We hoped a 2nd-Term Obama might feel freer to thumb his nose at conservatives.

[snot]

I'm starting to wonder if instead, he feels freer to thumb his nose at us.

[elleng]

1. You DO know how legislation is enacted in this country, eh?

[woo me with science]

2. It appears to have something to do with a corporate oligarchy. nt

[sabrina 1]

3. Sadly true!

[Skittles]

4. CORRECT

[Apophis]

8. Yep.

[piratefish08]

30. you win.

[99Forever]

37. And don't forget ...

... sycophants.

[msongs]

5. yeah the president tailors his agenda to please the opposition party lol nt

[davidn3600]

12. He tailors his agenda so it succeeds the checks and balance system

Our government is set up to prevent one branch from trampling the other two.

Obama cannot run the government by himself. Practically everything he does must be approved by the Congress. Since Republicans control the House, he has to move to the center to get anything done.

Yeah...he was elected by the people. But so was every one of those congressmen. People are elected on different levels.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. The Republicans don't represent the people. They represent gerrymandered districts.

[davidn3600]

23. Even without Gerrymandering, the House would be more conservative

Rural areas of the country just happen to be more conservative than urban areas. The way the House is deigned gives more power to rural areas since they make up most of the geography.

It goes back to the Constitutional Convention. It's part of the New Jersey and Virginia compromise.

Gerrymandering or not, the GOP gained significant power in the state and local levels in 2010. And we really didnt win much back in 2012. And that's just reality.

[eomer]

31. House districts are in general apportioned based on population, not area.

There might be some minor effect from a couple of specific situations. There are a few states that have a total population less than the usual number for one rep but still get one rep, which would give a slight edge to rural representation. And there might also be some minor effect in between censuses/redistricting if population grows faster in urban vs. rural areas.

But neither of those would be significant. In fact it is gerrymandering, not rural space, that makes the House more conservative than the people. It is cheating, essentially, on the part of conservatives. They are in favor of "democracy" not real democracy.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Explain how they gerrymandered Obama into proposing cuts to Social Security

Did they gerrymander his verbal capabilities? Did they force him via gerrymandering to offer up Republican policies that are harmful to Americans?
He is not the first President to deal with a house of Congress in the hands of the opposition. He's the first to offer the other side all they want as an opening salvo.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. What's scary is that white males used to be the only ones who could vote....

Or hold office. Or own property.

Imagine the mess this country would be in if that were still the case.

2010 is a terrible example. Remember that the country was pissed off because nothing was getting done due to Republicans blocking everything and the ONLY way to get things passed was under the rules of the lame duck. Remember the lament, "If they had done that before the election"?

I'm still pissed Nancy said, "Impeachment is off the table" just because she wanted the first female Speaker to be considered "nice" by the other side. It's like Clinton dropping Iran Contra so the Republicans would like him. Look what it got him.

[Summer Hathaway]

19. " Obama cannot run the government by himself.

... Practically everything he does must be approved by the Congress. Since Republicans control the House, he has to move to the center to get anything done."

You might consider posting that as an OP in LBN - because to a lot of people here, those facts actually ARE late-breaking news.

[rhett o rick]

57. Yes I agree, the buck doesnt stop with Pres Obama.

"Practically everything he does must be approved by the Congress." Since when? Maybe a civics class would help. Presidents have lots of power. He could prosecute Wall Street criminals w/o asking Congress. He could stop prosecuting medical marijuana users.

But to some here, it's more about personality than principles.

[Summer Hathaway]

59. You know,

the "it's more about personality than principle" thing was already old the first time it was raised. By now, it's just downright silly.

What you're saying is that anyone who agrees with you is a principled person, and anyone who disagrees with you is a mindless 'personality worshipper'.

This may come as a shock to you, but Obama supporters give him their support because they agree with most of his policies, they think he's doing an incredible job at governing, and they share his goals - as he does theirs.

