Obama is dealt 4 Aces and he folds his hand.

[kentuck]

Just like always. It pisses me off to no end.

He knows Congress wants to get out of town and they don't want to be delayed. But he doesn't want to piss them off or make them mad or they may not cooperate with him.

So they pass funding for the FAA at lightning speed - the Senate last night and the House this morning. We can't hold them up from their appointed rounds of golf.

But they did nothing about Head Start or Meals on Wheels or anything else. Only that which affected them and the President has said he will sign the bill.

No! Tell them to do something about the other programs or you will not sign the bill for their leisure. Grow a backbone, Mr President! You are losing me. You are holding the cards. Don't fold your hand once again.

[geek tragedy]

1. I think you're overstating the strength of his hand.

Flight delays create uproar, Congress springs into action fixing flight delays, President . . . vetoes?

That's not a 4 ace hand, more like a 2-4-5-7-9 hand, from 4 different suits.

[kentuck]

3. Am I the only one pissed off about this?

Does everyone else think he is holding a possible inside straight? If so, then the problem may lie elsewhere?

[geek tragedy]

7. You're not the only one pissed about this.

But, Obama's hand is really not that strong on the sequester. He vastly overestimated how much it would hurt the Republicans, and was wrong in assuming it would box the Republicans in.

The Republican strategy is a smart one--let the parts that screw the poor in silence remain, but publicly and swiftly fix the parts that hurt people with political influence in DC.

[kentuck]

8. out-foxed?

once again?

[geek tragedy]

9. I know, who would have guessed.

For all the talk about how crazy the Republicans are, how weak Boehner is, how they're in such disarray, somehow they always wind up drinking Obama's milkshake.

[kentuck]

11. I really don't mind if he wins or loses...

I just want him to show some fight. I haven't seen it.

[geek tragedy]

15. I do mind if he loses, because that means the Teahadists win. nt

[kentuck]

18. So, is this a victory for the Teahadists?

Or a victory for America?

[earthside]

32. A big victory for the Teahadists.

This kind of cravenness portrays the establishment political class in Congress exactly as the Tea Partiers have been whining about.

Congress looks really, really bad for this action.

From left to right, friends and associates I've talked to today are saying the some thing: if it inconveniences Congress, things suddenly happen fast.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. He is fighting. What you obviously mean is that you want him to show some fight for us.

[kentuck]

36. He is surrendering.

He isn't fighting. There is a difference. He's not breaking a sweat. I can no longer support this type of "leadership", from him or the Party. Sorry.

[gateley]

57. This is a tough one because a lot MORE than just Congress has been

affected by this. And THOSE people actually DO their jobs!

I'd like to see him say I'll sign it if you give me xxx, but again, in the interim, people are going to be affected (not merely inconvenienced like our esteemed representatives).

If he DOES sign, good luck getting anything else passed, if he DOESN'T sign, people are hurt and it's fodder for the Republicans.

Tough call.

[Isoldeblue]

168. +1000 n/t

[George II]

263. So where does your support go?

[kentuck]

270. My support will go to...

...real Democrats.

[Bake]

277. Oh no, kentuck, he's fighting!

He's just not fighting for you and me.



Bake

[blkmusclmachine]

181. More 11-Dimensional chess. Win by losing.

[ctsnowman]

230. Yup.

[AndyTiedye]

101. No, But The GOP Has 5 Aces Up Their Sleeve

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX

They would make sure that all of the blame for the delays was placed on Obama.
That would be easy to do if he vetoed the measure.

[BlueCaliDem]

251. Exactly. But some people really can't see the forest for the trees

otherwise they'd blame Congress not the president.

I believe still too many on this site are suffering a bade case of Bush/Cheney syndrome: they're still under the wrong impression that the president is a king or a dictator and can just willy-nilly defy Congress whenever he pleases. I do believe we need to bring back civics lessons in our public school curriculum.

[Cal33]

291. I didn't know that civics lessons were stopped in our public schools. Would my guess

that it took place during the Bush years be correct?

I also think that the media's oft-repeated exaggeration "The most powerful
man in the world" did help to do the presidency more harm than good. It
seems to have sunken deep into the subconscious of many Americans.

[gussmith]

109. Outfoxed?

How can you call the maneuver 'outfoxed'? Obama is conciliatory, there is nothing more to it. As if the Rethugs could manage anything more that a self-serving use of power.

[dotymed]

63. IMO, Obama should have the senate pass a bill. If any part of sequestration is abolished, it all is.

eom

[noiretextatique]

14. no you are not

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. Pissed off and pissed on.

What else is new and what else can we expect? :shrug


Sap or not, He will continue to do what he thinks is best for the country.

[rhett o rick]

77. You are not the only one pissed-off. But you are making some assumptions that

may not be true. Maybe Congress is doing exactly what he wants so he doesnt need aces. Or maybe he has no control of the Democratic Party and therefore holds no aces.

What upsets me is that he is given a pass way too often with the rationalization that he had to sign a bad bill or someone will be mad. I say bullcrap. He signs bad bills because he is either weak or approves the bad bill. Cut the "The Devil made me do it!" crap. In this thread you can see that rationalization. The sequestration has made life rough on lots of folks. What Congress is doing is fixing those things that the 1% want fixed. We cant have travelers inconvenienced because it might hurt the bottom line of the airline corporations. Now inconvenience for our Seniors, vets, school children, etc., that we can ignore.

I need to be convinced that the president hasnt bought into the 1% push for austerity for the masses.

[Isoldeblue]

112. Yes, but not at Obama

I believe his hands are tied. Don't forget the mandate that the right wing rethugs set for themselves in 2007. To destroy the president, with any means possible. Even if it includes the welfare of the people.

So why are we expecting anything different from the POTUS, when congress is doing exactly what they set out to do and are continuing to do so? That is where the true power lies.

Be angry at and put the blame where it squarely belongs. Today's ugliest, most self-serving sobs' to ever occupy the house.

[midnight]

227. If the right wing has been so willing to destroy this President why does he seem to continue to

reward them for their efforts?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

248. a question that has no answer.

except one that pisses me off something fierce.

[Isoldeblue]

280. How so?

Exactly what has President Obama rewarded them with?

[midnight]

281. How about those bush Tax cuts..... I can't think of a bigger award than this one...

[robinlynne]

157. He folded a long time ago. Bush tax cuts should have expired. We would have an economy.

The government could fund programs. This was all foreseeable back then.

[ctsnowman]

232. Exactly.

[woo me with science]

278. It is a testament to the Orwellian shamelessness of Third Way propaganda

that even after sellout after sellout after sellout after sellout after sellout, we are fed the same absurd formulation about about every single betrayal: that this is a *special* circumstance, and the unexpected corporate victory goes totally against the corporate Democrats' *real* vision and principles.

[MrMickeysMom]

194. I'm with you on this big time, ken tuck...

That's why my husband and I refer to him as the Spelunker in Chief...

[CrispyQ]

238. The more things change . . .

Dated 2010...

[ctsnowman]

250. lol Love it.

[Demeter]

269. NO. Congress deserved to be "inconvenienced" at least.

Let them override a stalwart President's veto, see what that gets them.

This President is such a disappointment, it's a crime.

[Honeycombe8]

285. I don't know that he's holding a straight. But I like Obama, and I gotta agree w/you on this.

This bill they passed INFURIATES me! As soon as I saw them holding hearings early in the week, I posted something here about it. I caught it right away...they were doing something IMMEDIATELY because some rich pigs were INCONVENIENCED. Not dying from cancer or going hungry. No. Merely INCONVENIENCED.

Makes my blood boil, this one does.

[Fuddnik]

81. Well, they looked at him funny, and he interpreted it as a straight flush.

I'd love to play poker with this guy.

But, this is just all Kabuki anyway. You do't get rolled this many times. HE'S GETTING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALL WANT. But, they can all just sit around and blame each other.

[geek tragedy]

82. Note the pathetic showing of House and Senate Democrats.

This was pretty much a party-wide cave.

[kentuck]

84. Absolutely!

But who's watching??

[geek tragedy]

85. Only people with strong stomachs, I would imagine. nt

[Lifelong Protester]

252. I was, and I wrote to my dem Congressman

I said, 'thanks for taking care of the frequent flyers, you know, the members of Congress and their corporate sponsors? and leaving out seniors, kids, and vets. Nice how you can all strike faster than a rattler if the 1% are threatened in any way.'

I'm in the camp of 'get up an fight'. For cryin' out loud, do I have to hear once more that "I had to do it!"?

If the President feels he has to sign, could he at least do it while saying that this is blatantly unfair to those who still have to suffer through the sequestration and austerity problems? What about my students who won't be served in a Title I program next year? Who speaks for them?

If the President feels that sequestration is unfairly hurting some and not others, why haven't we heard that? Have we? Am I missing something?

[Raine1967]

143. Even worse IMO:

unanimous consent was how it passed.

There are no votes, technically.

[kardonb]

113. hand

2 year old with a tantrum 'cause he did not get all is cookies .

[freedom fighter jh]

210. The idea of Sequester was that there would be so much pain in so many places . . .

. . . that Congress would be forced to act. But that works only if there are no exceptions. Taking away the aspects of Sequester that are painful for powerful people makes the rest of Sequester -- which has real consequences for people dependent on programs that are being cut -- more painful.

[marew]

212. Exactly!

And those others are much less visible so much less likely to feel relief- he poor and middle class who are not even allowed a seat at the bargaining table.

