General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman on Who is Obama trying to Impress?
This is so ON.
After getting into the WHY of it all (That the WH says that Obama wants to prove that he wants a grand bargain and to prove that Republicans will not compromise) Krugman asks the big question.
Since the beginning, the Obama administration has seemed eager to gain the approval of the grownups the sensible people who will reward efforts to be Serious, and eventually turn on those nasty, intransigent Republicans as long as Obama and co. dont cater too much to the hippies.This is the latest, biggest version of that strategy. Unfortunately, it will almost surely fail. Why? Because there are no grownups only people who try to sound like grownups, but are actually every bit as childish as anyone else.
After all, if whoever it is that Obama is trying to appeal to here I guess its the Washington Post editorial page and various other self-proclaimed centrist pundits were willing to admit the fundamental asymmetry in our political debate, willing to admit that if DC is broken, its because of GOP radicalism, they would have done it long ago. Its not as if this reality was hard to see.
But the truth is that the centrists arent sincere. Calls for centrism and bipartisanship arent actual demands for specific policies theyre an act, a posture these people take to make themselves seem noble and superior. And that posture requires blaming both parties equally, no matter what they do or propose. Obamas budget will garner faint praise at best, quickly followed by denunciations of the president for not supplying the Leadership (TM) to make Republicans compromise which means that hes just as much at fault as they are, see? ...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/imaginary-grownups/
neverforget
(9,434 posts)No one has been able to answer that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)don't like him and won't agree with him no matter what he gives them.
Or something like that.
It's a 'new' kind of politics where no one is serious about anything.
Also, he wants to get his base upset according to other reports, apparently that gives him creds with Republicans. So the more upset WE get, the more Republicans will like him.
Or something like that.
Who knows? One thing for sure, no one in DC cares about the people who elected them. So we jave to decide what to do about that.
JEB
(4,748 posts)in such nice and logical terms. I refer to it as playing 11 dimensional cluster fuck.
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)It's a great term for the times.
Mr. Evil
(2,749 posts)a great drinking game!
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)broadcaster75201
(387 posts)That "three dimensional chess" thing is utter crap. Obama has caved and caved and caved. He is a reagan Conservative and pretty much a disaster.
Of course we don't expect him to get even most things he/we want. But to ultimately fight for none of them? He should have stayed in the Senate.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Too bad for us he didn't.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)I'm tired of it all the strategerizing. Especially when nothing gets done. May as well speak the truth, that the rich should pay a boatload more taxes and this idea of "shared sacrifice" is bogus - the poor and the middle class are already "sacrificing." Who cares if the Repugs howl - it's not like they're playing ball anyway.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)agree...
deciding what to do about it is the challenge. Sooner or later something is going to tip over.
gateley
(62,683 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And in many ways, that is our fault. We keep electing them. We have to be the ones who choose who is going to run for office. Otherwise the Corporations direct those choices. That is where we have to begin.
gateley
(62,683 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)In the last election, my Congressional district had a Democratic candidate who seemed to have a chance to unseat the incumbent Republican for the first time in 46 years. But then, he was found to have been not entirely truthful about his military background, and was forced to drop out not too long before the election, leaving the incumbent with only token opposition from the Green and Libertarian parties.
And in the election before that, I voted for the more liberal-minded Bill Halter in the Arkansas primary for US Senate. Twice, in fact, as there was a run-off between him and the much more conservative Blanche Lincoln. But both Obama and Bill Clinton came to the state to campaign for Lincoln. It was almost like the Old Clinton was campaigning against the Young Clinton At any rate, after Lincoln won the somewhat controversial run-off, she was trounced by her Republican opponent, the first time that an incumbent Democratic US Senator had been defeated in an Arkansas election since Reconstruction
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I don't think it is what should be done. But I'd be curious as to how the republicans would react.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)won't agree to anything.
He could do it like this. He could tell them he wants tax increases for the wealthy, bit ones, he wants to end any subsidies to Corporations and to Oil Corps especially so that money can help pay down the defiicit. In return he will resign.