I realize that fact is a bitter pill to swallow for those who prefer to delude themselves into thinking that Obama's only strength is his charisma, rather than his accomplishments; those who have to tell themselves that no one could possibly support anyone that they don't like, unless they were drawn into some spell cast by an alluring "personality".

Apparently, this is how you've chosen to see things, this mythical America where only dreamy-eyed citizens support Obama, while all of the "principled" people don't.

And you can see things that way forever. It doesn't change the fact that you're laughably wrong.

[rhett o rick]

60. Of course you believe in everything he does. It's so much easier for you. And you must

resort to rudeness when confronted. " It doesn't change the fact that you're laughably wrong." Plez.

Pres Obama and you are wrong on cutting SS benefits. It's not necessary to cut benefits. There are other solutions. Raise the cap for one.

Here is a debate between a conservative that wants to cut SS benefits, like yourself, and someone that supports our seniors.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10073

The conservatives among us rationalize that we can cut benefits for our seniors. Shame on them.

[Summer Hathaway]

61. As you and I have discussed before

you have a penchant for putting words in other people's mouths, and then arguing with them over what they didn't say.

" ... a conservative that wants to cut SS benefits, like yourself ..."

Now go back and show me where I said I wanted to cut SS benefits. Oh, right, it isn't there.

"Pres Obama and you are wrong on cutting SS benefits."

When did Obama cut SS benefits? When did he say he 'wants' to? And please don't come back with "if he didn't want it, he wouldn't have put chained CPI in his proposal" - because, as we both know, the conditions that were attached to that plum were pure poison to the GOP. So if Obama "wanted" chained CPI, why didn't he simply propose it with no poison pills attached?

I must admit I absolutely relished the irony in you saying "Of course you believe in everything he does. It's so much easier for you."

In other words, you are yet again saying that Obama supporters are mindless idiots who are slaves to the witchcraft of his "personality".

And then you go to top yourself by implying that I am the one being "rude when confronted".

[sheshe2]

66. +1

[Occulus]

69. You have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

Every time you open your mouth it seems to be to tell us water is dry, the sun rises in the west, up is under our feet and down is above our heads.

In other words, you have consistently ignored every last scrap of proof- real, solid, irrefutable proof- that Obama wants these cuts, they are, in fact, cuts, and that supporting these cuts has already done damage that can't be undone.

Every last thing I have ever seen you post is 180 degrees opposite of the truth.

Every.

Last.

Word.

You've been repeatedly shown that truth, sometimes in Himself's very own words. You don't even accept that.

There is a word for people like you. It's not complimentary. Not a bit.

[sheshe2]

70. Links please.

You have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

Every time you open your mouth it seems to be to tell us water is dry, the sun rises in the west, up is under our feet and down is above our heads.

In other words, you have consistently ignored every last scrap of proof- real, solid, irrefutable proof- that Obama wants these cuts, they are, in fact, cuts, and that supporting these cuts has already done damage that can't be undone.

[Summer Hathaway]

71. Thanks so much for your post.

As you undoubtedly know, your opinion (of me, along with everything else in the world) is what I live for.

I can't remember a day when I woke up and didn't think, "But what does Occulus have to say about my opinion? There is nothing more important to me than his point of view."

[Occulus]

72. Observation isn't opinion.

Nice try, though.

[Summer Hathaway]

73. Well ...

I am equally as interested in your observations as I am your opinions.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. At least on Social Security why doesn't the President support the overwhelming bipartisan national

consensus. How on earth would that be politically risky?


Most Republicans oppose any cuts in Socials Security benefits. Most independents oppose any cuts in Social Security benefits. Most Democrats oppose any cuts in Social Security benefits. This is reaffirmed by a multitude of polls- just look it up it is easy to do.

here is one - but there are a lot more:

http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/post-election-polls.pdf

◾Voters strongly oppose cutting Social Security benefits with 71% opposed to means-testing and 67% opposed to raising the retirement age
◾64% strongly oppose cutting Medicare benefits for future retirees and 59% oppose cutting payments to Medicare providers want voters support two Social Security and Medicare reforms by overwhelming margins:

Our poll also shows Americans support two Medicare and Social Security reforms by wide margins:
◾

On Social Security, voters across party lines support lifting the cap on wages above the current level of $110,100. We know from focus groups that voters see this cap as an unfair loophole that they did not even know existed. Sixty-five (65) percent of voters favor gradually lifting this cap for both employees and employers, including 75 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents, and 54 percent of Republicans.

