more than 8%, you still don't have healthcare.

"Let me know when everyone's employer's give them huge raises after they drop their benefits."

Forgive me if I listen to actual economists like Paul Krugman on this issue instead of you.

[laughingliberal]

198. Who said, :"If you like what you have, you can keep it?"

If they do away with the tax exemption, they won't be keeping what they have.

In case you haven't noticed wages are being driven down even for employees who have no benefits. Krugman's wrong if he thinks employers are going to give thousands back in wages after they drop health care. I've worked in companies where I went part time and became ineligible for benefits. They did not raise my hourly wage because they were no longer paying any of my premium.

[BzaDem]

203. Obama said "if you like what you have, you can keep it" IN HIS BILL.

His bill didn't remove the tax exemption. It just taxed plans above 27 thousand per family per year (and only the portion of the plan above 27 thousand).

As I said, I hope you'll forgive me if I agree with Krugman (and other healthcare economists) over you on this issue.

[laughingliberal]

206. Yeah but we're all about perception, aren't we?

I'm talking about the new push for removing employers' tax credit for providing benefits to employees. I believe that will pass. And, true or not, it will be perceived as Obama's fault.

I think a whole lot of people who have had benefits at work thought it was an OK bill for 'those people' who didn't have insurance and weren't concerned as they had insurance at work. I think once they find themselves out there in the private market with the higher premium (as opposed to what they pay for benefits through work) and the lower coverage, they aren't going to think it's such a box of chocolates.

As for Krugman, you can agree all you want. The proof will be in what actually happens. In case you haven't noticed, there's no big push among employers to be generous these days.

[BzaDem]

211. I don't think it will actually pass unless they get enough votes for a huge deficit package.

For example, if they lower the rates and get rid of all the exemptions. (Keep in mind more of the exemption goes to rich people than poor people, since the deduction comes at the highest marginal rate for them, and that it is essentially a subsidy from those with no employer insurance to those with employer insurance. I wouldn't support getting rid of it by itself, but if they got rid of it and replaced it with a more generous standard deduction, that would make the tax code MORE progressive.)

But I don't think it will happen, because I don't think any huge package like that is getting through Congress now or at any point in the near future.

[laughingliberal]

213. Better hope not or all those people who think the HCR bill that's such a great deal for the 'lesser

people" are going to get a chance to hate it right along with us.

[MadHound]

168. The same reason people have swung back to the left every other time in our history,

Because the pressure coming down on them from the rich, corporate and elite becomes too much to bear, so they go as far to the left as they can. Newton's third law of thermodynamics, action leading to reaction, is equally applicable in politics and society as well.

Drive people far enough into the ground and they will force change. Since our current center(and increasingly) right stance is not working out, people will try the other alternative, going left. During the Harding/Coolidge era of the twenties, it was inconceivable that a president would institute Socialist policies in America, yet within just a few short years of that era, less than a decade, that is exactly what happened.

A significant majority of Americans tend not to get sick? There are 116 million visits to the ER each year, 30 million stay overnight or longer in a hospital every year, 74% of our population is on at least one prescription drug, our citizens make 902 million doctor visits every year. Where in the hell do you get the idea that a significant majority of Americans don't get sick?

Not to mention the fact that 59% of Americans want single payer and 76% wanted the public option that Obama and the Dems caved on.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/30/sunday/main4765027.shtml>
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-show_n_217175.html>

Out of touch with history, politics and reality, again.

[BzaDem]

172. While you may think this administration is something other than "left," you are in a tiny minority.

And a tiny minority does not have the power to seek and get alternatives.

"Yet within just a few short years of that era, less than a decade, that is exactly what happened."

Yeah. With the combined forces of the dixiecrat South and the real Democrats elsewhere, they had a gigantic 68+ seat supermajority and could pass liberal policies. I already said that.

"A significant majority of Americans tend not to get sick?"

Yes, a significant majority of Americans tend not to get sick. I will limit that to those under 65, since that is the population of people who might or might not have private insurance. The vast majority (often upwards of 80%) are happy with their private insurance, because they don't need to use it. Do you really think the 116 million visits are all from different people (or are anywhere close from different people)?

I never said a significant majority NEVER gets sick. I said a significant majority TENDS not to get sick. Sure, they might get into an accident, but they are otherwise healthy and therefore happy with their insurance (since they don't have to use it). That is why Single Payer is so hard to enact.

For every poll you show me that has "59% of Americans supporting single payer," I can give you one that has it around half that. But regardless, to enact something as big and sweeping as Single Payer, you are actually going to have to get many people to go to the polls electing single payer supporters on an almost single issue basis. (It wouldn't get 10 votes in the Senate today.) That is not going to happen when most Americans are not sick and the vast majority are happy with their insurance.

[laughingliberal]

181. Everyone will be seeking alternatives after living like the Argentines did in the 90's for a while.

And if they do away with the employer tax credit for medical benefits, that vast majority ain't gonna be happy with what they have anymore.

[MadHound]

187. Well d'uh

Every political movement starts out small, be it right or left. Fifty years ago, the John Bircher ideals and policies were considered fringe by the likes of even Buckley. Now they are mainstream. Likewise, the labor movement, civil rights, abolition, even our own Revolution started out as small, minority movements, yet given the political clime and hard work, they became mainstream. So the notion of being tiny now is quite beside the point. Like I said earlier, politics change, and change relatively rapidly, perhaps you should learn that lesson:shrug:

As far as your claims about people tending not to get sick(and I find it amusing that you are now qualifying your blanket statement), your position is completely belied by one simple fact: 74% percent of Americans get at least one prescription drug per year. That's not people over 65, or under 65, that's seventy four percent of the entire population. Now why do people get prescriptions? Because they are sick or have some sort of health problem at some point during that year. Hello, McFly!