What would happen? They would refuse. But there would be no risk to vulnerable people in such an offer, only to one person's political career. Seems to me, if the goal is what we are being told it, it would be a lot more courageous to play chess with your own job, knowing you are okay financially and might even be viewed as a hero should they accept, than to gamble away other people's money, especially the most vulnerable people's money.
So it's hard to understand if exposing Republican recalcitrance is the goal, why he has can't risk something himself.
Very good suggestion. I will write to the WH and suggest it.
whathehell
(28,969 posts)I think he IS a republican, in all but name, anyway, which may be why he is SO
anxious to please them.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I think clusterfuck is one word.
i completly agree with your view
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)kardonb
(777 posts)People , in the words of long -ago " Dad's Army " : Don't panic , don'y panic ! Why is it that at every opportunity the " sky is falling " crowd starts howling . Keep a cool head , please , and stay rational . Things will work out in the end . Panic and headlessness will not solve problems .
Yes , am and old lady ( 80) and on SS , but I have every confidence in our president that he will lead the way in a reasonable , rational way .
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Sorry, there's nothing reasonable or rational about trying to make friends with a bunch of crazy haters. And trying is not leadership, it's pandering.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)really did want the Public Option and that the sky wasn't falling, he was just playing chess and we would have a Public Option. Instead we got exactly what he was supposedly just pretending to want.
So forgive us if we are now all too familiar with the 'chess' game. Put it this way, the Corporations seem to win all of these games and the people are not doing too great.
I know people on SS and they are barely surviving. He has no right to offer up any of THEIR money to appease Republicans, no right whatsoever, not for any reason.
They already lost two years of the COLA and now are only getting half what they should be getting.
Sorry if i'm not really interested in politicians on personal level. I judge them by the work they do FOR the people.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I just don't understand it. I think had they come out the gates bolder and proposed single payer and then negotiated down to public option 2009-2010 that there would have been a stronger and more solid Democratic party.
Instead President Obama surrounded himself with a 'team of rivals' who were mostly corporatists save the tiny few half hearted progressives that he allowed to be picked off by either Rahm Emmanuel or friggin Glenn Beck.
I am tired of this. I am tired of ceding the field to the Republicans in the name of getting something done. I am tired of every one of these bargains giving them 98% of what they want for the privelage of just barely keeping the crumbs of the programs we support.
At what point does this stop. At what point do we dig in our heels and stop placating fundamentalists, randroids, Necon warmongers, and know nothings? When does our party stop being such useless wimps?
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)none of it bothers to vote in 2014.
Then the Democratic leadership will scratch its heads trying to figure out what went wrong because it can't be anything "our" president and representatives did so they'll finally decide it's all the fault of "the left". (This would be the same left they think is so powerless and small that they don't have to pay attention to us when it comes to issues - but is big and powerful enough to cost elections. Go figure.)
John2
(2,730 posts)has not figured this out already. Does Obama understand Demographics himself? Here is how he got elected: He got elected by just 39 percent of white Americans. Just what political spectrum does he think they fall on? If not all, the majority of white Americans that voted for him are on the Left. I doubt they voted for him to cut these programs.
The rest of his coalition were 93 percent African Americans, 79 percent Hispanics and around the same percentage of Asians. That is who his Administration feels they can ignore. I doubt those Demographics voted for him to cut those programs. The Republican Party got a lot of older Americans, particularly in states like Florida to vote for them, because they trotted out Ryan's grandmother and lied about Social Security and Medicare. After the Election, they put themselves out in the open but Obama is just dying to hand the issue right back to them in 2014. Sanders knows what he is talking about. Take that issue and go into those red districts, and hang it around their necks like an Albatross. There is no way the media pundits will be able to save their asses this time. Any Republican that tried to cut those programs will be in jeopardy within states like Florida. Regardless of Boner's subtle jokes, You dam right, I would be trying to annihilate them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's that simple.
neverforget
(9,434 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Republicans don't like Social Security
They love anything that destroys it.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)It may be perfectly sensible to us to raise the cap but the RepubliCONs consider it a tax increase.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)and a much greater reduction in benefits will have to take place.