◾
On Medicare, overwhelming bi-partisan majorities support allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. Eighty-six (86) percent of voters favor this, including 77 percent who strongly favor it. By party, 91 percent of Democrats favor allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies (81 percent strongly favor), as do 85 percent of Independents (75 percent strongly favor), and 81 percent of Republicans (75 percent strongly favor).


Lastly, our poll shows that 85% of those surveyed say Social Security and Medicare were important factors in casting their 2012 vote.
http://www.ncpssm.org/EntitledtoKnow/entryid/1953/Americans-Don-t-Support-Cutting-Social-Security-Medicare-for-Deficit-Reduction-Even-Wall-Street-backed-Third-Way-Agrees#.UWnfNTpApdh

[HereSince1628]

39. I suppose you mean 'success' = becomes law. Sounds quite pragmatic

as if active pragmatism makes everything better.

What would be wrong with supporting the status quo, meaning no new programming approaches subject to checks and balances

Why must there be new agenda? And why must that new agenda use an approach that creates a by-pass for federal money around SS recipients and directly to the rich?

[TheKentuckian]

46. Center of what? This is where this sound seeming line of argument crashes

Every time folks go on about center I am left wondering who these people are and cannot miss that the overtures seldom if ever are popular and often have broad destructive blow back when implemented.

[woo me with science]

65. ^^^^^^This^^^^^^ is the proof of the scam.

Absolutely. The legislation coming out of Washington, in fact, bears NO RESEMBLANCE whatsoever to what the people have repeatedly said we want and need.

It's an obscene joke, in fact. Weeks and weeks and weeks of being told clearly in public, through the polls, and through protests that people abhor the idea of austerity and are sick and tired of our money pouring into the MIC, and want *across* party lines to protect Social Security and Medicare....and what happens?

Our politicians go into a back room and emerge with a "compromise" that does exactly the opposite.

Over and over and over and over and over again. Yeah, we have a problem.

[truebluegreen]

55. Except it isn't succeeding, is it?

Unless your definition of success is something that hurts the most people while completely ignoring his own party.

Tell me, do you remember Praetor Bush EVER being so solicitous toward the minority party?

[Phlem]

6. Eh!

Eh!Eh!Eh!Eh!Eh!Eh!Eh!Eh!Eh!Eh!Eh!



-p

[HiPointDem]

11. ALEC writes laws and bought-off legislators enact them, then the president signs them?

do i win?

[Mojorabbit]

13. yes you do nt

[grahamhgreen]

21. Condescending comment, ain't it? Disgusting. Yes we all know, and we all know

what NEEDS to be done. Time you folks took a listen.

[Armstead]

32. How is it enacted? The highest bidder

[treestar]

34. That brigade will never admit it

And they are not working for 2014.

[wilsonbooks]

42. With huge piles of cash

[Phlem]

7. What a pair

we make!



-p

[BrotherIvan]

64. Both of your names are hilarious for some reason

[Fedaykin]

9. Conservative/Liberal

Obama will be/do whatever his masters tell him to. As Noam Chomsky once quipped;"Liberal/Conservative, whatever that's supposed to mean..."

[graham4anything]

27. Chomsky was putting down the Ron Paul republican libertarian tea party saying this.

[Fedaykin]

50. Not exactly...

Chomsky has said it repeatedly from the 1990's on, check out Manufacturing Consent Noam Chomsky and The Media by Mark Achbar.

[woo me with science]

44. Yep.

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

-Theodore Roosevelt, 1912.

[quinnox]

10. instead, the liberals and the left seem to be the ones getting the finger

from the president. And it has been an ongoing pattern since day 1 of his presidency.