[geek tragedy]

223. Yep. nt

[ctsnowman]

233. That was the stated idea but I tnink we are beginning to see what it's real purpose was now.

[freedom fighter jh]

288. I fear you're right. nt

[One of the 99]

235. Very true.

A President who doesn't have a majority in the House and doesn't have a filibuster proof Senate does not have 4 aces. With this congress it is more like 4 jokers!

[lamp_shade]

2. The President knows that there are easily enough votes to overturn a veto.

[kentuck]

5. Then that would make a very valuable point.

It would not be the end of the world to have something vetoed. With your own Party stabbing you in the back.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. So you know it wouldn't help fix any problem, but you want him to do it

and cause a bit more inconvenience for fliers by delaying it for a few hours? If a veto meant there actually would be negotiations on the other subjects, you'd have a point; but it wouldn't mean that, so I think you don't have any point here. He'd just be the guy who delayed a fix by another day. How does that help anyone?

[kentuck]

20. Surrender.

That is always the best.

The people need to be inconvenienced to wake their sorry asses up. Oh, we might lose some votes!

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. You think an extra day of inconveience to a class of people already inconvenienced

is going to have the country suddenly turn against Congress? Why would it?

[kentuck]

27. I really don't care if they turn against Congress. That is not the point.

I am simply suggesting that he show that he is still breathing and show just a bit of fight. I would prefer that he hold them in Washington until they get it resolved. Yeah, that would make a lot of them unhappy and angry and maybe get him a lot of bad press? But, what the hell! He's not running again.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. So your wish isn't to get Congress to talk about the other subjects after all?

It's just to "show that he is still breathing and show just a bit of fight"? Why? As you say, he's not running again. The idea isn't to get his approval rating up. It's to get the other stuff affected by the sequester fixed, by Congress.

[kentuck]

31. It would be nice but...

the important thing is that he fight for it. You can never win if you don't fight. He might win? He refuses to show any backbone. Sorry.

[sabrina 1]

213. What do you think is more important? Fixing the cuts to Meals on Wheels or ensuring that

members of Congress are not inconvenienced when they go to the airport?

[muriel_volestrangler]

217. Fixing the cuts to Meals on Wheels. Which is why kentuck's attitude disappoints me

"I really don't care if they turn against Congress". He should care. Congress has produced a law he doesn't like. But to him, this is about having Obama take a quixotic stand against the law that Congress will override - unless people turn against Congress.

You can see this deplorable attitude in the replies to #165 as well - a suggestion that people call Congress is dismissed. This thread has turned out to be about putting on a pointless show of defiance, rather than trying to fix the problems of Meals on Wheels etc.

[sabrina 1]

219. I agree. Then why do you think the President did not demand that in return for what

Republicans wanted, he expected (what we are always told is necessary) a compromise from them on Meals on Wheels eg? Why not go to the public, explain what is happening, tell the public 'I know these airport delays need to be fixed, but just as important are the following issues (list them) so I am more than willing to help fix the delays so that Congress can go home, however I am asking that we do not leave our most vulnerable citizens out in the cold. So, I am asking for the cooperation of Congress to fix the following items that will have a devastating effect on many our of elderly and our working class'.

Is it just Republicans who get to ask for 'compromise'?

Is it only Democrats who must always compromise?

Because you can be damn sure that if the shoe was on the other foot here, Republicans, KNOWING how important an issue was to Democrats, would use the opportunity to get something they want.

We know this because it happens all the time, and when the President agrees to compromise, and we get upset, about Monsanto eg, we are told that we don't understand politics, that politics is 'all about compromise'..

So if this is true, how come only Democrats have to compromise?

[muriel_volestrangler]

222. Here's what the White House said on Tuesday:

Q Jay, back on the FAA and sequester. You've said two things today -- that the President thinks it's dumb policy; he has great sympathy for the people at DOT and FAA, for the travelers who have been inconvenienced, and it's up to Congress to act. So my question is, if Congress decides to act immediately by enacting some sort of change that addresses just FAA and that $637 million, separate and apart from whatever they might want to do with the President on the budget, would the President sign such legislation?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me say, first of all, that the best way for Congress to fix this problem is to replace sequestration with a smarter approach to deficit reduction. That’s how it was designed. It was this onerous law that was put before Congress to run away from and force them to take responsible action to reduce the deficit.

Unfortunately, a decision was made -- and I'm quoting Republicans here -- "to embrace sequester as a home run and a political victory," a victory for the tea party. But Congress can still act.

Now, if Congress has another idea about how to alleviate the challenges that sequester has caused for the FAA and for American travelers, we are open to looking at that and we're happy to look at it. But let's be clear: If they were to take that action -- and we would be open to looking at it -- any short-term or targeted fix to this problem is just a Band-Aid, because the fact is, there are a variety of -- a broad variety of negative effects of sequester and this is one of them.

It's the families whose kids aren't in Head Start or won't be in Head Start. It's the seniors who won't get Meals on Wheels. It's the furloughed Defense employees or those in defense industries, private sector, who are suffering and will suffer because of it.

The fact is, there are a number of negative consequences and a Band-Aid fix to this problem, while we will certainly be open to looking at it, does not solve the overall problem. The overall problem can and should be solved by embracing the basic principle supported by the American people that we should reduce our deficit in a balanced way.

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/23/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-4232013

The thing is, the president doesn't get to 'demand' when most Democratic representatives vote against him. That's how the system works. And trying to pin the blame for this on the president, and not those representatives, doesn't help anyone.

[woo me with science]

271. Oh puh-leeeeze.

This might *possibly* be worth considering if we hadn't seen this game over and over and over and over again.

This President is perfectly capable of rallying troops when the issue is important to him. Look at the bank settlements. Or corporate mandates. Or warrantless surveillance. Funny how it's always the plight of impoverished Americans that leaves him completely helpless.

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2238032

The corporatists who work in both parties are very, very slick at what they do.

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

[madfloridian]

97. .....

Thanks for this post.

[gateley]

60. I didn't even think of that.

[AndyA]

4. Delayed flights cost business time and money, so that's a must fix

Head Start, Meals On Wheels, etc., only impact the little people, so it's no big deal. Golf is more important.

President Obama has spent a lot of time trying to work with and accommodate Congress, especially the Republicans and Tea Baggers. He should know by now that they don't appreciate it at all, in fact they despise him more for trying to be cooperative, it seems.

[sabrina 1]

49. And no fight causes the working class to lose. He needs to stop trying to 'accomodate'

these morons and start laying down the facts for them. If the President has no power, as we are being constantly told lately, then let's forget the next Presidential election because it doesn't seem to matter at all if we win the WH, and focus like a laser beam on Congress. So sick of the excuses.

'The Most Powerful Man in the World'!! But he can't do a thing to get anything done for the American people?

It's almost laughable, the disconnect. And when the next election comes up, I'm going to be reminding anyone asking me to vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee that 'the President has no power' so why should I spend on dime, one minute on an election that means nothing after the celebrations are over. I will be focusing on Congress.

[smirkymonkey]

140. +10.000

I am so disappointed in him. Actually, I am really pissed off.

[ctsnowman]

237. Exactly!

[Isoldeblue]

116. +1 n/m

[kentuck]

6. Those that refuse to fight.

Can never win.

Unfortunately, that seem to me to be where the Democrats are at?

[hfojvt]

10. when you say that "he folds"

you are assuming that he is actually on "our" side.

That would seem to be an unwarranted assumption.

It does seem like a good time to make the point that "Congress came together finally to fix a very small part of the problem with the sequester, but there is much more that needs fixing, so as such, I will not sign a partial fix. It is time for Congress to do its WHOLE job."

But he was probably too busy writing a speech in praise of Bush to be able to think of that strategy.

Plus, I will readily admit that he and/or his team know much more about reading political winds than I do, although the chained CPI would seem to fly in the face of that assumption too.

[whttevrr]

22. I am hoping that he is being shrewd.

It's like he is playing chess. The Republicans need a square and see nothing that can attack their queen(Cantor?). So they charge in and take the 'high' ground, and a pawn. Meanwhile there is a long plan somewhere several moves ahead that makes sense.

Can this be used in a 2014 Campaign Ad?

When The Sequester made Head Start impossible for some 4 year-olds, Congress bravely made sure that their own travel plans were not interrupted in May of 2013.

[Fuddnik]

90. What you said.

[Stewland]

173. an eXcellent observation

Obama is an excellent kabuki actor. He is so disappointing. Both Democrats and Republicans work for the same interests. Campaign finance reform and public ally funded elections are part of the solution and an engaged and informed electorate are also part of the solution.

[Stewland]

189. Obama disappoints

Obama works for those who represent special interests. He has sat on his hands and done nothing to punish the war criminals from the Bush era, he has done nothing to those responsible for the financial crisis,he has kept Guantanamo open, he orders drone strikes on American citizens with out due process, he uses executive orders to bypass process of laws, he gives into republican demands and has abandoned the unemployed, and he wants The chained index for Social Security benefits . These actions are far from progressive and in fact are continuation of the Bush era. He is not the Hope and Change I voted for. Obama disappoints time and time again.

[closeupready]

12. Makes sense, because that's what Republicans demanded.

So what's the problem here?

[Cleita]

13. Frustrating, isn't it. n/t

[kentuck]

17. Just hold 'em over until Monday.

Make 'em sweat a little bit. Make them angry. Don't be so quick to surrender. All I want to see is just a little fight to know they are still alive?

[gateley]

64. That seems reasonable.

[senseandsensibility]

149. You're right. I can't really add anything to that, but I agree.

This latest capitulation is pathetic, unsurprising, and probably foreshadows more of the same.