It's disingenuous to remark SS has nothing to do with the general fund deficit while ignoring the realities of SS itself.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Obama has swallowed the Cato Institute LIES hook, line, and sinker.
So have some people on DU.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)even without changes?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and under the current circumstances of high unemployment (which is the worse scenario which will improve so these are the worst possible predictions) SS will be still be fine for at least another 25 years. And when employment goes up, that will increase by a decade or more.
SS is not in trouble, SS had zero to do with the deficit. SS does not belong in these discussions at all. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT! Sorry to shout, but some people don't seem to get that. And cutting benefits will do nothing to lower the deficit. Because the SS Fund is not in trouble. It is the Federal Budget that is in trouble.
It's like this. Let's say you ran up some debts. You could figure out ways to pay them, but that might mean you can't buy some things you don't need, but you want. To solve the problem you suggest that your neighbor should get a cut in his salary. He had nothing to do with your accumulation of debts. What would be the logic in that?
Well that is what this is. The Government spent money it didn't have on Wars and on Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and on Wall St corruption bailouts etc. They could pay the debts but that would mean ending all the fun they are having with their wars and tax breaks. So they point 'over there' to a fund that is not theirs and has nothing to do with the problem they created. And that will not solve the problem even if cuts are made to the beneficiaries.
It's criminal frankly, a fraud, a con job. And we generally depend on Democrats to prevent these fraudulent attacks on SS. We sure don't expect Democrats to perpetrate them.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)michigandem58
(1,044 posts)and I'd probably tweak each share up 1% and strengthen the program.
But getting back to reality, there's a strong repug presence in Congress. They are loathe to raise taxes in any way. The President's proposal is a compromise. And you're to have those until 1)Democrats dominate Congress and own the White House or 2) you are content to never do anything. You can't insist it be all your way and expect anything to happen.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is why we work so hard to keep them from winning.
A golden opportunity to raise taxes on the wealthy came when all president had to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire. He did not have to do anything at all. Certainly he did not have to bargain with SS.
But regardless, whether taxes are raised or not, it has nothing to do with SS. The Fed Govt fund has nothing to do with SS.
So, if it is a choice between raising taxes now and cutting SS, then first take care of SS. He has four years to deal with taxes and an election coming up. There is no rush, but cutting SS will have lasting effects on millions of Americans and will do more than that, it opens the door to the never before idea that Democrats can now be bribed into dipping into that fund, which none of them has a right to do. That is the people's fund.
Let's wait on increasing taxes, let's show the American people we are the party who will protect their fund, get a majority in 2014 and then deal with taxes. Meantime put their backs against the wall, focus on raising the cap, which would be a hugely popular issue for 2014 and if anything raise SS benefits which actually would help the economy.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)When it's Gen X's turn to retire, we'll see the reversal of what's coming up, because Gen X is a demographic divot.
And basing projections out to 2034 based on current economic performance is silly.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)This is a bit inaccurate and it is a standard talking point based on "conventional wisdom." Social Security has been and is solvent for decades. As others have said merely raise the income cap for collection.
The real reason they want to cut benefits is to draw out the repayments to social security which is where a decent sized chunk of our deficit is owed to. not borrowing from it for discretionary spending on wars and taxcuts for the wealthy would be a good idea.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)He hits way too close to home for them.
What always amazes me is that somebody can be as smart as Obama is, yet buy into the beltway bullshit that both sides are equally at fault for the sad state of our economy.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Obama is very smart and so are the people around him. The answer to this riddle is that Obama is not a liberal Democrat and obstructionism provides excellent cover for the incremental dismantling of the FDR legacy.
magellan
(13,257 posts)wilsonbooks
(972 posts)This is not complicated, why don't people get it?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)Well put.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Party do it for them. The Banksters have their man in the WH to ensure their criminal enterprises continue uninterupted.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)That's a straw man argument. No one here is suggesting voting for Romney, but better-than-bat-shit-insane just isn't good enough.