[loyalsister]

15. Not me

I never hoped for any public official I voted for to behave like an arrogant teenager.

[sabrina 1]

16. It certainly is arrogant to 'enjoy getting the left angry' and probably more kindergarten level

than teenage.

I sure never expected our elected officials to act like kindergarten kids, especially considering the consequences.

[loyalsister]

25. Did Obama say that he enjoys getting the left angry?

Or was it something somebody assumed by observation? I think it is the latter, and the person who was trying to provoke the left said it.

OR did the person who said it use it in a context that was ignored. I have been an activist on disability policy for a very long time. And, sometimes anger is what motivates action.
Suppose someone were to suggest that the Occupy movement was born out of anger- AND consider it a good thing?
"Hold tight to your anger and don't fall to your fears" - Bruce Springsteen (Wrecking Ball)

He is the president, and sitting back thumbing his nose at republicans while they send him bills he won't sign effectively shutting down the government would be pretty immature.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. So you claim that when a President uses his Constitutionally granted power of veto

he is being 'immature'? The democratic process of checks and balances is 'immature'?
Hilarious!

[woo me with science]

52. LOL.

[loyalsister]

56. And your claim is that if President Obama vetoed everything he wasn't 100% happy with

he would be presiding over a functional government that is a great example of Democracy with checks and balances?

[kitt6]

17. I'm waiting to see

if this President has thumbed his nose at us. But how did every waking hour become total reliance on social security only? What happened to the entire job, labor, unions, retirements in this country? What roll did Nafta and the likes have to do with this?

[SunSeeker]

18. +1

[snot]

63. Not sure what you're responding to; but it seems we agree, SS is more important than ever,

because of the evisceration of other retirement funds and employment prospects of seniors and near-seniors.

[RyanThomas]

22. I saw all the Conservative people before the election screaming about the coming communist takeover

The funny thing is they've now convinced themselves that it's still coming. The gun regulation thing. It's either the US government or the UN coming for their guns. They will never ever admit that Obama is not a radical leftist out to destroy the United States, no matter what he does. Passing one of the most centrist or right wing universal healthcare reforms ever by international standards, and one the Republicans used to back to boot, is viewed by them as a radical socialist endeavor. Raising taxes by less than 5 percent on people earning more than 400,000 is class warfare. Attempting to increase background checks is destroying the second amendment. Bringing the government's spending down by entire percentage of GDP points during his administration is a massive expansion of government spending. Expanding the war in Afghanistan and murdering hundreds of children in Drone Strikes overseas on our "Allie's" territory is weakness. Passing a Stimulus bill that is 40 percent tax cuts and 800 billion dollars worth is massive spending despite it's smaller size as compared to international ones and often stated to be a trillion dollars of spending. Creating a weak timid wall street reform is destroying our banking sector. Reducing the size of the Federal budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars and a large percentage of GDP is an example of his "Financial recklessness" from the people who saddled us with many of the programs and policies that created such a deficit in the first place.

None of which even counts their belief that he is a Kenyan or a Muslim.

It would be funny except for the fact that nearly 50 percent of the nation believes a very good portion of that. Which makes it downright terrifying.

[forestpath]

24. He's dropped all pretense of being a Democrat.

[cantbeserious]

51. Right You Are

eom

[graham4anything]

26. My answer is on this stand alone thread. It is about time itself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670628

[blkmusclmachine]

28. Obama is free to placate the GOP.

Key is to watch how the Party responds. I suspect both Obama and the Party are deeply corrupted, but time will tell the Truth.

[carolinayellowdog]

29. according to Carville, he takes great pleasure in it, and in the support of David Brooks

I'd like to believe otherwise, but can't-- and a 6% approval rating drop suggests other progressives can't either

[treestar]

36. Who is "us?"

Do you want the government to shut down without a budget during the period of Republican congress? Are you going to do anything about getting a Democratic Congress in 2014?