[whttevrr]

16. Sucks...

Congress needs to fly around the country on another week off and whoops: "Hey guys, we found some millions in our congressional couch cushions! Yay!"

"Oh, what?"

"Poor kids?"

"This is a business decision. What business is it of theirs. Constituents need us to travel unfettered."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. There's a lot of bribes..er..campaign contributions to be had from the airline industry.

Not so much from poor people and kids.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

204. The kids will grow up to be liberals anyway.

[Enrique]

23. no, he folded in 2011

all the maneuvers they are doing now are just for show. When the Obama defenders say "what can he do?", this time they're right, because he gave away his leverage two years ago.

[kentuck]

24. I'm sick of the excuses...

..and the chess moves. If he wants to bring this country together, it is not by agreeing with the right wing extremists. It is by fighting them at every turn.

[Sheepshank]

37. lets be honest here. You're sick of everything Obama does...again n/t

[kentuck]

38. And to think I voted for him twice...

Some people simply cannot bring themselves to criticize him for anything. Make excuses all the time.

[Sheepshank]

39. and some people never stop villifying. n/t

[kentuck]

40. Yes, I'm pissed...

And I'm not afraid to say so. Do you agree with him all the time or is it that you see no benefit in criticizing? It might help the Republicans? Which is it?

[Sheepshank]

43. but the question and earlier state was "are you even not pissed". Doesn't seem like it

the 24/7 raging seems impotent.

[sabrina 1]

290. I don't think that's it. I know it's not for me. I'm sick of what he DOESN'T do, like

fight for the people who elected him.

In this instance eg, almost everyone with a brain is wondering, since we are constantly lectured on how 'compromise' is so necessary in politics, Republicans simply got what they wanted with not even an attempt to force THEM to compromise.

So it appears that Compromise is NOT necessary in politics after all, it's only an excuse used to try to explain why it is always Democrats who appear to be required to compromise. Which translates of course into 'only the people' must compromise, since we KNOW the Republicans work for Corporations and will not do a thing for the people UNLESS SOMEONE FORCES THEM TO COMPROMISE.

He had them over a barrel, IF 'compromise' really is a part of politics, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Here's how actual compromise in the Real World works. Using this an example:

1) Republicans didn't want to have to wait at the airport, so they demanded a 'fix' to the part of Sequestration/Auserity that affected them personally.

2) Democrats, 'good, they really, really want this! Let's give it them ONLY if they agree to compromise, by FIXING the MEALS ON WHEELS part of Sequestration/Austerity.

3) Offer is made to Repubs to give them what they want in return for what Dems want.

4) Repubs kick and scream etc like a tantrum-throwing two-year old.

5) Dems ignore the tantrum, explain how it will all play out. Tell them it is in THEIR hands and give them a deadline 'we will be ready with our bill on say, Monday morning. Either you agree or don't.

6) Repubs realize Dems cannot be budged on this (this is just in my fantasy world to be clear) and the public is on their side plus Dems are keeping the public informed.

7) Repubs cave understanding either they 'compromise' or they get NOTHING.

Why would this work? Because we hold the WH and the Senate and without the help of Dems nothing gets to the WH for a signature.

THAT is how deals are made in the real world. Everyone gets something. But I realize sadly now that in DC 'compromise' means the people will always lose because they simply don't have enough money to buy Congress.

So to correct you once again. We are not upset as what he/they DO. We are upset at what they DON'T do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. NO!! WE DID!! We gave away leverage to the Teabaggers when WE failed to vote in 2010!!

[Enrique]

78. you didn't vote in 2010?

i know i did

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

87. You know exactly what I mean. Don't be ridiculous.

[kurtzapril4]

100. I voted in 2010, too.

Who are all these people who didn't vote in 2010?

[awoke_in_2003]

196. No, us liberals didn't vote...

at least that is what the third wayers keep telling us.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

282. Obviously not enough of us voted, as Russ Feingold lost! When you can explain that, I'll listen.

[kentuck]

286. The assumption is that everyone in Russ Feingold's district is a "liberal".

A lot of hanky panky was going on in Wisconsin with Scott Walker and the Tea Party revolt. True, not enough Democrats came out in Wisconsin but it was like that in many states. That is why the Repubs took the House with record numbers.

I would bet that the largest percentage of votes that Feingold received was from "liberals". Those that voted in 2008, the young and the moderates and the occasional voters, did not choose to come out for a simple mid-term election. I doubt that we will ever see again the same numbers that we saw in 2008 that came out for Barack Obama.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

295. You're proving my point with your response.

[woo me with science]

274. ...

[Isoldeblue]

121. I voted.

In fact, I've never missed voting in any election since 1967. So, please; speak for yourself.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

283. See my post above. Obviously not enough of us voted. (Of course I did!)

[Bluenorthwest]

256. In 2010 Oregon had the largest midterm turnout since at least the 80's

We elected zero Teabaggers. Democrats won the entire West Coast, where Democrats voted and Democrats won. Whose the Teabagger from Washington or Oregon or even Idaho? California elected 3 of them, but they have 53 seats total so we cut them slack.
21 States elected 49 Teabaggers to the House add two more in the Senate. Most States elected no baggers, some elected several. 'We' has many meanings.
Teabagger Congress Map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus

[upaloopa]

26. Flying has a different clientele then meals on wheels

The squeaky wheel gets the grease

[Newest Reality]

154. ++Good!

Is it about profit? --> Proceed to fix it fast! You are a winner!

Does it impede profit? --> Proceed to fix it quick! You are a hero!

Is it about people in need and therefore, unprofitable? --> Are you kidding? Go back and get real.

People are not so important anymore. When you are a consumer, a commodity and you own very little as a share of the wealth, how can they help but see you as nothing but a member of their herd, their human equivalents of cattle.

What does something like Meals on Wheels make when money and profit are all that really matter? Can someone extract a fee from the recipients perhaps? Nope.

[Lifelong Protester]

257. +1

I have nothing witty to add-you have already done that!

[bvar22]

28. I am sick of the Excuses and Chess Moves too.

Why can't the Democratic Party EVER hold the Republicans Hostage for something they want?

Why is it ALWAYS the Democratic Party that "HAS TO COMPROMISE" with the Republicans,

and WHY is it ALWAYS the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party
that must "compromise" with the Party leadership and surrender on OUR issues?
(and they have the nerve to call US "purists&quot .


Let me tell you something about folding 4-Aces.

A long time ago, in another life,
I worked as a contractor for a small independent Service Company in the oilfields.
My "customers" were the major Oil Corporations, and they had a rep (Company Man) on every drilling rig I was hired to perform my service.
Part of my "job" was to keep this Company Man happy,
and they are always "happy" when they WIN at Poker.

I folded more Winning Hands than I like to remember.
I was constantly amazed at the run of Winning Hands I would get when I was trying to lose.


That NEVER happens in REAL Poker Games,
and THAT is the point of this post.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[MotherPetrie]

29. K&R. Really shows you what his priorities are.

[librechik]

33. sigh

what else is new?

[kentuck]

35. I know a lot of people are silent because...

they don't want to criticize this President but, he really needs criticizing. The entire Party needs a slap upside the head, figuratively, of course.

[WillyT]

44. Hey kentuck... Did You Catch This ???

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022758988

[kentuck]

51. Yeah.

I guess it's just not in his nature...

[montanacowboy]

46. the "sap"

is a sap again

If this guy was running for another term this Democrat would not support him in any way shape or form

I am disgusted by his compromise at all costs, screw the poor, screw the middle class, screw SS and Medicare receipients, but hey
make sure that assholes in congress get home on time to have their 5:00 cocktails

And by the way, screw Obama too

[AlinPA]

56. It took me a while, but I'm where you are now. I was pissed when I saw Maureen Dowd's last

article about the President not fighting, but I see where she is coming from. It's hard to take. I honestly believe he is afraid of making the GOP angry.

[kentuck]

59. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that he is not capable of fighting back...

It's just not anywhere to be found. He is what he is.

[byeya]

72. With the budget, his opening bargaining ploy was a concession. pfffft.

[SammyWinstonJack]

73. Why did he even bother running then? Was it just because he wanted to be

the first AA president?

If so, kudos to him.

[kentuck]

75. I could only guess...

But I think he may have thought of himself as Abraham Lincoln, able to bring a divided nation back together and prevent a civil war this time? He could work the middle and appeal to both sides, perhaps?

[SammyWinstonJack]

92. He is being 'worked', either unwillingly or willingly.

Not sure which.

[whathehell]

211. My question as well, because, frankly, if you dislike conflict as much as he seems to dislike it

you shouldn't be in politics at all.

I sometimes wonder if this wasn't mostly a matter a vanity thing for him.

[G_j]

42. it's sickening

all because they are inconvenienced..

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. SIGH!! These are acts of Congress. Congress controls the purse strings. Trashing thread.

[Isoldeblue]

125. +1000 n/t

[Number23]

159. I'm still laughing at this particular OP saying "You are losing me" to the president he's

taken every opportunity to bash, no matter how unhinged and uninformed it made him look in the process.

[kentuck]

163. Uh-huh..

I'm sure I am not the only Democrat that feels this way. Shrug it off if you like with your cute little snide comments.

[Number23]

164. Better snide than delusional. And thanks for saying I'm cute.

[kentuck]

167. I'm sorry but you misquote.

I said "cute little snide comments". Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your personal appearance or cuteness.