And I'm sure that you can give me a poll showing that support for single payer is "around half of that." I saw those polls as well, the ones from Rasmussen and Drudge and the like. Real fact based polling there:eyes: But the fact of the matter is that you haven't given me anything to back up your claims, well, except for hot air.

But hey, I can see this is an exercise in futility, that you are bound and determined in your belief that politics and society are static entities, that change can't happen, and that we all have to settle. Well, if you want to argue those limitations, guess what, they're all yours. But for the rest of us out here, we recognize that change not only has happened, but that real change will happen again. So I'll leave you to wallow in your cynicism and defeatism, there are more productive things to do. Like sleep, goodnight:hi:

[BzaDem]

191. EVERY Democratic president has people who say he isn't left enough.

This "movement" is always tiny. Heck, every Republican president has those on the RIGHT who say he isn't right enough. This is not a new phenomenon.

[laughingliberal]

193. No reason not to push them to do better. nt

[BzaDem]

201. I'm not arguing against people who simply want to push them to do better.

I'm arguing against people who claim that there is little difference between Obama and Republicans, so much so that they will happily vote in such a way that will enable a Republican victory in 2012.

[laughingliberal]

212. You argue with anyone who criticizes Obama or any of his policies in any little way.

And I've never seen one indication that you join in any tiny way with progressives to push Obama or any other Democrats to pass more progressive policies. I see nothing but the same old left bashing we've seen from the WH. It's a voter suppression strategy if I ever saw one. Even those who will likely suck it up and go vote for a DINO in 2012 don't need people rubbing their noses in the fact that they will have to eat this centrist shit and learn to like it. People are fucking dying out here and support for the soul/life destroying economic plans we are seeing is not appreciated.

People who have worked all their lives and have lost their incomes, all their savings, their homes, and are wondering if they can eat tomorrow are getting treated to listening to Alan Simpson cackle about cutting their SS and calling them 'greedy.' Then we get to hear Obama talk about how 'we' have to make the tough choices knowing when he says 'we' he means 'us.' Top that with how he's willing to capitulate to the party who won't pass an extension of unemployment benefits but who insist on tax cuts for the billionaires and it should come as no surprise that people are reaching the end of their ropes over Obama. I've no doubt you'll be right here when Obama gets behind the cuts to SS and Medicare explaining all about why it's a political 'win' for him to do this.

Here you are without one shred of empathy (mimicing well the tone of this WH towards the disenfranchised) cackling about how we'll have to come crawling back to vote for him in the end. Tell me why I have to. What's in it for me? A better cardboard box to live in? Perhaps a dumpster next to a more upscale restaurant? This is not a fucking sports event. This has real consequences for real people who are dying real deaths out here.

Yes, I'm furious with Obama's kowtowing to the right and anyone who wants to convince me he deserves my vote again needs to join me in pushing him to do something for people who don't have millions of dollars and quit pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining. Obama standing up and telling me the people who want to see me dead have some good points and he's looking for ways to compromise with them does not inspire me.

[BzaDem]

219. Maybe you misunderstand what I'm saying?

I have absolutely no problem with criticism of Obama's actions/policies. I absolutely do have a problem with people who say he is similar to or no different than a Republican, and/or that they won't vote in 2012 because of it.

I don't always join in on progressive criticism of many policy actions because in many cases, Obama simply did not have the power to do what I would have preferred. What some call capitulation to Republicans is (in my view) actually recognition of reality (and in any event not pleasing Republicans, since they are far and away from Obama's policies).

"Here you are without one shred of empathy"

I have absolutely no empahty towards people who would enable Republicans at the ballot box by not voting Democratic (or would even threaten to do so). They aren't just hurting themselves -- they are hurting everyone else out of sheer spite. Rather than go Nader and come back in 4 years regretting it, rinsing, and repeating, they should have 5 minutes of foresight and do the right thing in the present. If they don't, they deserve what they get and have no right to be taken seriously if they complain later.

On the other hand, I absolutely DO have empathy for people who will vote Democratic but are disappointed that elected Democrats didn't get more done. I basically always want the most progressive candidate in office who is also electable, and that means not allowing Republicans to pack the Supreme Court and entire judicial branch with right wing ideologues for generation after generation (among other things). But on this board, I see the former type more and more. The "let's enable Republicans now so it'll all "collapse" and we'll somehow get a real Democrat after the collapse" people (even if they're using different words to say the same thing).

"Obama standing up and telling me the people who want to see me dead have some good points and he's looking for ways to compromise with them does not inspire me."

I hope you realize that basically most interactions between Obama and Congress from now until November 2012 will be complete acts. We do not get Democrats in office without winning the middle, and if Obama has to act towards the middle in his public conversations, more power to him. I don't care about acts. You know as well as I know as well as he does that Republicans are not going to give him one inch, and he is trying to act all bipartisan so he can blame them for obstructing later. It is a campaign strategy -- that's it. If you want to see if he's really bipartisan, see how many votes over 60 the Stimulus, Healthcare bill, and Financial Regulation bill had. (Hint: Not a single one for any of them.)

[laughingliberal]

223. "You know as well as I know as well as he does that Republicans are not going to give him one inch,

and he is trying to act all bipartisan so he can blame them for obstructing later."

No. What I know is that's what he should have been doing. Blaming them for obstructing a good stimulus bill. Instead, he went out and celebrated the crappy bill that passed as a 'win' and moved immediately into bed with the deficit hawks and even appointed the most obnoxious man to ever sit in the Senate to head up a commission he created after the Senate in a BIPARTISAN way defeated the horrible idea.

What I know is he appointed Timmeh and some legislators to go behind closed doors and find a 'solution' to the tax cuts, today. Timmeh! The creature of Wall Street who never met a billionaire he didn't like. Gee. Wonder if the tax cuts for the wealthy will get extended?