[tsuki]

38. According to James Carville, head of the Republican arm of the Democratic Party,

Obama loves riling up his liberal base. Watch the Morning Joe clip.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Carville has always been a great lover of Obama, as Team Awesome well knows!

Won't get fooled again!!!!

K&R x Infinity!

[GeorgeGist]

40. He told us.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." Barack Obama, Oct 2012

[SoCalDem]

41. Nothing magical happened when he won a second term

He still has an intransigent house of representatives and a barely cooperative senate.

Presidents are not kings/dictators/emperors.

They cannot rule alone.

It's a Kismet moment in time when we happen to have a strong democratic president AND a strong democratic house & senate..

That's when change happens and when we progress.. Every other combination leads to gridlock, waffling and slipping backwards.

The last truly progressive time we had was Johnson's term (before he was done in by Viet Nam).. Since then we have been on a steady march of incremental roll-backs of beneficial legislation from FDR to Johnson..

Everything since Johnson (with the surprising exception of some things that Nixon did) has been all about unraveling society.

[M Kitt]

45. Anarchist explosive rhetoric

Think this topic can actually serve to inform people, whether that was the intention or not

http://my.firedoglake.com/markitt/2013/03/23/reflections-on-gop-failed-policies/#comment-4

The president doesn't, can't operate in a vacuum. Control of legislation isn't in his hands, he can only advance ANY agenda thru compromise.

Hence it's called "Politics".

http://my.firedoglake.com/markitt/2013/03/23/reflections-on-gop-failed-policies/#comment-2

As stated elsewhere:

"Many posters on this and other sites claim to be “Objective” while supporting another agenda entirely, for the most part they’re just trying to disenfranchise voters, engaging in tactics corrosive to public trust, designed to discourage collective investment in current Political parties that I myself admit to."

Authored by me, if that's not clear already.

The ACTUAL (hidden) intent of those supposed "Objective" posts is to discourage voters, their true conclusive goal is to convince the rest of us that "Your Vote doesn't Count, why bother?" Operatives can be quite deceptive

Also:

“You’re lining up with the GOP appeasers who refuse to differentiate between this president and decisions carried out (beyond his control) by predecessors, the object being to smear Democrats with decisions made under the George W. administration.”

Those described operatives pretend to have no party affiliation, try to appear "Non-Partisan" while actually generally supporting the GOP or Independents along the line of Rand Paul, they're disguised as "Disgruntled Liberals" in order to try to convince the rest of us that they're "Objective Third Party" members.

I personally have no such pretense, I'm a proud Progressive/Liberal and have spent decades trying to change the system from the inside.

Unlike the above described "Anarchists" who're convinced that destructive politics (IE Tear It Down!) and related tactics should be the final outcome, ideally resulting in the entire system being brought down.

Easy to tell who most of these comments are aligned with

[TekGryphon]

47. I broke my lurking and registered an account because of this topic..

I cannot agree with so many of you over this and think you're doing a great disservice to the Democratic cause.

Obama effectively destroyed Chained CPI as a possible agenda item for the GOP. For years they've been trying to get it put into effect through backroom negotiations. By taking the issue and putting it front and center on the public stage he has forced all sides, including the 4th estate, to review it and to recognize its grievous flaws.

By making a fake compromise on a bill that was 100% guaranteed to be rejected to a party that opposes any stance he makes on principle Obama destroyed Chained CPI in a way that was utterly predictable to everyone but the angry right and the angry left.

[SidDithers]

48. Well said...

I'm glad you decided to de-lurk.

Sid

[Quantess]

53. Interesting P.O.V.

If that is true, then iI feel better about it.
Welcome to the discussion!

[hrmjustin]

67. Welcome to DU TekGryphon!

[sheshe2]

68. Well said!

And welcome to the board, TexGryphon.

[truebluegreen]

54. Yup. Contrary to what we hoped, the opposite is true.

But then, we aren't his real constituents.

[truebluegreen]

58. Yup. We have always been the ones he dismisses.

Now, he is more open about it.

[Logical]

62. How many defender predicted this? Many!! n-t