[Number23]

169. Damn, honey. Forget it.

Even a joke leads to a meaningless lecture about absolutely nothing. Life must be miserable for you.

[kentuck]

175. Thanks for making it better.

Your encouragement is greatly appreciated.

[Isoldeblue]

178. Outch!

Good one

[treestar]

205. It is hilarious how many times Obama has lost some of these posters!

They must keep going back to him in between outrages.

[vegasjack]

47. 4 aces

i agree i called the white house no one gives a shit about the bottom 90%
Obama should have said give my people what they want before i give you your plane rides
we need to hit the streets

[onenote]

50. If you think he had four aces, I definitely want to play cards with you.

[kentuck]

54. No, you don't.

I gamble.

[onenote]

61. So do I. I just don't overestimate my hands.

[Alva Goldbook]

52. Obama can afford to lose you. He's not up for re-election.

Other Democrats and Republicans are. Quite frankly, when they make it so obvious that they could care less about anyone other than rich people, I don't know how anyone can vote for either party.

[juajen]

103. So, should we just stay home?

I am thinking that I might just do that.

[kentuck]

114. My suggestion would be:

Vote for those that will vote for you. Do not vote for a politician simply because they belong to the Party. Those that do not support you do not deserve your vote in the next election. Send the message.

[Alva Goldbook]

120. And what if every politician is bribed?

You cannot win an election these days unless you're bribed by rich people. So with the exception of Bernie Sanders, I don't know of any one who votes with me.

[dballance]

191. Alan Grayson in the House seems a lot like Sanders

Those are my top two favorites with Elizabeth Warren coming in there pretty close.

[emulatorloo]

184. Yes, because letting more teabaggers into congress will fix everything

[CincyDem]

53. This is news like "dog bites man". Com'on, did you learn anything new about him from this ? n/t

[leveymg]

55. Bravo. Hold his feet to the fire, just like he told us we should. But, that was ages ago.

And, he has tested the patience of the progressive base many times. Too many.

[JoePhilly]

58. And so begins another episode of OutrageUnderground.

btw ... there are other people who are affected by this situation ... the furloughed FAA workers.

Congress clearly doesn't care about those furloughed workers ... but maybe Obama does.

Oh wait ... if he can't save everyone, then he should save no one.

[kentuck]

62. It's more clear by the day that the problem is...

you. You are an enabler.

[JoePhilly]

67. I enabled Obama by voting for him twice, just like you did.

Or at least as you claim you did.

And if you think posting on DU has some impact on things, either an "enabling, or disrupting" impact, you need a new hobby.

My sense is that there are a group of outrage folks who use DU as a free therapy session.

[kentuck]

71. Nothing pisses you off.

We know that. Unless, of course, someone criticizes Obama or the Party. Then your antennae shoots up out of the sand.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

144. You're serially incapable of disagreeing with ANYTHING Obama says or does

You're a great cheerleader, but if you're not able to see that the President makes mistakes once in awhile, well, fuck, we could write an algorithm to replace you--no real human is actually necessary if all one wants to do is exalt. We can make exalting robots.

[JoePhilly]

174. you confuse the fact that ...

I don't run around DU WITH my hair on fire with total agreement. They are not the same.

I'm still waiting for the perpetually disgruntled around here to get busy with 2016 candidates. That would be far more effective than whining about Obama in an endless loop.

[Skittles]

188. oh FUCK

you're DEFENDING THIS?? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know DAMN WELL it's got NOTHING to do with the furloughed FAA workers - YOU CANNOT BE THAT DENSE

[JoePhilly]

220. More than anything ...

I'm responding to the extent of the outrage that appears in this OP, and so many others here on DU, every day.

No matter what happens, its the worst thing that has ever happened.

Consider that if nothing happened, all of the same programs would still be hit. All of them.

The media hypes the fact that congress doesn't like this particular impact because it also hits them, and its Obama's fault.

Its an endless pattern here. The day before, it was the fact that Obama was polite at the Bush Library event.

Just another day on Hair-on-fire Underground.

I'm sure Obama will do something tomorrow that will be the worst thing ever. And again the day after that.

As I said, its like a free group therapy session for the perpetually disgruntled.

[Skittles]

273. you act utterly INCAPABLE of the idea of criticism where criticsm is due

and do NOT tell me I ALWAYS trash Obama - I defend him from the nonsense - here is an example from just the other day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=466476

but other actions CANNOT be swept under the rug because your widdle feelings get hurt.....GROW UP

[sabrina 1]

293. I notice you didn't mention all the other people who continue to be affected

such as the elderly eg who will go without meals they depend on.

[kentuck]

69. You can go back to sleep now.

Thanks for your comments.

[revmclaren]

80. Anytime...

Always watching on the posts. Soon to be dead thread.

[SammyWinstonJack]

76. Who are you call a troll?

[revmclaren]

83. Maybe I should say neighsayers instead.

Would be sad if middle ground liberals are replaced by a right-wing version as unforgiving and demanding as the teapblicans. Just saying....

My two cents worth, freedom of speech and all that. Sorry I hit a nerve somewhere....

[stillwaiting]

89. You have 18 posts and you call KENTUCK a troll?!?!

Fucking embarassing.

kentuck has been around here for YEARS, and has established his bonafides in spades.

[revmclaren]

99. Number of posts dosent make a person a good liberal. Or an honest poster!

Just a person with a lot of time and a lot of views...

And ranting dosnt establish oneself, just the opposite.

[revmclaren]

115. I now have 23 posts here...

that is many more than I have in some of the 4 or 5 dozen other posts on other sites I jump around to. My face book page is purely political and has passed the 100,000 post mark a while ago. Just because I don't stagnate on one site dosnt mean I'm not politically active elsewhere. Believe me...I have pissed off a large number of friends and family over the Obama years. But I have also changed 22 votes that I know of from Republican to Democrat. A great success. And I didn't do this by down-talking or ranting about Obama's failures (they are relativity few) but by touting his successes and character and supporting him at rally's and political gatherings. Sorry about setting you off, but that's your issue...not mine.

[stillwaiting]

135. You have mistaken my issue with you.

Ostensibly we are for the same policies. I am very glad that you have actively changed so many votes over the years. I have done so as well. It sounds like we are both good activists in getting people to reject the Republican Party. I think that's great!

Where we differ is in how we can best get Democrats to act like Democrats, and it would be nice if you could recognize that (along with quite a few others around here) without calling those you disagree with "trolls" or not "good liberals".

What I object to from some posters (this is where you fall) is when you have the nerve to proclaim who is and who isn't a "good liberal".

You are new to this site, and I have a feeling that you are unaware of how much of an asset that kentuck has been to this community over the disastrous Bush years and the disappointing Obama years. You pissed me off by having the nerve to call kentuck a troll after I have seen how committed kentuck has been to liberal causes over quite a few years. kentuck has been an active contributor and has brought A LOT of good information to this website over the years. kentuck does NOT deserve to be called a troll or not a "good liberal".

I wasn't making a knee jerk, ignorant response based on kentuck's number of posts compared to yours. kentuck definitely ranks in the top 50 posters on this website. And. You. Called. kentuck. A. Troll.

[Isoldeblue]

131. Bless you for saying how it is!!

I am not in 100% agreement on everything with Obama, but there is a reality here being ignored. He is placed in a totally black and white, all-or-nothing position by some, ignoring all he has accomplished, with zero credit given. That is just so shallow and immature.

I'd like to ask those of you who are so staunchly against Obama, saying he's weak, etc, what EXACTLY would you like him to do instead? Explain in detail, what steps and actions could he take to change your mind or the status of the issues of today? With all your political knowledge, what would you do differently if you were in the WH? I'm really curious to hear your solutions.

[revmclaren]

132. So am I....

And thank you for the peace of mind an calm.

[AlinPA]

137. ??!!! You're saying kentuck is a troll? kentuck has been around here along time and is the last

person one would call a "troll".

[revmclaren]

139. Mischoice of words on my part.

But you cant say that there are not some lurking around the DU posts. And Im not talking about those who pop in and out randomly to post a comment. There are a lot of us 'lurkers' around. No, kentuck isnt a troll. I did use the word 'ranter' in later threads...and I wont backtrack on that.

[AlinPA]

262. I don't think anyone (especially me) is saying there are not trolls lurking around DU posts.

[SomethingFishy]

145. The "give me more, liberals"

Seriously? You use a Republican insult (Takers, moochers, gimme gimme gimme, doomsayers) to chastise someone who has an issue with the Administrations policies?

Sorry, Obama has made plenty of bad decisions, Congress is totally corrupt, Democrats and Republicans. Things are not "improving" for the lower middle and lower classes, and all you can come up with is some lame ass "takers" comment?


Yeah I'm being shown "great things"

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. The American people, especially the traveling class, could give a shit what you so-called.....

"activists" think about this, as long as someone fixes these flight delays. The makeup of Congress didn't suddenly change, so all you're interested in is a little theater. Screw that. The president has a million & one things to do, he doesn't have time to play useless games with Congress for your amusement. Grow Up!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

128. I wonder what the people who lost their Meals on Wheels and Head Start would say to you

Remember, there are people in this country who can't afford to fly.

Somebody needs to remember that, even if the pooh-bahs in Washington don't.