I also know he favored the banks over the homeowners even when he didn't need Congress to approve anything. He had control of the TARP funds and access to them for the HAMP program could have been made, by him, contingent on actually helping the homeowners. Instead, the banks got the money for making some token pretenses of 'helping,' and the homeowners got screwed. He had the total power within his hands to put conditions on the banks in return for the TARP funds. He didn't and you can't lay that off on 'poor Obama, what could he do?, the mean old Senate, blah, blah.'

What I also know is it was his administration that raised hell when the House wanted to offset spending with some of his horrible Sec of Ed's Race to Privatization funds and he suggested they offset it with cuts to food stamps. That suggestion to use the food stamp money came from the White House-not the Republicans. He also has suggested they cut food stamps to fund Michelle's program to fight childhood obesity. I guess that's one way to fight it. If we don't give them enough to eat, they won't get fat.

Sorry, argue for his right wing enabling, left bashing administration all you want. There have been plenty of ways he could have made a difference and he chose not to.

I've no doubt you'll be right here when he starts 'making the tough choices on SS' explaining all about why he had no choice but I won't be buying it. President Obama sides with the wealthy and stacked his administration with a bunch of robber barons and never met a New Deal program he couldn't disparage.

[BzaDem]

224. Not only does Howard Dean support SS/Medicare cuts for deficit reasons,

but he said that anyone who takes them off the table is not actually serious about the deficit.

Ironically, I don't necessarily agree with him. My proposal to cut the deficit would not cut SS by one penny. (But of course my proposal wouldn't pass Congress either.) It would also not cut Medicare benefits by one penny, though it would cut healthcare costs in general (and thus reduce what Medicare pays to providers and non-Medicare pays to providers). In reality, our entire deficit is dominated by healthcare costs, and the only way to reduce them is to have price controls like they have in every other country (either direct price controls like in Sweden/Netherlands/Singapore/etc, or a public option/single payer, which all are essentially price controls).

But here we have Howard Dean saying that any package that actually cuts the deficit has to cut Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and raise taxes. He said anything without all 4 "isn't actually serious."

Why is he saying that? I don't know. Perhaps he is saying that such a package is the only one that could pass Congress at any point, and that passing nothing will hurt poor people significantly more when the bond market collapses. I honestly don't know. I would have to see any deficit package in full (and hear the reasons for it) before I develop an opinion on it. But I do find it surprising that everyone's hero here is calling them "not serious" because they don't want to cut SS and Medicare.

[laughingliberal]

225. I guess I haven't made myself clear. I oppose right wing policies and even though I generally like..

Dean, I will not agree with him on this. None of this is a sporting event or personalilty contest to me.

But I guess now I know how you'll defend the death sentence for thousands of seniors. 'It's what could pass Congress.' Yeah, thanks for the support, buddy. Once SS is gone, I've really got nothing to gain from voting for anyone. What the fuck else could be done to me that would be worse than what's already been done?


BTW, passing nothing will not hurt poor people significantly more when the bond market collapses. I am a poor person and I'm pretty sure cutting SS and Medicare will hurt me worse than anything.

As for your 'hero' comment, again, I have no heros. When a politician stands for me, I support them. When they don't, I don't. It is all about the policies and there is no good reason, whatsoever, in cutting SS and Medicare. They'll do it anyway, of course, cause the WS cartel really wants that money and that's who they work for. And THAT is the only reason they're doing it.

[BzaDem]

227. Well there are two reasons why passing nothing would hurt significantly.

One is a reason specific to social security. In 2037, the trust fund runs out. (I mean out entirely -- no cash and no bonds). So benefits would go from 100% to 75% in one day, and would remain at 75%. Social Security bills cannot pass under reconciliation as a categorical matter, so any plan to prevent the 75% cut would require 60 votes + House + President.

The second is broader. In terms of the bond market, if the bond market actually collapses, they would either have to immediately pass draconian cuts to absolutely everything, or the checks would just stop coming entirely. (This is on top of the collapse of world markets/depression that would make 2008 look like a boom/etc).

This does not at all mean I would support any plan just because of those two things. I would have to look at it. These things are extraordinarily complicated. But in the end, if it cuts SS and Medicare a non-trivial, more-than-symbolic amount (and the cuts aren't just for the wealthy recipients), I would be unlikely to support it. There would have to be something huge in return that buttressed the safety net in some other way, and I don't expect that would happen in this process. (Or some totally new information that I don't know now that somehow changes everything.) Then again, I don't expect any such bill will actually happen in the end, so I would suspect that none of this really matters.

[OrwellwasRight]

150. +1

[tkmorris]

128. Very simple. We already elected a President left of Obama

Who? Why, Obama himself of course! The voters who elected Obama THOUGHT they were voting for a more Liberal president than the one they got.

[BzaDem]

131. But of course he was constrained by the Senate. That's my point. The next person you elect with joy

will similarly be unable to get what you want, and you will dump on him/her just as much as you are dumping on Obama. Guaranteed.

[tkmorris]

145. But I am not referring to Senate obstruction

I concede that some existed of course, but there were innumerable cases in which Obama was not constrained in any way by the Senate because he capitulated to the Right without any attempt to do otherwise. Perhaps a more Liberal president would experience similar, or even increased Senate resistance, but that is not what you asked.

[BzaDem]

148. Where bill did he give in to the right for no reason? Each of his big bills passed with EXACTLY 60

votes. Not one more. He didn't capitulate to the Republicans on healthcare -- he game in to Ben Nelson/Joe Lieberman, because they were the 59th and 60th votes respectively and neither could care less whether a healthcare bill passed.

Honestly, what Obama has done so far (given the circumstances of each bill) has been quite obvious to anyone who understands the requirements of actually passing legislation through an extremely dysfunctional Congress.