And your concern is noted.
JHB
(37,132 posts)...and he's not always at his best in those formats (though he's gotten better over time), but he DOES get on the talking head shows. And has the platform of a NYTimes column, which is the thing that keeps him from being sidelined completely.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Rather than the daily rock-em sock-em pundit shows
JHB
(37,132 posts)...that doesn't involve showing up on pundit shows.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)RGinNJ
(1,018 posts)How can this budget proposal win any new seats in the next election?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)I hope you enjoy. It's been great!
-p
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)That'll be *great* fun. "Vote for Democrats, the party that offers up cuts to Social Security!"
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)lark
(23,003 posts)I vote for shill. He didn't express any of this crap in either campaign, and rather took the opposite stance, so this isn't being naive or an idiot. I did think of a 4th alternative - a trojan horse. That appears to fit all the facts.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)given the campaign rhetoric vs actions as you so aptly pointed out.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Ligyron
(7,592 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Skittles
(152,967 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)JHB
(37,132 posts)On the bus, under the bus, on the bus, under the bus, on the bus, under... etc., depending on his degree of criticism.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)He is setting us up for the next assault. One of the reasons I have so enjoyed the unwittingly ironic chess and boxing metaphors that are so well-loved here.
Anyone that has ever wondered how the republicans keep getting their dupes to vote against their own interests should step back and objectively examine this administration's actions. Ignore what they say, watch what they do (and my G-Grandmother was saying it decades before Randi was even born).
bullwinkle428
(20,627 posts)Last Friday on NPR, Brooks seemed really really excited at the fact that Obama did something that pissed liberals off, so he's got that going for him!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)Harriety
(298 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The pundits blame Obama for failing to lead the Republicans to compromise. Exactly how is that supposed to work?
What can he do?
Nothing.
Unfortunately Obama still doesn't see this that's why he put out that ridiculous budget.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)coming from a mixed racial background, you often find overcompensation on trying to get approval from others, especially from the dominant race in your culture.
for instance, my mother is white, my father wasn't.
i was ashamed of the "dark Other" part of myself for quite a long time. it was not acceptable to the dominant white culture all around me. as a child, i was teased for the "dark Other" part of myself.
i did everything possible to excel academically, to speak properly, and to disregard anything related to the culture that my father's ancestry entailed.
so you end up becoming a people pleaser, the exception to the rule, the "good" black or brown person that your white friends know.
sometimes good enough to eat with your friends at their family's house, but not good enough to date a white sister or a white daughter.
i've since come to understand and embrace the other half of my background and I've realized that many of my actions were informed by the process of being acculturated in a racist culture.
an old man once told me: "you can hang out in a garage all you want, it ain't gonna make you a buick."
gateley
(62,683 posts)why Blacks (and other non-Whites) become members of the Republican party. (I think the topic at the time is WTF is up with Allen West?) He called it self-hatred. He didn't specify mixed races, but that makes sense, too. This county's racism has done so much to harm people, it's heartbreaking.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)that has something to do with it, but it's more shame-based.
and with mixed race people (if you appear white enough), the identity struggle is interesting to say the least.
gateley
(62,683 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)i wish i had more time to watch/listen to the media sometimes.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that doesnt slow me down. I have noticed a phenomena that some gay males are Republican and exude hatred for gays because they are in a state of denial. IMO they think that if they exude enough gay hatred then they will become not-gay. I think the same thing can happen to non-whites. For example, I bet if you take Bobby Jindal to a Republican bash and give him a couple of Scotchs, and ask him if he is white, he will say "sure".
gateley
(62,683 posts)type thing as it may be just the need to be accepted. That's a powerful drive in all of us.
I can see the gay thing -- look how many vehement anti-gay Republican representatives there are who got "caught" being gay. Another shameful example of how we treat our fellow Americans.
The Link
(757 posts)I like your explanation much better.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)If it makes you feel any better, as a white guy with kids, I couldn't care less what color, creed, or sex my kids fall for.