[Tarheel_Dem]

134. If you're as passionate about those issues as you claim, you & millions of others could have....

taken to the streets, blown up the Capitol Hill phones, and made your voices heard. That's the only thing that gets action these days. The lesson here is that if you inconvenience rich folks, your issues get attention. The president warned that things like this would happen, and he was mocked on the teevee, because people didn't feel it the next day. I received countless emails from OFA before this disaster happened, I called, I signed petitions, and wrote emails as I'm sure many others did, but we simply weren't vocal enough at the time. You'll remember the president introduced a budget to replace sequester, and some on the left went nuts about CPI.

I'm with you, and every other American who thinks it's shameful that these across the board cuts were ever allowed to happen, but it is what it is. As I am not a Washington "pooh-bah", screaming at me is not really activism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

161. But why does the president need pressure to do the right thing?

There's something wrong with this picture.

[Tarheel_Dem]

176. The sequester wasn't about the president "doing the right thing". He went on....

a tour, across the country, warning what these cuts would do, only to be greeted with "journalists" who asked if he was "overhyping" the effects, and yet sequester happened. You do know that the constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, right? They did teach you that in your Civics classes, right? There are three (3) CO-equal branches of government, and the legislature hasn't done its job in quite some time.

You and I both know that there is a contingency in Congress, due to gerrymandering, never have to give a care about what you or anyone else wants. If they did, the watered down background check would have passed overwhelmingly, considering that 90% of the country supported it.

By the way, the bill that you're all claiming to be pissed about passed the Senate almost unanimously, and by something like 360 - 47 in the House, so a lot of Democrats voted for this bandaid, but only the president gets the blame at DU.

[madfloridian]

183. The people affected by Meals on Wheels cuts are unable to "take to the streets"

They are usually living alone, ill, disabled....desperately wanting to stay in their own homes.

There is no excuse..none..for cutting a program like this.

[Tarheel_Dem]

187. "There is no excuse..none..for cutting a program like this."

Where did I argue that? And as for taking to the streets, everyone who cares & is concerned about these cuts had plenty of prior warning. As I stated, the president went on tour, and even used his weekly radio address to tell the American people about the disastrous harm these cuts would do to people, and the economy.

My question for the activists remains....instead of banging away, angrily, at a keyboard..why wasn't something like Occupy The Sequester organized? If people are as angry and upset as they claim to be, on the internet, I would've expected some kind of action. Typing screeds on the internet is not activism.

I'm watching a show on HBO, called VICE, and all over Europe, people have taken to the streets to demand action from their government. Where's the movement in response to the sequester? Occupy fizzled, in this country, because our citizens have the attention span of a fruit fly.

Gun control was another instance where activism might have made a difference, but the activists among us got distracted by something that is, and was never going to happen, chained CPI.

As for Meals on Wheels, every able bodied, caring person should have been using this powerful tool called the internet to organize the biggest, baddest march that Washington has ever seen, but that requires focus, which is something this country lacks, in spades. We move from one made up crisis to the next. It's so much easier pissing and moaning on an anonymous website.

[Bluenorthwest]

260. Here's what Occupy is doing in my city. Nothing to snark at, but you can if you like.

"On Sundays from noon until 4 pm you can walk up to the former bloodmobile painted red and white and emblazoned “Occupy Medical Mobile Clinic,” that’s parked downtown at the Park Blocks and get anything from a Band-Aid to a prescription for heart medicine. You can also get food, a haircut and proof that someone cares."
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/20130411/lead-story/occupy-medical

http://occupyeugenemedia.org/tag/medical/

This is what you call 'fizzled'. I find it interesting that you say "As for Meals on Wheels, every able bodied, caring person should have been using this powerful tool called the internet to organize the biggest, baddest march that Washington has ever seen" but you yourself did not do that here on DU, instead you spend much of your time preaching fire against those who actually do things, like Occupy. On the internet, your priority was not Meals on Wheals, so who are you to lecture about what 'everyone' should have done, are you not counting yourself as among those who should do, your role is strictly judicial in nature?
















'

[Isoldeblue]

133. +1000 n/t :)

[Jakes Progress]

266. "Traveling Class"?

I think that tells us a lot about your motives.

Yes, the president has a million things to do (he did one when he bent over and kissed rich ass by signing the bill). There are so many billionaires who don't have but one or two yachts yet. But when this president gets on with his million things, more of them will be begging for subsidized yacht moorings.

[Tarheel_Dem]

296. Oh, I've never had any doubt about "your motives".

You Better Believe It!

[russspeakeasy]

68. Death by a thousand cuts.

Still looking for a legacy, Sir ?

[azurnoir]

70. +10000

[Politicub]

74. Another viewpoint: the political ramifications of this favor Obama

The American people who are frequent air travelers benefit.

An alternate view is the GOP will cave if there is enough outrage. It's not ideal but some issues may need to be approached in a piecemeal fashion.

Obama will be seen by the majority of Americans as doing the right thing. Partisans on both sides won't like this for one reason or another.

[kentuck]

79. This is assuming...

..that the American people are even aware this is going on. Republicans understand the voters much better than Democrats, in my opinion. Even frequent fliers will blame it on the "other" Party. They don't have time to study what is happening.

[Politicub]

93. I disagree with your assessment

We are both making assumptions, so neither opinion is more valid than the other.

But I believe the american people are smarter than you think.

[kentuck]

95. I could ask?

Where is the evidence? But we will leave that open for later discussion.

[AverageJoe90]

186. Perhaps so. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

86. Waste Of Time...

...once again I guess a basic civics lesson is needed here.

The President is the LAST person who does anything with a bill...he signs or vetos it. It's the House and Senate that make the laws. They're the ones who voted for the sequesters that they now are gonna cherry pick in order to keep their big money benefactors happy.

So let's say the President throws a fit and demands Congress reject this bill...it would have passed anyway...and I'll bet if he had tried to veto it would have been overridden...turning your 4 aces into a massive defeat.

I agree that the cherry picking is offensive but the blame, once again, goes to a Congress that is fully in the pocket of corporate interests...

[99Forever]

91. One person and one person only...

... can veto the POS and that is Barack Obama. No more fucking excuses for being a gawddamn capitulating wimp, please.

[KharmaTrain]

96. And That Veto Would Be Overridden...

...and make him look even weaker.

He doesn't rule by fiat...the irony how some think that the President can wave a magic wand and can operate without the legislative. I think we used to call that the "Imperial Presidency"...

Cheers...

[99Forever]

138. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't...

... but since he has no spine, we'll never know, will we?

Thanks for the same old tired, well worn, crappy, pitiful excuses, AGAIN.

[krawhitham]

148. It already passed with over 2/3 of the vote, do they even have to revote?

[99Forever]

156. So fucking what?

No guts, no glory. Spineless wimp.

[Number23]

158. Facts will NOT deter these people. I honestly think they enjoy making themselves

look stupid.

[FiveGoodMen]

88. All part of the game plan.

He's not really folding.

He's playing his role.

He's on THEIR side, not ours.

[revmclaren]

94. Myself....Im Damn proud of my President!

No, he hasnt done everything we would like him to do. No one President in history has made everyone happy all the time. And Obama is not just fighting an uphill battle...he is weighted down by 200 tons of bricks doing it. The accomplishments that have come out of his office far out weigh those that have failed or are on hold. And keeping lawmakers longer would only make them dig their heals in deeper and be counter productive. The teapublicans in congress and in the senate need to be replaced, and that will take time. Vote! Send letters! Write positive blogs that inspire people. But trash posts.... We're better than that.

Now off to read other posts.

Will pop in later.

[madfloridian]

98. It's really not about him anymore. It's about how the country is being harmed.

It's not about being proud of a president, it's about expecting him to do the job for the people who sent him there.

[revmclaren]

102. How much is enough?.....

How much do we DEMAND of him? How much can he actually do? How much will satisfy us? How much do WE need to do to help him?.....

[kentuck]

105. BS.

To put it mildly.

[revmclaren]

117. Ranter...

To put it bluntly!

[kentuck]

122. You haven't been here long enough to see me rant.

You are no authority on DU. You have admitted as much. Now fly away little butterfly...

[revmclaren]

129. How do yo know I havent?????

Just because I don't post all the time dosnt mean I'm not here. And your authority (or your personally thinking you have it because you post a lot) makes me laugh.

Sorry... free post.....and you cant see me when im not posting so....



Looking forward to more of your rants. Wont respond to you anymore now so waste your time if you wish.

[kentuck]

130. Well, I am impressed...

..with your smiley faces...

[madfloridian]

142. He ran for president, and he won. He is not standing up for the elderly. Yes, he has the power...

to stand up for them.

This adoration and refusal to question him really needs to stop.

[ctsnowman]

241. X 1000

[Jakes Progress]

268. + another 1000

Time for people to quit claiming that he is powerless.

[Politicub]

190. I wish there was a "defeatist" alert

Because constantly negative people just get tiresome to listen to.

[treestar]

206. Welcome to DU!

[Kelvin Mace]

104. He should have Vetoed the bill

and told them "try again". Either re-instate the sequestered programs, all of them, of suffer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. And then they override the veto

because Congress had already voted overwhelmingly for it. So it just delays things for the time it takes them to re-vote (if he wanted to hold it up longer, I think he can refuse to sign it or veto it for 10 days, then it becomes law anyway). So air travellers are inconvenienced for a day or 2 more (or 10 at max), and he looks like the guy who wants that, just to grandstand. It wouldn't get you anywhere nearer fixing the actual problems.

[Kelvin Mace]

195. Yes, but Obama would then have had the moral high ground

And would have been able to shame the GOP for catering to their own venial needs while sick people did without cancer treatments. For a supposedly "shrewd" politician he is pretty damned stupid.