You say we already elected one, named Obama? THAT'S MY POINT. It will happen again. We will elect another President. You might even be thrilled about it on election night. But he will face the same governing realities Obama did, you will be just as pissed off at him as you are at Obama, and the cycle will repeat.

[laughingliberal]

174. He fought the House and the Senate to kill the deep audit of the Fed which had passed with huge...

bipartisan support. The WH lobbied like hell to get it watered down.

He also lobbied the Senate to kill the reimportation amendment that was on track to pass.

[BzaDem]

180. The deep audit of the Fed did not pass the Senate with huge bipartisan support.

It didn't pass the Senate at all.

"He also lobbied the Senate to kill the reimportation amendment that was on track to pass."

The amendment would have passed. The actual bill containing the amendment would therefore have failed. Just like with the Fed Audit.

[laughingliberal]

188. Yes, it did: 96-0

The Senate today voted overwhelmingly to adopt an amendment, authored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), forcing a comprehensive review of the Federal Reserve's emergency lending activities. The amendment passed by a 96-0 vote.

Though the measure was always popular, it faced extraordinary opposition from the White House, Wall Street and the Fed itself. Late last week, in a move that defused the opposition, and may have saved Wall Street reform legislation, Sanders agreed to limit the scope of the audit to emergency lending only, exempting other Fed activities.

That preserved the broad intent of the plan, which was always aimed at bringing the Fed's shadowy activities during the financial crisis into the daylight. Under the terms of the proposal, the Fed will also be required to make public which companies received upwards of $2 trillion in aide from the Fed, and under what terms.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/senate-adopts-sanders-audit-the-fed-amendment.php

And there is absolutely no evidence the bill would have failed if the reimportation amendment had been in it. It was the White House's lobbying to preserve their deal with PhRMA that killed it.

[BzaDem]

200. Did you read the site you quoted?

"Late last week, in a move that defused the opposition, and may have saved Wall Street reform legislation, Sanders agreed to limit the scope of the audit to emergency lending only, exempting other Fed activities."

The amendment that passed was the limited amendment. Not the broad amendment. Your own quote says so.

"And there is absolutely no evidence the bill would have failed if the reimportation amendment had been in it."

Yes there is. Sure it was the White House's lobbying to preserve the deal with PhRMA -- if the deal with PhRMA collapsed, the bill would never have reached Obama's desk. Liberal Senators like Patty Murray who supported importation in the past voted against it here because they knew it would kill the bill. It's amazing how many conspiracy theories there are about who phrma/goldman sachs/etc own government, but when I state a relatively obvious point about pharma having enough influence Senators to kill a bill if the deal isn't preserved, you balk.

[laughingliberal]

214. Sorry. They watered it down to appease the opposition. The opposition was the WH and WS.

The people who voted for reimporation in the past who voted against it did so after intense lobbying from the White House. Period. It is the precise reason Dorgan decided not to run again. He was sick of fighting a President of his own party.

[BzaDem]

221. Oh yes, I agree that the White House opposed it. They opposed it because it would kill the bill.

Everyone knew this at the time. This was literally common knowledge. Stalwart progressives in the Senate had to vote it down because it would kill the bill. Remember, all it takes is a single Democratic Senator to kill the bill. Pharma would easily have had more than one kill the bill if necessary.

The Senators tasked with killing the bill wouldn't come out and say the real reason -- they would say something like "it's time for Obama to work on cutting the deficit, not healthcare, blah blah blah, heed the message of Scott Brown, more blah blah." Or they would create some bullshit do-nothing plan with a few Republicans and throw their support behind that (killing the main bill). But it would have happened -- Congressional press at the time didn't even try to pretend otherwise. Everyone knew what was going on.

[ProudDad]

253. And you appear overjoyed at this...

Why? :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

139. And would it matter with a conservative Senate and 60 vote filibuster rule?

It's baffling that people are oblivious to who's really fucking them.

[BzaDem]

143. That's actually my point.

The Senate is extremely biased towards small right-wing states. Given that the parties are becoming more and more cohesive and separated, it is going to be harder and harder to win any Senate seats in these states like we used to occasionally. In 10 or 20 years, it might be difficult to even sustain a medium sized majority WITH blue dogs (let alone a progressive only supermajority).

This means the chance of a 60 vote progressive Senate is virtually nil, and ANY future President that gets elected will likely not be more legislatively progressive than Obama (since he won't have the legislature to do it).

My point is that Obama has passed the most progressive legislative agenda in decades, and people are either complaining or falsely claiming it is not progressive. But the chances of actually having 60 progressives in the Senate in the near or medium term future are negligible (if not ever).

[Radical Activist]

144. The 90's Democratic Party gave up on rural areas to chase after soccer moms.

Now we're experiencing the consequences. Democrats have to re-embrace populism and start fighting in rural areas again. So does the entire progressive movement.

[BzaDem]

149. Perhaps. We might be able to make some inroads.

But the fact is that the Constitution right now is literally biased in favor of Republicans, and some of that bias is not changeable without changing the Constitution and restructuring or removing the Senate. That is not going to happen (nor can it happen -- an amendment adjusting a state's power in the Senate requires that state's consent, even if the other 49 disagree).

[EmeraldCityGrl]

179. One of the many bogus points to your argument

is the assumption that many current statistics will remain static for decades to come.

What happens to the current two party system when Hispanic voters out number every
other minority and possibly white non-hispanics?

One reason Democrats do poorly in rural areas is the populations of many of these areas
are older than dirt (all respect to our older DUers) Iowa alone has the highest out migration
rate in the country with it's young people moving out of state and into urban areas. The loss
of a manufacturing base will only increase those out migration rates in many states.

