The other day ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

I posted a thread where I opined that many of those here opposing the CCPI proposal are pursuing a cannard because we (none of us, including the pundits) know what the CCPI proposal offered by President Obama will look like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251297857

On reflection, I regret using that term/terminolgy; it was unnecessarily accusatory and inflammatory.

Now ... to those questioning my Democratic bona fides or my liberal pedigree, I say don't ... My post was based on my 30+ years of public service, including developing and implementing policy in a hostile political environment, being in the position of negotiating high-stakes labor contracts and civil rights settlements, and coordinating the public face of such negotiations, when our eye was on not only the present situation; but also, the "long game."

I must say ... the strategy of making a public vague offering of something so clearly out of line with Democratic ideals and principles, and so opposed to one's base, makes complete sense in an environment where one knows that your opposition is unlikely to accept anything you put forward AND the public sentiment is tired of the uncompromising by elected officials. Doesn't that suggest a bigger plan?

I think, and my experience suggests, so! You may disagree ... Okay. You may hear CCPI and think "benefit cuts ... No f-ing way", maybe without considering or concern for any bigger plan ... Still okay. But don't act as if you know a damn thing ... none of us do.

[Scuba]

1. Everything I know about negotiations indicates the President ...

... should have started with a budget that supported:

- Creating jobs through infrastructure and education investments

- Raising the minimum wage

- Medicare for All

- Strengthening /expanding Social Security

and ...

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

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. And in this political environment ...

those DOA terms would have gotten where? They would have been rejected out of hand AND would not have done anything to sway the independents and moderate republicans that the polls indicate are feed up with the modern gop's refusal to compromise on anything.

Yes, it would make his base of "real Democrats" happy; but it would have done nothing to get the votes needed to flip the House and grow the Senate. Which since 2010 is more than ever before ... thanks to igerrymandered districts.

President Obama's making the offer he did ... continues to move that needle.

See: March Polling - http://www.gallup.com/poll/161573/americans-top-critique-gop-unwilling-compromise.aspx

February Polling - http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17103513-nbcwsj-poll-public-says-gop-less-interested-in-unity-than-obama-is?lite

January Polling - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564797/poll-americans-want-compromise-over-debt-ceiling/

Notice a pattern?

[Scuba]

7. Curious. Do you think the only votes to be had lie to the right of my ideas? Or would you agree ..

... that there are an awful lot of people who don't typically vote who would if minimum wage, Medicare for All, etc. were being touted?

If the Democrats think we can win by being more like the Republicans, then we might as well give up. My personal belief is that populist ideas like those I suggested will get a whole lot of currently disaffected potential voters to the polls.

As for them being rejected out of hand, well that's what happened anyway, when he made major concessions.

As for moving the needle? Polling says my ideas are far more popular than what he proposed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Okay ...

I suport all of the things you mention ... everyone of them.

Now answer my question: What would those proposals have gained, other than possibly garnering more votes in already gerrymandered districts? It is possible that they might get enough new voters to the polls to off-set the gop advantage in the gerrymandered districts; but doubtful, based on the past election.

My point, and I believe the strategy, is ... the 2014 elections.

The polling that I am referring to is the majority of the electorate's, and a solid plurarity of gop and independent voters (a solid majority when taken as a whole) that poll as having the gop being unwilling to compromise and President Obama (and Democrats being willing to compromise).

How do you think that will play out when the gop refuses President Obama's offer and no significant deal is reached?

[Scuba]

9. I figured we had more common ground than differences here. If the goal is to get more voters ...

... to the polls in support of our side, and sooner rather than later, then I advocate as follows:

- A nationwide campaign, starting in the primaries, with candidates committed to our progressive agenda ("I am committed to support the Progressive Caucus agenda&quot

- A clear message to all of what that agenda includes: Social Security, Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage, etc.

- A loud and direct appeal to the "disenfranchised majority" who now say "it doesn't matter".

There are vast numbers of these potential voters, compared to the few "moderate Republicans" (Ha!) that we might pick off by being "reasonable" and "serious".

As Bill Clinton said, "arithmetic". Nearly half of all potential voters don't bother even in Presidental years. That's where the votes are. Go after them.

[HereSince1628]

13. you say "would have gotten where?" that's rather revealling of pragmatism

don't you think?

Seems to me unprincipled pragmatism is a big part of the problem that created this yawning chasm between the WH and democratic voters.

You pragmatists always say the most important thing is getting elected--well with respect to protecting SS and Medicare we now know that is quite literally true.

[The Link]

2. clearly out of line with Democratic ideals and principles.....makes complete sense

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. See post #4 ...

and if you think strategically, you might disagree; but you won't laugh.

[Demo_Chris]

3. Fair enough, but there's a flaw in your theory

Many of us watched Obama lie and stab his supporters in the back repreatedly over the last four years. We hoped, based entirely upon campaign rhetoric, that if he were reelected that this time it would be different, this time he would do as he promised or implied.

He won with a good majority running on a liberal agenda. Then he pulled off his mask to reveal it had been George Bush all along.

He pushed through permanent tax cuts for the wealthy while raising taxes on the poor. He announced he now had the power to murder American citizens anytime or anywhere, for any reasons he decided, with no judicial review, no oversight, no questions asked or answers given -- but it was okay because he didn't plan to do it often. And he didn't even wait until he was inauguranted before revealing that the previous nine months of promises to protect Social Security had all been lies.

It's not a negotiating tactic, it's who he is.

Four years later we are still at war, still in a crushing depression, and still waiting for him to lift a finger for anyone other than his billionaire buddies, and the only thing he has fought for that entire time -- until now -- is the twisted insurance mandate he swore he would never sign.

He's not fighting to raise the minimum wage or dismantle these job wrecking FTAs, he's fighting to destroy Social Security. He didn't propose it once as a ploy, he has proposed it over and over and over and over again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. President Obama lied? When? ...

He pushed through permanent tax cuts for the wealthy while raising taxes on the poor.

No, he didn't. He pushed through permanent tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for what?

He announced he now had the power to murder American citizens anytime or anywhere, for any reasons he decided, with no judicial review, no oversight, no questions asked or answers given -- but it was okay because he didn't plan to do it often.

This has been the US policy since forever. Check the history books regarding anytime the US has been at war! I do not agree with this policy position; but let's not pretend this is brand new.

And he didn't even wait until he was inauguranted before revealing that the previous nine months of promises to protect Social Security had all been lies.

See Post #4

[woo me with science]

11. The truth hurts,

but it is absolutely necessary to face it.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. you should employ the same sort of skills and professionalism

that a negotiator would have to have with greater frequency in your DU postings. You are the guy who argued with me that Stonewall was not to be equated to Selma, a week before Obama made the phrase 'From Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall' the centerpiece of his inaugural. In that and in most other posts from you, you over assess your own knowledge and completely disregard the knowledge and experience of others. This OP opens as an apology but it ends with snark, meaning the apology was affected, although I would say it would not be out of line for an adult to apologize for speaking to his peers in that way.
Just saying. I've paid a lot of people a lot of money to negotiate many things for me, and you share no attributes with any of them in terms of communications chops or interpersonal skills. They would all have prepared for the day they would want to persuade others by building up trust and respect with and among those others. This is not a pattern I see in your posts. Since you asked and all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. You are mischaracterizing our ...

Stonewall/Selma discussion.

Do not you "over assess your own knowledge" nor do I completely disregard the knowledge and experience of others. I do, however, attempt to clarify when others attribute to me arguments that I have not made.

I apologized for calling others pursuing a cannard; not my core argument.

I am commenting/opining on an anonymous bulletin board, not negotiating anything.