[tarheelsunc]

106. Rich people aren't the only ones who fly. eom

[kentuck]

107. What an illogical statement?

Old people and Meals on Wheels? Young kids and Headstart? Sick people with cancer? Oh, but they don't fly? ?????????????????

[tarheelsunc]

108. The FAA shouldn't be cut, and neither should any of the groups/programs you mentioned. eom

[kentuck]

110. So let's fix this FAA problem...

and let the others go to hell? After all, we would not want our esteemed representatives to be delayed in getting to their fund raiser, would we? No need to ask for anything in return? Just sign the bill and get the hell out of Dodge?

[tarheelsunc]

119. No one wants "others to go to hell"

The FAA mess is a problem that they are apparently actually trying to fix. Supporting them fixing it does not mean I am not in support of fixing everything else that needs it. Should we be mad about the sequester cuts? Of course. But should we be mad when they actually get around to realizing at least one of the cuts is dumb? I certainly don't think so. Hopefully this will lead to them realizing other cuts are dumb also, even though they are incapable of seeing it on their own.

[kentuck]

123. But in doing so...

You have guaranteed that none of the other cuts will be addressed. Can you not see that?

[DaveT]

118. Maybe he doesn't want to win.

When it came time for his reelection, he somehow rediscovered his gumption and clearly painted the Republicans as toadies for the Super Rich. Once that hurdle for him as an individual was cleared, he has gone right back to the embarassment of a President whose weakness turned the House and a bunch of states over to the Tea Party in 2010. It looks like we will have a rerun of that debacle in 2014, and we will probably lose the Senate.

Something weird is going on with this guy. I don't claim to really understand what he wants, but it is absolutely clear that he has zero interest in beating down the Tea Party/Right Wing ideology.

Maybe he believes his own bullshit about changing the culture of political conflct. Whatever it is that motivates him, kicking their ass is not it.

[Cali_Democrat]

124. Ya, but the other side had a royal flush! There's nothing he could have done.

He was smart to fold and live to fight another day!!

[kentuck]

126. But there are only 4 aces in the deck...

so the other side could not have had a royal flush?

[Cali_Democrat]

141. Oh ya...

LOL

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. He lost me a long time ago

A man who won the presidency in a landslide acts as if he has no power. This tells me that either he is lacking in leadership skills or (and more likely) he's been co-opted into accepting the values of the 1% and will continue to govern as Republican Lite.

Note that after George W. Bush had his friends arrange a place in the White House for him, he ACTED as if he had won in a landslide. No gooey bipartisanship there.

[krawhitham]

146. How does Obama get blamed for this again

Looks like this is on Harry for allowing the vote. This may be hard to believe but Obama is not in charge of the senate or the house

Sure Obama could veto it, but it has enough votes to over ride a veto

[Cali_Democrat]

147. Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party

Trust me...one phone call to Reid would have prevented that bill from even coming to the floor of the Senate.

[krawhitham]

150. Trust you, yeah right

Whatever, you always blame Obama for everything

The President of the United States does not control the Senate or the House, deal with it

All 55 Dems voted for the Bill (53 + 2 that caucuses with Dems) but yet this is all Obama fault?


Do you blame him when it rains too?

[Cali_Democrat]

193. OK....

Then he can veto the bill

[cantbeserious]

151. No - You Are Right - I Am Also Through With Obama Excuses And Apologists

eom

[babylonsister]

152. Yawn. YOU noticed what happened.

Maybe you're not alone?



Occupy Democrats
Like This Page · 8 hours ago

Shame on them! Less than a week after the purposefully damaging sequester cuts cause delays at airports and begin to affect the minority of Americans wealthy enough to fly regularly, Congress just passed a bill rolling back the cuts ONLY for air controllers. Meanwhile, Congress continues to ignore the millions of Americans suffering needlessly from housing or hunger crises from the rest of the sequester cuts. There are even millions of dollars of cuts to Head Start programs! That's just wrong. We support Pres. Obama's demand that Congress repeal and replace the ENTIRE sequester cut package. 2014 can't come soon enough to vote out the Tea Party!

Image by Occupy Democrats, like our page and SHARE!

Read more here: http://occupydemocrats.com/u-s-senate-cancels-the-only-part-of-the-sequester-that-hurts-the-rich-cynically-ignores-the-rest-of-america/?fb_source=pubv1

[Lifelong Protester]

255. I did just "like" their page

and thank you for the link.

[BethanyQuartz]

153. I'm going to throw a serious temper tantrum

If more people don't start realizing that Obama is as much a tool of the wealthy as Bush and all the other ex Presidents were. And he knows it. And he likes it. And he wouldn't be President if he was anything else.

[forestpath]

155. You know, it feels like we don't even have a president.

[840high]

162. Yes.

[MFM008]

160. IF he approves the XL Pipeline

im finished. period. Game over.

[ctsnowman]

243. When he does the same people will rush to defend him.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

165. Don' get mad at the President, get mad at congress!

Or better yet, the ones that are calling, constantly, to support the FAA and all the other stuff that we don't want/need. More of us need to call to demand what we want for a change!

The few that are, are not enough to curb the tide! Everyone needs to start calling and e-mailing, and not just Congress. Your state people too!

I have said this once, I have said this a million times! President Obama needs us to apply the presume only the Citizens of the US can. The work STARTS at the ballot box, does not end there.

[kentuck]

170. Do we need to call on every issue?

Would they not get the hint after a while that we did not vote for a right-wing agenda? They know what Democratic voters want. They just don't give a crap.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

172. The other side does!

And it is the noisiest wheel that gets the oil.

You want something done you have to make sure you are heard, a lot.

As I said the work STARTS at the ballot box.

[truedelphi]

208. Yeah, yada yada yada.

calling/writing, emailing/faxing these people only works if you are submitting some kind of significant campaign check.

95% of our elected officials are on the take. Obama's FDA ignored nearly one million signatures on a petition regarding Monsanto, stating that since it came from one organization, it only counted as one signature.

We don't mean anything to most of them. It's better to save our breath.

[eqfan592]

180. You don't want/need the FAA?

I agree that this entire thing could have gone down better, but lets not forget the service the employees of the FAA provide in all of this. You disregard them as so-much unwanted rubbish, and that is damn foolish.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

185. If people are upset that they got funding and others are not...

Then tell the government about it. If a person thinks that Meals on wheels are more important than the FAA, they should call there reps. about it.

If a person wants their point of view seen by the government, then they need to call/e-mail. They must get like minds to do the same.

[woo me with science]

197. Harry S. Truman: "The buck stops here."

FDR: "A New Deal for the American People"

JFK: "Prosperity for All" and "We can do better."

Barack Obama: "Try and make me do it."

[Lady Freedom Returns]

199. Why do people keep forgetting..

The Presidency is just part of the Government. There is much more and WE have to be the bosses.

"We" is where the buck truly stops. Our part does not stop at the ballot box, it STARTS there.

[woo me with science]

201. That's priceless.

"Quit yelling at him. He won't do those things."

"Quit yelling at him. He is just pretending to do them."

"Quit yelling at him. He did them, but he really didn't mean it."

"Well, he did do them. But it's because you didn't yell loudly enough!"

[Lady Freedom Returns]

202. What is priceless is how many mock.

Many rather mock than work. Many would rather just set back and vote. They forget what it really takes to get the job done.

But that's OK. Those that work will have to work twice as hard, but the ones that do are use to it. The mockers can just set back and enjoy the fruits of the laber...as usual.

The work STARTS at the ballot box! It does not stop there.


P.S: If you post to this, I will not respond. I enjoy putting Mockers on ignore.

[woo me with science]

203. O Lady Freedom! I stand humbled and shamed by all that Hard Work!

And I stand in awe, also, of your Wondrous Divination of who, across the internet, is doing Hard Work and who is not...
We always hear about "Hard Work" from the Hardest Workers, that's for sure!

[ctsnowman]

244. lol Love it.

[treestar]

207. Harry Truman was wrong

Was he claiming no one else had power in the system?

[muriel_volestrangler]

209. What a pile of crap - you seem to think Obama's job is to read DU and tell others what you say

Congress makes a law you don't like - overwhelmingly - but you think there's no point in telling them what you think. You just want to have a tantrum on DU, and then think Obama should see it and repeat the tantrum, in public. And then Congress will pass it anyway, because that's how the Constitution works.

The DUers who are recommending this thread don't want a president, they want a nanny.

[sabrina 1]

215. I think the President's job is to lead his Party, which means twisting arms at times,

to work for the people who elected them. I still believe the President DOES have power, contrary to what we are constantly told here by a few people each time Republicans, even in the minority, manage to force through legislation THEY want, that the President has no power to do anything about it. That is nonsense.

What do YOU think his job is? Did you elect a Democrat so we could cater to Republicans to show people how awful they are, or how accommodating WE are? I don't give a tinker's curse about Republicans, period, if I did I would show how accommodating I am by voting for them.

So when faced with some issues, eg, 'meals on wheels' 'heat assistance for the poor' or 'don't make members of Congress have to wait at the airport', as President I would call every member of my party and tell them 'this is what I want'. But then I believe in fighting the enemy, and trust me, Republicans are the enemy of the people right now, so I would ENJOY showing the public who they REALLY ARE by forcing them to PUBLICLY vote against the people every time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

218. Again, you're asking the President to do the job of talking to your representative for you

"I can't be bothered to call Congress, that's only the president's job" is no way to take part in a democracy.