Demographics, economies, wars vs. peacetime all change. That crystal ball you're looking into
may be a fun little tool on a message board thread, but in the real world isn't worth squat.

Until you can predict the future your opinion is just that, a poorly constructed opinion.

[BzaDem]

184. We have a two party system because the electoral college requires an absolute majority to win

(as well as House and Senate elections conducted by winner-take-all, as opposed to proportional representation/IRV/STV/etc). A mythical third party could get 55% of the popular vote (which itself would never actually happen) and still not even come CLOSE to winning a majority in the electoral college in a 3 way race. The 2-year old elected House would decide it, with each state having exactly 1 vote.

[Bucky]

153. I have proof. We ELECTED a president to the left of Obama. His name was Obama.

He campaigned on "Change We Can Believe In" but has governed as "Business as Usual with Better Manners".

I'll continue to back him 100% because he's the only president we've got. But I do wish he'd grow a pair and quit waiting for the Republicans to start playing nice with him.

[BzaDem]

154. I am talking about left in terms of actual performance (such as legislation).

At the same time they elected Obama, they elected Olympia Snowe/Ben Nelson as the 60th most liberal Senator (making them the gateway for most legislation). That is my point. We will get another Obama at some point, and you might be thrilled about it on election night, but he or she will face the same governing realities that Obama faced and people here will be just as pissed off with the new President as they are with Obama.

[laughingliberal]

160. BS. Your OP was about how it was impossible to elect a President to the left of Obama. We did.

Now, you move the goal posts.

Obama could have fought the right and he may not have gotten better legislation passed but it would have clearly shown who was responsible for the right wing crap that was going through.

The fact is Obama does not seem to care much for progressive policies.

[BzaDem]

161. I define left in terms of action. Do you define it differently?

The truth is, Obama's action was limited by the Senate, just like the next Democratic President's action will be limited by the Senate (and the one after that).

"Obama could have fought the right and he may not have gotten better legislation passed"

He actually did fight the right on Stimulus/Heatlhcare/FinReg, and each one passed with only the minimal support required to pass (and not a vote more). Not a single Republican vote for his HCR bill. This whole "Obama didn't fight the right" thing is a pure myth on most of the topics it's said about.

[laughingliberal]

167. He did not fight the right wing on HCR.

It's not a myth. You are free to carry water for the right wing policies he's been pushing. I think they are in line with your beliefs but it does not change anything. FFS, he came out after the health care debate and said he never campaigned on a public option. Does that sound like he fought for it? He also recently admitted the health care bill that passed was a Republican bill.

As for the stimulus, he should have asked for a bigger stimulus and when they passed the wimpy one he should have said it was inadequate and that he would keep trying to get more passed instead of putting it out there that it would keep unemployment under 8%. He doomed any chance of getting more stimulus when he said that.

As for financial reform, the WH lobbied furiously to defeat the deep audit of the Fed which passed the House and the Senate with widespread bipartisan support and huge support from the public. Obama lobbied to water it down. He also fought very hard for Bernanke's appointment.

We know he can fight. It's just he's usually fighting us.

And your OP was about whether a more liberal President could be elected. Yes. Obama ran as more liberal than Obama and he was elected.

[BzaDem]

175. He fought for a bill that 80%+ Democrats support and less than 10% of Republicans support.

Of course you would call that a Republican policy, but you live in a bubble.

[laughingliberal]

182. The President called it a Republican plan just a couple of weeks ago.

Where were you?

[BzaDem]

185. Of course the President is going to say that to try to win over Independents.

It would be political malpractice if he didn't. That doesn't mean Republicans in Congress would EVER actually pass such a plan if they were in power.

[laughingliberal]

189. Nope. That's not why he said it. He said it was Romney care and it was. Some of us were saying that.

during the debate. Whether Republicans would pass it or not doesn't change the fact that it's a right wing bill based on right wing policies. It's very similar, I'm sure you've heard, to a Heritage Foundation proposal.

[BzaDem]

194. It's actually much further left than Romney care. 50% of Obama's insurance expansion is on a

government run program. I'm sure you think that's right-wing, but that says more about you than the bill.

[laughingliberal]

195. The President said it was based on Romney's bill. I'm a liar for saying that but he's not? nt

[BzaDem]

197. Sure, it does have some similarities with the bill the 8-1 Democratic state legislature passed

(significantly modified from Romney's additional proposal) that Romney signed. ANY HCR bill would have similarities to that bill. Mandates, and subsidies are required for ANY non-single-payer bill that does so much as touch pre-existing condition regulations. A public option would go bankrupt immediately if there were no mandate.

However, there are HUGE differences between what passed and what Romney signed as well. Again, the point you keep ignoring is that HALF the public insurance expansion was done with completely government run program (hundreds of billions of dollars).

It is not inconsistent to say that the regulation/mandate/subsidy structure is similar to the bill Romney signed, and to simultaneously admit that there are huge differences. The bill is so big that it has similarities and differences to a huge number of plans. Obama is of course going to emphasize the moderate nature of the plan when he's on TV -- he is running for re-election.

[laughingliberal]

202. The HCR bill is not a good bill and it's likely to get worse from here.

I envision a big push to strip out a few token regs that were better than nothing. Look for the MLR ratio to fall. Look for Republicans to get their wish about selling across state lines. Look for the employer tax exemption to fall forcing the majority of workers into the private market.

Talk to me in five years. Everyone touted this as a great start that would be improved. It will likely be changing in the other direction with little opposition from our side being as how we're all about finding areas of agreement with the Republicans and all.

[BzaDem]

204. You would need 60 votes and a Presidential signature to strip out the token regs, change the MLR,

sell policies across state lines, etc.

There is a reason why every single solitary elected progressive voted for this bill, from Sanders to Franken to Brown to Schakowsky to Kucinich to Anthony Weiner to Grayson. Many of them INTENSELY pushed for passing the Senate bill verbatim bill when it looked like it was going to fail. You are the one that is wrong about this issue -- not every single elcted progressive.