As long as the folks that they are interested in treat them with respect and love, they have my approval.
Notice I said color. There is no such thing as race. It is a social construct, created by racists, to divide people for the benefit of those in power.
Honestly, the sooner our culture is blended, the better.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)At a family reunion a few years back, there were at least two black/white marriages in our main family lines, both within the last 30 years. One was African-American, the other Jamaican-American. Those and the Latino knots as well.
My Mom and 2 sisters account for over 280 years between them, and the stories about the Klan when they grew up were unsettling.
Hurston had it right: The future face of America can be found in Florida, esp. S. Florida. And she said that 80+ years ago.
idlisambar
(928 posts)Successful people from humble beginnings can often fall into this trap. They can be too content in seeking approval from other elites. As newcomers they want to be taken seriously and the easiest path is imitation. As a consequence, they will too easily accept to the tribe's patterns of thought -- its conventional wisdom.
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama fit this description to a certain extent. For Bill Clinton it rises to the level of a fatal flaw in my opinion -- his need for approval is off the charts. As such, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are unlikely to be reformers for the big issues, the ones that challenge the power structure.
It's ironic, but the most accomplished reformers will often come from the elite class. They do not put their own class on a pedestal and thus are more ready and able to challenge it. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR fit this mold of the elite populist. Of course, not every member of elite is a likely to be a reformer, an elite with an elitist outlook will tend to do the opposite of reform and try to strengthen the elite's hold (see George W Bush).
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I think I have heard touch on some of these same ideas before.
k&r
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)This probably explains more about his basic values than his hippie mom or Kenyan dad.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Glad someone else from a Mixed-Race background expressed this perfectly!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)KG
(28,749 posts)dmosh42
(2,217 posts)No big prosecutions of Wall St, no big effort to make the billionaires pay their fair share, but timing is right to zing the seniors and vets. Almost as he were a Republican!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, they use it to their advantage knowing that he's going to try and make deals with them at the expense of the people he allegedly represents.
KennedyBrothers
(70 posts)Sometimes Paul Krugman is so spot-on that it's scary.
840high
(17,196 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Why would he want to impress anyone else?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I looked at that picture and thought it was Hagel dressed as Superman's father for Halloween
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)JackHughes
(166 posts)One can hope that, since radical House Republicans will never accept ANY proposal that includes ANY tax increases of ANY kind, the president's budget proposal is really just a strategy aimed at convincing voters to reject Tea Party absolutism and elect Democratic congressional majorities in 2014.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The Yahoo! boards are full of people furious that Democrats are trying to cut Social Security. I try to point out that this is Obama alone, but he is viewed as the head of the Party. His concrete coattails on this debacle is going to hand the Senate over to the Republicans.
The only chance Democrats have at this point is to disavow Obama. Kick him out of the Party. Given that he did not invite a single Democratic legislature to the White House when negotiating the tax holiday extension with Republicans in 2010, and again when negotiating the tax cut in 2012 with Republicans, kicking him out of the Party at this point would simply be acknowledging the truth.
Obama is a Republican.
JackHughes
(166 posts)It should be noted that Obama can do nothing with a Republican-dominated House.
Unfortunately, he can't rule by presidential decree.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)[font size=5]Do fucking nothing!!![/font]
The point is: The Republicans will not accept the proposal because it includes tax hikes so there will be no cuts to Social Security.
It's all political theater designed to win back the House.
dawg
(10,610 posts)"Vote Dem in 2014. President Obama can't do anything because of the Republican House. See, he even tried to cut Social Security benefits and those mean old Republicans blocked him. We need to vote them out!"
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)is designed to win back the House?
That'll work.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I believe the horseshit has been updated since then.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)there won`t be a democratic house because obama does`t really care if he has one.
JackHughes
(166 posts)Democrats could and should be able to take control of the House considering their deranged opposition, but the Democrats are a political party in name only.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)that most Democrats and many Republicans have held as sacrosanct for more than a few years.
yeah, i buy that.
wanna look at some bridges i have for sale? one of them is in New York.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)We see plenty of that here as well.