Congress - including most Democrats - already have publicly "voted against the people" on this. Obama has told them they should have produced a proper fix for the whole of sequester. But you want him to hold his breath for a few days, on your behalf, but not actually affect anything, by delaying what Congress has clearly voted for.

[sabrina 1]

221. Excuse me?? Where did I say that the people should not call their Reps? I KNOW they have

because I know many of them.

Again, you're asking that we do not expect a Democratic President to lift up the phone and call his party members to tell them the people want you to do (fill in the blank) and I expect you to respond to the many calls you have been receiving, as I have also. We are here to represent the best interests of the people, that is why they elected us. So, I expect to find Meals on Wheels included in this 'fix' and I do not expect any member of my party to go against the wishes of the people who are calling them, and vote for this ridiculous piece of legislation.

Why did you make that assumption btw?? Are you aware of how many emails, calls, letters, requests by organizations representing the elderly, the poor etc Congress receives on these issues every single day?

Have YOU ever called Congress? I do, what I get usually is 'thank you, I will pass your message along to 'whoever'. When I ask can I speak to him/her directly, I get 'I'm sorry, Rep X is not in the office right now, as I said, I will make sure to pass your message along'. When I ask if they would like my phone # so I can receive a call back on the status of the issue, I get 'sure, let me have your name and #'. Then I wait, and wait and wait. Not once in over ten years, have I ever received a return call from any Rep. So I call again. Same thing. But we keep calling anyhow.

Just because you do not call your Rep, please do not assume that the rest of us do not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

224. That comes from this sub-thread

"165. Don' get mad at the President, get mad at congress!"

"170. Do we need to call on every issue?" (and that's from the thread starter, who claims, against all reality, that Obama was 'dealt 4 Aces' - which is rubbish. He can't veto a bill that only 41 people voted against in the House)

"172. The other side does!"

"208. Yeah, yada yada yada."

"185. If people are upset that they got funding and others are not... Then tell the government about it."

"197. Harry S. Truman: "The buck stops here."" (ie "it's up to the president, not me&quot

This sub-thread has been about denigrating Lady Freedom Return's idea of people complaining to their representatives. So when I say that you can't just leave it up to the president, and you join in, saying it's the president's job, you seem to be agreeing with those saying it's not up to people to call Congress.

I write to my MP; I'm British.

[sabrina 1]

242. 'Seem to be saying'? You apparently are not familiar with American politics. I know

people who work for Reps on the Hill and no one receives more letters, phone calls, emails, and actual visits from the public, than US Representatives. They often turn off the answering machines they get so many.

They IGNORE the people here. That doesn't mean we won't keep annoying them, but it does mean the people need those they elected to stand up and DO SOMETHING. To stop caving to the worst bunch of morons to ever buy elections. To do what a majority of the people keep calling and writing and emailing about.

Your assumption could not be more wrong. What we DO know is that Congress now ignores the people, they probably laugh at all the calls they get but THEIR attention is on the Corporate Lobbyists with the big bags of money to hand them for voting THEIR way.

I am sick to death of these posts attempting to blame the people.

What you copied and pasted does NOT mean no one is going to call. The question asked 'why should we have to do this' every day is a GOOD QUESTION!! WE GAVE THEM A JOB. If I employ someone and pay them a good salary, I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THAT JOB MYSELF, should I?

But that is what we the people have to do. We HAVE jobs THEIRS is to do what they were elected to do without us having to stop doing OUR jobs to call them each and every day to remind them what their jobs are.

So, when you call someone every time a vote comes to tell them what you want, and they ignore you over and over and over again and do the exact opposite of what you tell them you want, can you in your infinite wisdom which apparently we lack, explain what we should do next?

My solution is 'fire them all'!

[woo me with science]

225. And the jaw drops in sheer wonderment at the chutzpah...

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

the sheer brazenness in trying to rewrite the roles here.

My, how the argument has shifted in desperation:

All those who mocked and resented our trying to hold the President's feet to the fire,

All those who tried to make a laughingstock of Occupy,

All those who lectured us ad nauseum to quit "whining" and trust in this President's Awesome gazillion-dimensional Plan...

All those, now faced with the reality of the betrayals: the hungry seniors and the fat Congressmen breezing past TSA...

All those turn around, take a deep, bracing, inspiring breath of "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength".....

and start accusing *everyone else* of being the passive ones.

You honestly can't make up this shit from the Third Way anymore.

[ctsnowman]

247. Thank you.

[dgibby]

287. You mean like the 90% of Americans

who want better gun laws? That worked out so well, didn't it?

[LWolf]

166. Just like always.

Why did anyone think it would be different during the 2nd term?

[woo me with science]

198. Yep, the predictions were just silly.

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:27 PM - Edit history (2)

If the "Real Obama" emerged now, just four and a quarter short years into his Presidency, how could we keep breathlessly anticipating his arrival for the next 3 3/4?

[MissDeeds]

171. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised

In his first term he folded like cheap tin foil whenever the Republicans challenged him and proved that he is decidedly not a fighter. The pattern continues...and we suffer from his ineptitude - or cowardice. I am beyond disappointed in him. I'm mad as hell.

[Doctor_J]

177. he will go down as a laughingstock

I don't think any of us realize d how unfit for the job he was. He is either the most clueless and weakest in history or a mole sent to finish delivering the country to the far right.

[kentuck]

179. That's pretty strong...

I think he needs a new Cabinet. At least, some that will be honest with him. I think there is plenty of time to right the ship. But he needs to show that he can lead the Party, including the Democrats in the House and Senate.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, I think he should delegate a lot more to the House and Senate, rather than taking on the Republicans all by himself. He has put himself in a tough position by agreeing to negotiate legislation with the Republicans, in my opinion. His job is to execute the laws, not legislate them. The Democrats in the House and Senate are falling down on the job, I think?

I really do not know who the inner circle is for the President? Who does he talk to? Who does he listen to? Are they liberals or business conservatives? Who knows? Please tell.

[DFW]

214. They are social progressives, and often business liberals.

He listens to all sides, and gets bombarded with conflicting recommendations, and tries to sift through the verbal chaos. I was at a small meeting with him and some Democrats Abroad last year. One or two were obsessed only with business concerns. Others, like my self, concentrated more on foreign policy and health care reform, as well as electoral fraud on the part of the Republicans. Some were one-issue types ("Hispanic community is the ONLY issue," etc.). We were ALL socially progressive, but where some were very business oriented, some were not. I wouldn't want his job.

Bush Lite had it easier. His whole inner circle had the one track mind of Dick Cheney. Obama doesn't want that.

As one who flies a LOT, I can sympathize with his (probably agonized) decision on the flight controllers. I'm sure he weighed the consequences of signing or nor signing. It's not just rich people flying first class that need air travel. It's small business owners getting deliveries, families trying to get together or see a dying relative one last time, students trying to get back to school from Spring Break, and a lot more. When I was in the States last week, I flew numerous times. Once was to visit with my brother and Helen Thomas. The rest was for work and medical appointments. I am now back at work overseas. I could not have done any of it without air travel. I resent those who would say that air travel is only for the rich flying first class. I sure as hell didn't. The USA is not Switzerland. It takes a lot longer than three and half hours to take a train or a bus from one end of the country to the other. Slow down air travel and you put a couple of million jobs in peril down the line. I'd very much appreciate mine not being one of them.

[duffyduff]

239. Obama is a neoliberal and he set the tone of the administration

There is no point trying to sugarcoat Obama's true political leanings.

[madfloridian]

240. Were any concerned about the elderly, the poor?

I wonder if any of his advisors cares that seniors will be harmed by these policies, that nursing homes are already cutting staff, that Medicare is already upping the co-pays until it hurts even the average or above income seniors? That Meals on Wheels and other similar programs are being cut? That when seniors leave the hospital they often depend on a stay in a nursing/rehab center for a week or so....and that now there are fewer beds available?

Is his administration concerned at all about those in this country who are not rich?

[DFW]

246. Like I said, I wouldn't want his job

He has to juggle the interests of the population as a whole, much of whom isn't doing very well economically, against the opposition of the Republican Party, who represents the privileged, but has the House and can block or stall anything they want. Like Bill Clinton, he grew up poor. He knows what it is. Part of the reason he was so concerned about the cost of health care is because he is well aware of how many people have none. But unless voters turn out in record numbers to elect members of his party, he will have to deal with an opposition that represents moneyed interests that don't give a shit. A U.S. president doesn't rule by decree. If he did, Bush would have privatized Social Security by 2005.

With Health Care Reform, he took half a loaf because it was that or none. If he ruled by decree alone, we would have had single payer before he had been in office six months. On the other hand, if U. S. presidents ruled by decree, you and I would both be either in prison or dead under the Cheney (dba Bush) administration. I got the impression that Obama feels sort of like an oncologist who is trying to treat cancer patients, and doesn't have the time to both find a cure and try to keep the afflicted alive at the same time. You can't imagine the obstacles he has had to jump over just to get us as far as he has. Believe me, he wishes he had other people than Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to talk to when trying to hammer out what can possibly be passed in Congress.

[madfloridian]

259. Voters did get him elected. A lot of them, both times.

And yet he is the one who put safety net cuts on the table.

I guess 2014 does not matter to him, he's elected already. I can tell you from the experiences hubby and I have had recently with good insurance.....and seeing people in these situations without good insurance....that most are not feeling very fond of him right now. It will carry over to next year's elections.

I have voted for him both times, so has my husband. We worked actively for him in 08. Since he can not stand up for seniors, the ones up for re-election in 2014 will pay a price for it.