[laughingliberal]

208. The House fought like hell to make sure they got a 'fix' to that bill and said they would not...

pass the Senate bill without many assurances the Senate would pass the fix. If the Senate had wavered at all on the fix, it would have gone down. Many progressives did vote for the bill. I believe many were not that happy with it but did not want to be responsible for taking down a bill the President saw as a do or die issue for his Presidency. I don't think many of the progressives voted for it because they saw it as the best thing since SS.

It was nice of the Progressives to support the President in that. Too bad he can't return the favor. Woolsley introduced a bill a couple of months ago to create a public option. He couldn't even spare one word of support for it. After all, you know, he never campaigned on it.

[BzaDem]

220. I'm not just talking about progressives who supported the bill.

I'm talking about progressive who INTENSELY supported the bill. Such as Franken, who chewed out Axelrod for not pushing hard enough after Scott Brown lost. Or Alan Grayson, who's office told all callers immediately that he would support passing the Senate bill verbatim just days after Scott Brown's election (long before the idea of a "fix" took hold), and who intensely lobbied Pelosi to make it a priority and get it passed. Or Feingold, who didn't just vote for the bill. He said he would be happy to lose re-election to the United States Senate if that was the price he paid for voting for the bill.

[laughingliberal]

226. Sorry, not buying it.

There is not one politician who always gets it right. Grayson was wrong on wanting to pass the Senate bill with no fix. He was right more often than he was wrong but they all miss it once in a while.

The only one I know who is right almost all of the time is Bernie Sanders and even he misses it here and there.

Appeals to authority do not work for me. As good as some of our progressives are, not one of them is without health care for their family or a roof over their head, or wondering if there will be grocery money next week. Some are better at caring than others but, in the end, none of them are affected by the policies they enact.

[BzaDem]

228. "in the end, none of them are affected by the policies they enact."

Actually, the bill mandates that Congresspersons get their insurance from the exchange starting in 2014, and nowhere else. So they will be affected.

"There is not one politician who always gets it right."

We're not just talking about one politician here. We're talking about every single elected progressive in federal office, and there are 80+ in the house alone. They include people in absolutely safe districts, people in completely unsafe districts, Senators that are in completely safe states, and Senators that are in unsafe states who knew that casting the deciding vote for this bill could end their careers. Every single one of them voted for the bill, without exception (and as I mentioned, many went out of their way to vote for the bill). They have much better knowledge of how this bill compared to what was feasible over the next 2 decades than you do.

The truth is, HCR failed (at different stages) in the 40s, the 70s, and the 90s. (And in the 60s, LBJ didn't even seek it for all, since he knew it would fail.) Each and every time, the following attempt was picking from the crumbs of the previous attempt. At a certain point, you take what you can get so you are not fighting in 20 years for the crumbs of what you could have gotten today. This is what every progressive in Congress knew. Insuring 31 million people is better than 0, especially when half of them (15 million) are on a government run plan.

[laughingliberal]

230. Sorry. Not buying it.

Not a snowball's chance in hell they'll find the premiums unaffordable and we'll still be subsidizing their benefit plans as part of their employment packages.

Every single progressive did not insist they wanted to immediately pass the Senate bill as is. Many dug in and said no way unless they could be assured the Senate would pass the 'fix.' Remember my response was about Grayson wanting to pass it as is right away. There were not 80 progressives who wanted to do that.

The bill sucks eggs and I hope the employer tax credit for providing benefits is done away with so all those people who like what they have can join all us 'lesser people' out here in private insurance hell with the plan they thought we should be so grateful for.

[BzaDem]

235. You do realize the fix is basically meaningless?

It fiddled with some numbers. That's it. The fix was much more about saving face (or fixing regional disparities) than anything else. It sounds like you have more respect for a progressive that supported the bill+fix than a progressive who would have voted for the Senate bill without the fix (even though the fix changed basically nothing in the structure of the bill).

"so all those people who like what they have can join all us 'lesser people' out here in private insurance hell with the plan they thought we should be so grateful for."

If you had your way, people in the individual market would have NO plan that covered NOTHING, with NO subsidies. This would go on for another 20 years, until the consideration of a healthcare bill much worse than the one that passed. The fact that the bill would save tens of thousands of LIVES and many more bankruptcies (according to actual healthcare economists and not DU posters) apparently means nothing to you.

[leftstreet]

166. +1

Obama had enough political capital to govern from the hard left.

Opportunity....squandered

[bvar22]

159. Campaign Obama vs President Obama

Video IS forever.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[BzaDem]

163. Campaign Obama was not limited by Congress. President Obama was.

One would have thought that people learned this in elementary school.

[laughingliberal]

170. More BS. Your OP was asking whether a more liberal President than Obama could be elected.

He ran on a more liberal agenda and he was elected.

[BzaDem]

176. My definition of liberal is in terms of actions. Not sure what your definition is.

[bvar22]

246. "Limited by Congress"

Like Bush the Lesser was "limited by Congress", and he NEVER had the Majorities OR the Popular Mandate for "CHANGE".

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations. "

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Greyhound]

217. They missed the "New Rules" edition about you can't lie anymore. n/t

[AnArmyVeteran]

249. Jeckel & Hyde

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

157. Hearing you of all people talk about falsehoods is pretty hillarious. n/t

[Greyhound]

169. And when he is forced out of office, supplanting Jimmy Carter as the greatest failure

since Hoover, what will be the excuses you offer then? At least Carter had the people's interests at heart.

Even that addle-brained idiot Shrub got (horrible) shit done and managed to steal two successive elections. Woodrow Wilson will, at last, be supplanted as the most ineffectual and wrong-headed President (that lived longer than 7 months) in our short history.