The Democrats suffer from a major religion problem. It's an invisible deity that looks on in judgement over how well everyone is getting along. This religion states that Democrats treating the Republicans as the enemy is a sin but it's okay for Republicans to call on their supporters to kill Democrats.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Why isn't he running the Federal Reserve or the Treasury? Sheez.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)and that the lacks the organisational skills (like, keeping papers in order and stuff) to do a job like that. There was a campaign to have him on Treasury and he said he was flattered, but no thanks.
I don't actually think he's a genius, since his reasoning stays well within the system, where obviously (politics aside) the system is broken and we need people that can think outside of it, like Steve Keene or Bernaerd Lietaer.
That doesn't keep me from liking his activism very much. If there's any squeak from Serious Persons here about easing the insane austerity in Europe, they reference Krugman.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Blue Owl
(49,934 posts)Yeah, neither do I.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)A: Rev. Doug "The Family" Coe
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Let's suppose the President proves whatever point he is trying to prove to whomever he is trying to prove it. Say he ultimately gets the nod of the purported "centrist" pundits of the Washington Post editorial page. What then? Does anybody seriously think that will move the current crop of congressional Republicans? I mean, what's the end game here, assuming he proves his point?
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)They will basically "bank it" and demand more. Period.
The end game is, as I see it, Obama loses his base and loses with the Repugs.
Did nobody game this out for him in the White House?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)[font size=3]You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO![/font]
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
MzNov
(18,531 posts)JHB
(37,132 posts)"Money talks"
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)get it.
MzNov
(18,531 posts). . . one of the grownups
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080#.UWXoT6KG1g8
Not the way I would have responded to attacks of being a "socialist." But Obama wants nothing to do with the "left," so he makes the most comfortable argument, I suppose.
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)want anything to do with the left is when the current year ends in: 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8. Even then, they only seem to want our money, time, and vote.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)That will impress the people who really put him in power.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Neoliberalism is what he subscribes to. It is what he IS.
It has nothing to do with traditional Democratic Party ideals.
The party has been hijacked by puppets backed by billionaire interests and Wall Street gangsters.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yeah, Republicans aren't interested. Their only goal is political gain, block and blame.
Greg Sargent:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/10/fiscal-frauds/
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)simple really
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)He is doing just that.
What do you thin would be the effect of President Obama (or maybe a Democratic legislator) saying:
Now ... where does the gop go ... and not cement their "unwillingness to compromise" monicker with the 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).
In order to flip the House (because of gerrymandering as a result of 2010), we need those groups to either stay home, vote 3rd-Party, or vote Democratic. In my estimation ... It 's all about 2014.
Jakes Progress
(11,121 posts)Why doesn't he offer to overturn all the civil rights legislation. He could offer to re-instate all the jim-crow laws. He could offer to start banning inter-racial marriage. Then he could put forth an amendment to repeal the 14th amendment along with offering to overturn Brown vs. the board of Education.
That would really show those republicans. I guess that would result in a huge victory for Democrats at the mid-terms.
Your logic is just silly.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yes ... your logic is silly.
Jakes Progress
(11,121 posts)In you "estimation" Obama was going to win the mid terms by proposing right wing positions. If you don't mind offering up the welfare of the elderly, you shouldn't mind offering up civil rights.
That is you your position is . . . uh . . . silly.
vi5
(13,305 posts)How fucking pathetic is it to think that a Democratic president is the one firing the opening shot at destroying the New Deal social safety net, pretty much so he can get the approval of a group of at most 2 dozen, out of touch, pathetic "journalists". That's really the only people who are going to be impressed by any of this or think it's a good thing, and it's clearly the group whose approval means the most to Obama.
What a sad, pathetic state of affairs.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)"Public opinion" et cetera.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that President Obama is NOT trying to "impress" anyone; rather, he is trying to flip the House in 2014 by showing the gop for what they are.
But he's not talking to the media; but rather, the the 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).