Note that I did not even mention the harm being done to career teachers and public schools. What I have seen since we both ended up in the hospital at the same time is on my mind now.

Harming the elderly on purpose will hurt our party tremendously.

[DFW]

261. I doubt that any deliberate harm to the elderly is on anyone's mind in the White House

But I have an idea. Please check your PM in a few minutes

[madfloridian]

264. Harm is still harm, deliberate or not.

They must be aware of it all by now.

[Jakes Progress]

265. So you are saying they blundered into

destroying the lives of thousands? You? opinion is that it was because they were too stupid to know how government works or how to do their jobs, that they did that harm?

How about they did it, knowing the pain it would cause, but did it anyway for political reasons?

Whichever - stupid or venal - they did the harm.

[MFM008]

279. yes but

He needs to take a stronger stand. During the gun issue but even the democrats aren't afraid of the consequences of crossing him. A goper would be in there slugging away for the tea party. For Gods sake a community organizer allowing old people to go hungry so congressmen don't have to be inconvenienced?

[duffyduff]

236. Your second explanation is likely it.

Somebody promoted this guy to shift the Democratic Party so far to the right it would basically destroy it.

Lots of money were behind Obama's candidacy despite his lack of national political experience.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

182. The DU rec doesn't lie.

[ucrdem]

200. Hey that's better than anything Mo "oldest profession" Dowd ever came up with.

But don't let her poison pen get you down. I don't see how he could have pulled it off even if he was Tip O'Neill, and he isn't, and doesn't need to be. I don't think it's as important as all that, and aviation is practically a military function anyway so don't get hung up on it is my advice. There are bigger fish to fry.

[Demo_Chris]

216. I can't stay mad at the guy we elected, so I am just writing him off...

He has shown what he is and who he works for. He does it every day. The guy is a liar and con man and I no longer support him in any way. The only question now for me is where the party stands and whether I write them off as well.

So far it isn't looking good.

[graham4anything]

226. Kenny Rogers- the Gambler

(c)Don Schlitz

You got to know when to hold on
know when to fold on
know when to walk away
know when to run

Obama is roping the dopes again.

working for an 80-20 nation. Not 50-50

looking long term. We need 24 years of President Obama's agenda
and that means Hillary45 and Michelle 46.

All visionaries are not seen for the good. Look how long it took Picasso
Look how long it took Martin Luther King

Look what happened when Jack Gilford did not kick the can

[6000eliot]

228. He didn't sign the bill. He can't, because the morons in Congress misspelled a word.

[truth2power]

229. You're not the only one pissed off about this, kentuck. The problem is

that it's not that Obama doesn't have a backbone. It's just all theatre, if you know what I mean.

[jsr]

231. The well-worn routine is as reliable as Groundhog Day

No surprise there

[woo me with science]

267. +1

[ctsnowman]

234. At the very least he would address this to the American people.

He is doing what he agrees with plain and simple. The only reason I voted for him this time was because the cons rolled out a clown car for their nominees. And maybe stuff like this is why.

+1

[muriel_volestrangler]

245. You mean, like talking in his weekly address about it?

President Obama's Weekly Address: Time to Replace the Sequester Cuts

Drawing attention in his weekly address to programs and services undergoing significant cuts due to sequestration, President Obama calls on Congress to approve a balanced, lasting solution for deficit reduction.

Though economic growth and creating jobs and opportunities for the middle class ought to be "our top priority," the president says, Congress allowed a series of automatic budget cuts call the sequester to "do the opposite."

"It was a bad idea then. And as the country saw this week, it's a bad idea now," he says.

President Obama points out that because of the sequester cuts, children were "kicked out of Head Start programs scrambling for a solution," seniors who depend on programs like Meals on Wheels were left "looking for help," and military military communities – "families that have already sacrificed enough" – were left to cope under the new strains.

http://www.kabc.com/common/more.php?m=58&ts=1367057102&article=ED7C50DCAF2111E286DEFEFDADE6840A&mode=2

or the White House talking about it before Congress passed the law:

Q Jay, back on the FAA and sequester. You've said two things today -- that the President thinks it's dumb policy; he has great sympathy for the people at DOT and FAA, for the travelers who have been inconvenienced, and it's up to Congress to act. So my question is, if Congress decides to act immediately by enacting some sort of change that addresses just FAA and that $637 million, separate and apart from whatever they might want to do with the President on the budget, would the President sign such legislation?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me say, first of all, that the best way for Congress to fix this problem is to replace sequestration with a smarter approach to deficit reduction. That’s how it was designed. It was this onerous law that was put before Congress to run away from and force them to take responsible action to reduce the deficit.

Unfortunately, a decision was made -- and I'm quoting Republicans here -- "to embrace sequester as a home run and a political victory," a victory for the tea party. But Congress can still act.

Now, if Congress has another idea about how to alleviate the challenges that sequester has caused for the FAA and for American travelers, we are open to looking at that and we're happy to look at it. But let's be clear: If they were to take that action -- and we would be open to looking at it -- any short-term or targeted fix to this problem is just a Band-Aid, because the fact is, there are a variety of -- a broad variety of negative effects of sequester and this is one of them.

It's the families whose kids aren't in Head Start or won't be in Head Start. It's the seniors who won't get Meals on Wheels. It's the furloughed Defense employees or those in defense industries, private sector, who are suffering and will suffer because of it.

The fact is, there are a number of negative consequences and a Band-Aid fix to this problem, while we will certainly be open to looking at it, does not solve the overall problem. The overall problem can and should be solved by embracing the basic principle supported by the American people that we should reduce our deficit in a balanced way.

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/23/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-4232013

[ctsnowman]

249. Talk is cheep. There is a war on for the soul of this country and we don't have a leader.

Not on the liberal side anyway. When they do this same shit for the MIC you'll still defend it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

258. You are ignorant of my politics

It makes you look petty and blind. What do I think about military spending? It's what I want to cut more:

It could, for instance, decide to take a bit more revenue from the portion of the population that has had the vast majority of the increase in living standards over the past 30 years - the rich. It could cut defence spending a bit. Take in another 1% of GDP in taxes from the rich, and decrease defence spending by 1% of GDP, and you just about get there.
...
2 suggested budgets: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/budget-for-all/ http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/how-not-to-make-america-great-0413?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_7422116
...
Discretionary spending is the spending that can be changed most easily. Far from being "out of our current hands", it's the first thing to examine. And over half of it is discretionary military spending - which, notoriously, the USA spends far too much on (at times approaching 50% of the world's military spending, and still typically measured as "more than the next X countries combined" - with X being around 10; and then we point out 7 or 8 of those countries are allies of the USA).

Entitlement spending, set by a formula, is what is harder to change. You can change the formula, by law - it's not in the constitution - but to do so is to break an implicit promise to US citizens. And so it's much harder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670514

[ctsnowman]

275. Agreed on the MIC part and my judgment of you.Sorry. But we will just have to disagree about Obama.

I see him as a moderate Republican from the 90s and am not happy about it.

Have a great day.

[certainot]

253. republicans bargaining power directly related to left's complete ignore-ance of RW radio

everything the cons do depends on loud repetition from 1000 coordinated radio stations and the left sticks their iPods in theirears and walks on by and then blames obama.

RW radio kicks internet ass- the GOP's backbone is that talk radio monopoly

a large percent of left activists efforts and donations are nullified merely because they let a few loudmouthed national and local jerks with giant microphones (with university sports stickers on them https://sites.google.com/site/universitiesforrushlimbaugh/ ) blast the country with coordinated corporate messaging. the left, with hardly a whimper of reaction, allows the 1%'s think tanks to create made-to-order constituencies to enable a few corporate puppets in congress and senate to obstruct anything and everything.

and then blame obama

[L0oniX]

254. Obama (R)

[ProSense]

272. Unanimous Consent-- If Not Courageous

Unanimous Consent-- If Not Courageous
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022763819

This is part of the problem

[dkf]

276. Come on you must know congress people are the ones who have to fly all the time.

They are the constituents Obama was catering to.

[Zoeisright]

284. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Yeah, right. A repuke majority in the House is CERTAINLY an ace.

[Oilwellian]

289. The mask has come off...

and it's in our face now. Don't bother calling to complain. They've flown the coup. Literally.

K&R

[ucrdem]

292. Here's what would have happened:

CNN would go 24/7 "airmageddon" and show endless scenes of inconvenienced families with adorable tots and angry soccer moms giving "that blackmailer" in the Oval office a piece of their mind. There would be incidents, there might even be fatalities. The entire fake-left punditocracy would go on TV to plead with Obama to abandon this self-destructive strategy before the country came to a standstill etc, and on Monday morning first thing he would sign the bll. And then airmageddon would continue for another month on FOX and until the next scheduled psy-op on CNN. Personally I'd glad he avoided handing them that kind material.

[kentuck]

294. Not necessarily.

Only if you look at it from a loser's point of view.

You see, the sequestration was a deal made by both Parties. The President has a bully pulpit if he just would use it. He could call a news conference and explain to the American people that the Congress wants to cut Meals on Wheels, cancer research, and Head Start for the children but they want to make sure they are not personally inconvenienced by making an exception for the flying public, but mostly for themselves. He could ask that citizens call their Congressmen and tell them to fund the programs that are more important than whether or not they might have a small wait at the airport.

There is no doubt in my mind but that this issue could and should be turned on them. But if we continue to act like beaten puppies and take the mindset that there is nothing we can do, then we are defeated from the start.

Your idea is a perfect example of what is wrong with this President and our Party.