We've had to dig a ditch in which to place the bar, and still he grovels.

[BzaDem]

178. I can't wait to see your flailing when he gets re-elected.

Though considering you will do your absolute best to attempt to force him out of office, I will take your post just as seriously as the Republicans who say the same exact thing.

:hi:

[Greyhound]

199. I guess that's what happens when you piss off people from both ends of the spectrum.

I live in Red-State-Hell, so there is only one POV on the radio (Jerry Doyle lives here ferfucksake), and I absolutely fucking hate it when I hear these assholes saying things I can't disagree with. There should be nothing that they can say that cannot be easily shot down with facts, but "our" President just keeps feeding them.

Unlike his predecessor, he's not a stupid man, so why do you suppose that he has steadfastly refused to make any move to help us that didn't involve another massive giveaway to the parasites? Why is he more than willing to sell out the "little people" at the drop of a hat, yet stands firmly against even the most modest proposals at more equitable solutions for the problems created by them? Even Bernie Sanders, who bit his tongue, took the hit, and went along with the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act against his fundamental principles to help him get a "victory", was on television tonight wondering what the hell happened.

I won't work against him, he's doing a fine job of that all by himself, but I sure won't be arguing for him.

BTW, you didn't even bother to dispute that he is heading toward another loss. Is your partisanship so much more important than the mere lives of real people that he is helping to destroy?

[BzaDem]

205. Not really. Every Democratic and Republican president has a small portion of their base up in arms

and Obama was never going to be an exception. This is not new. You are going to be pissed at this president, the next president, and the next. And every single president after that.

As for HCR, the fact that Jan Schakowsky, Anthony Weiner, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold, and many other progressives INTENSELY pushed for the bill should suggest you revisit your assumptions about the bill. Heck, Feingold said he was happy to lose re-election if that was the way to get the bill passed. Grayson was outraged that they weren't passing the Senate bill verbatim after Scott Brown lost (luckily, they ended up doing so).

But to you, you are right, and every elected progressive is wrong. Rather than their support being a signal to you that you might be wrong, your opposition should instead be a signal to them that every single one of them is wrong. What a joke.

"you didn't even bother to dispute that he is heading toward another loss"

I didn't dispute that? Really? Perhaps you might want to try reading the topic sentence of the post?

[Greyhound]

207. Ah yes the eternal dance.

If I had wanted a Republican as President..... CaliforniaPeg... Tue Nov-30-10 10:59 PM 209 +139 3938
For those that do not approve of Obama's job performance BzaDem Tue Nov-30-10 10:58 PM 206 0 1521

As usual...

BTW, where do you live?
:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

216. California Peggy 145 recs. BZA Dem -0- as usual. nt

[Greyhound]

218. I have got to quit reading this one's posts. Especially on bad days. n/t

[BzaDem]

222. So your argument for why all elected progressives who intensly supported HCR were wrong, is...

"that post has more recs than you! neener neener neener!"

Got it.

(Though I thought you didn't like popularity contests, since your point of view about Obama barely even registers in national polls of liberal Democrats. Perhaps you just like certain popularity contests?)

[laughingliberal]

233. I think it points out you are in a minority here and there are good, thoughtful people who have...

serious issues with the right wing shift President Obama has made since taking office.

There's also a thread on page one about a woman who tried to commit suicide over her UI benefits running out with a post in there from another DUer who just had a friend commit suicide for the same reason. But your idea of fun is to laugh at liberals and tell us how if we eat the right wing shit policies you support coming from a Democratic president, it'll taste like steak because it didn't come from a Republican. Sometimes popularity is justified.

[BzaDem]

234. Is Obama responsible for unemployment benefits expiring?

He tried to get them passed and so far he has succeeded. He has needed a Republican each and every time since January, and he has gotten one each and every time since January. There was a delay partly to Senator Byrd's death and Manchin's delay in appointing his replacement, but Obama has gotten it extended each and every time. I'm not praising him for this any more than I am blaming him when he can't get legislation passed -- I'm just stating that it passed as a matter of simple fact.

As for your gratuitous insult towards me, when someone claims they are "done" with Obama and going to vote for someone else in the 2012 general election (necessarily enabling a Republican), I will point out that they will eventually be back to vote for Democrats even more conservative than Obama, because they will. (See 2000, Nader supporters.) I never said that it will "taste like steak" or anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that one can only enable Republicans for so long before the consequences of their own actions on their own lives force them to change their voting behavior. Sometimes the truth is justified (always in fact), and I will gladly articulate it.

[laughingliberal]

236. I've never claimed I'm voting for someone else.

As for Obama and the unemployment benefits, he may give lip service to them. He may even believe in them. However, his throwing in with the deficit hawks has given those who do not want them extended all the cover they need for denying the extensions. This huge crisis of the deficit is baloney and it is death to cut spending in a recession. Obama's support of the deficit hawks has allowed all manner of draconian policy to flourish in the name of getting the deficit under control. It is the direction he's been taking us that is the problem.


I have yet to see you ever advocate for pressuring Obama to do something better. It's all bash away at anyone who complains. Dying? "Well, would you rather die under PALIN???"

You don't get it. People who are starving really don't notice the difference whether they're starving under a Democrat or a Republican. As I've pointed out several times now, people with nothing left to lose have nothing left to lose and appealing to 'they suck more' really doesn't impress them. If you care deeply about people voting for Obama, perhaps you should take all this energy you use to bash on suffering people and apply it towards advocating for better policies from your candidate so people will feel they have a reason to vote for him.

I'd like anybody to tell me how my life would be any worse under a Republican, right now. What in the hell could they take from me that has not either already been taken or is not in the process of being taken with the approval of a Democratic president? A Democratic president who appointed the most hateful 2 men he could find to head a commission HE CREATED (who says he can't do anything alone?) to gut our SS and Medicare. Would you care to point out to me where I would be worse off if someone else were in the White House?