These are the groups that (because of the gerrymander after 2010) we need to either: vote Democratic, vote 3rd-Party or stay at home.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)And perhaps you are right.
And perhaps it will work.
I don't think so, but I enjoyed reading your comment.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is my thesis ... I support with, look at what President Obama is doing, he's been making a big show of talking directly to the gop rank and file and the American people.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)of this article. However it causes a puzzle in my mind- If both Obama and the republican leadership agree on cuts to social security that will definitely hurt those up for reelection. There is no more sacred cow to democrats and progressives and to rank and file republicans than continuance of social security as an earned payback. So Obama has succeeded in angering progressives and democrats and many many republicans by proposing what republican leadership wants. He has united huge numbers of people and while so many see it as a dumb move, maybe it is politics. We know that progressives are for the first time in many years united by this threat to social security. We know that more conservative democrats are joining them to oppose this. Now we know that many many more republicans than voted for Obama also truly oppose them and join with democrats in doing so. We worry that by proposing such a thing as chained CPI, Obama has lost the 2014 election by revealing democrats as less populous than currently believed and willing to endanger social security.
But a closer look might reveal what may be happening. Obama is not democrats. Obama is not progressives. Obama is not even running for reelection. Obama does not control the choices democrats in Congress make. He does not control what decisions republican make. What he does in many cases is reveal who is who.
Right now democrats and every other legislator who is not willing to support social security are getting another one of the cuts in a death of a thousand cuts. Grayson is yelling primary dems who do not vote for social security. Bernie Sanders is organizing dems and collecting signatures in the millions. Activist groups of progressives like move on and DFA, etc. are collecting money and membership. Even the health care activists has come on board this ancillary issue. It is up to dems how they vote. The President has taken the heat but he has united the country in this quest far better than he did to win reelection. The dems will never allow this budget to pass and by voting it down will cement their standing as being for the people, this will enhance their standing everywhere across the country. I recognize John Boehner has quickly rejected thisand well he should. It is a poison budget that reveals with its acceptance just how despicable republican leadership is. republicans would not propose this unless they have the majority in both chambers of Congress and a republican President to sign it.
As the President said , it ain't about him, and we have to make him do what we want. It is about us. I thank the President for making that transparent and I want to thank you for working already to help us elect more Progressives in 2014.
Jasana
(490 posts)He is most surely not impressing me with this garbage and I voted for him twice. I really hope his "leadership" of the democrat party does not cause us to lose the next mid-terms.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)These negotiations have become a habit, one the administrations bitter foes have adapted to, and what once had an effect is now just twisted and thrown back.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)When asked Friday if chained CPI represents a tax hike on the middle class, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "I'm not disputing that."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/grover-norquist-chained-cpi_n_3052646.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, leader of the organization, criticized the policy via Twitter on Wednesday. "Chained CPI is a very large tax hike over time," Norquist wrote. "Hence Democrat interest in same."
No one wants to own it now, it looks like, perhaps, not after the loud ruckus pointing to its negative effects, etc.
Though we might have to live with a false residual public perception of being the party that wants to cut the middle classes SS benefits so as to feed government coffers/spend on other people.
And for the record, that isn't true, entitlement reform has been a big Republican talking point for a while.
So maybe we'll get what we want, Chained CPI disavowed, though in the end our credentials of being the defenders of SS were not burnished.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)has been stumbling around trying to figure out whose ass to kiss.
Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)And support what's right, by providing an example, rather than seeking approval......
Well, that's immaterial.
Good article.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to incredibly bad behavior, something no Democrat has done so publicly before. When I have to deal with children who are behaving badly, screaming and throwing temper tantrums demanding someone else's toys, the very last thing I would do is to take away that other child's toy and hand it to the temper-tantrum-throwing, bullying, out-of-control child. That wouldn't be good for the child who owns the toy, and it certainly isn't good for the one who thinks that screaming and bullying is the way to get what you want.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Totally agree-- should have stopped catering to the schoolyard bullies a long time ago.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)they did stand up.
when they elected him into office based on his words which turned out to be lies.