And one can only enable right wing policies from a Democratic president for so long before people start having a problem telling the difference.

Oh, but here's some good news! The President may delay his Hawaii trip in order to make sure his capitulation to the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts is complete before Christmas. Can't have those billionaires worrying about money right here at the holidays. Got that? Not staying in town to kick butt cause millions are about to lose the only income they have-staying to make sure a deal gets done on tax relief for billionaires. We know who he works for and there is no excuse for it.

[BzaDem]

237. I don't blame Obama for conditions he didn't create.

He has not given anyone cover for denying the extensions, because they don't need cover. They know that people (like you, but others too) are going to blame the President for everything. Heck, most people don't know who controls Congress. Since people are going to blame the president anyway, why would Republicans step in and pass the benefits anyway?

(Luckily, there are 2 who have been on board with passing the extensions, so they will likely pass despite the other 39's political calculations.)

[laughingliberal]

238. He created the deficit commission at a time when spending cuts were the last thing we needed.

Do you blame him for that? For creating a Judd Gregg/Kent Conrad wet dream and appointing 2 of the most hateful New Deal haters in the country to head it up?

As for unemployment, I blame him for not saying more. He's delaying his vacation over the tax cut deal. IOW, he is delaying his vacation to capitulate to the Republicans on billionaire welfare. But hardly a peep about millions who will lose their only income. I blame him for not fighting. Not succeeding would be one thing. Not trying is another.

And I'm done talking to you. The more I talk to the hard core Obama supporters who prefer liberal bashing to asking the President to find some common ground with the Democrats, the more I dislike him. It has a tendency to make me think the callous, heartless, condescending shit we hear from them is a reflection of his attitude. And that certainly doesn't do him any favors if your intent is, indeed, to inspire people to vote for him. In fact, I'd say it would have the opposite effect on a lot of people.

[Greyhound]

256. Partisan comeback #13. The false premise.

The basis for this disaster.

[BzaDem]

260. To be a false premise, it actually has to be false.

The dictionary is your friend.

[laughingliberal]

162. +1000 nt

[inna]

210. By 'virtue' of him being the most rw Democratic president in modern history?

Of course, one can argue that the rw shift will only continue and get worse with the next Dem pres, but... it sort of has reached the critical mass/tipping point at this time in history. Something has got to give, the system is likely unsalvageable at this point.

[steve2470]

229. When official unemployment reaches 25% or more, THEN... we get our next FDR

Not one second before that.

[jtown1123]

251. I feel like it is that high already. How can they possibly count the millions out of college who

don't collect unemployment because they haven't held a job yet?

[rucky]

232. FDR n/t

[Vinca]

240. Yesterday, while parking in a local lot, I noticed a woman getting out of a car

that had a "Kucinich For President" bumper sticker. We looked at each other and I said "If only he could get elected." She said, "I guess he's not pretty enough." And she's right. Our elections are more like beauty pageants. We're attracted . . . and actually believe . . . what a "pretty" candidate says. Shame on us.

[Forkboy]

245. "Obama...it's the best we can manage!"

This fucking party... :rofl:

[NoodleyAppendage]

247. Well, he ran in 2008 "to the left of Obama." It was our problem that we fell for it. n/t

J

[jtown1123]

250. Because he campaigned as a progressive and won the majority of the vote.

[ProudDad]

252. We will never get a pResident who's not

been vetted by one of the two right-wings of the Corporate War Party...

And ready, willing and able to do the bidding of his/her corporate capitalist masters...

The Empire will collapse before actual democracy breaks out in USAmerica...

Thanks for asking. :hi:

[TheWatcher]

254. You're Busy today.

[county worker]

257. What? You want evidence of what will happen in the future? If I could do that

I'd be the best fortune teller in the world!

[Dappleganger]

259. You mean like an Eisenhower or a even a Nixon?

Oh right, those were republicans. ;)

[closeupready]

261. Flamebait. Unrecced.

n/t

[southernyankeebelle]

265. Sooner or later you are going to get a real liberal. Obama is a blue dog democratic. I am

so disappointed in him. I will have to think long and very hard if I honestly think I can vote for him again. He is a good man but it's the man I thought he was. He turned out to be a blue dog democratic. But I think when finally we had so much screw ups with the republicans and blue dogs maybe we will get a true liberal.

[Stinky The Clown]

266. I am unrecing this post because of the "love it or eat shit" tone.

[coti]

267. He ran far to the left of where he is governing, and got massive support.

He ran as a moderate liberal, not a corporate centrist.

He should govern as he was elected. There was no reason not to. He had public support for the policies he SAID he was for, and he should have stuck with them.

[Bluenorthwest]

268. Explain to me how there can be evidence that something in the

future will 'actually happen'. How can there be 'actual evidence' of future events? Explain how your entire proposition is not utter nonsense. Actual evidence. Of an event in the future actually happening. Actual evidence existing now, of a future event. Are you looking for something Bibleish or String Theoryish? A mish mosh?

[we can do it]

269. Nixon Was Left of Obama

[Bluenorthwest]

270. Most encouraging thread of the day!

Hilarious. Evidence of future events. Actual evidence, he sez!

[ibegurpard]

271. candidate Obama was to the left of President Obama

[meow mix]

273. we thought they were kidding about the manchurian thing..

who knew?!?
maybe next time it wont be a play-actor.

[sendero]

275. WHO THE FUCK CARES?

If this is as good as it gets then I WILL SIMPLY NOT VOTE, OBAMA MIGHT AS WELL BE A REPUBLICAN.

In fact he is worse, he is ruining the party with his idiotic performance.