Obama To Press Corps: I Can’t Make GOP Cooperate On Budget

[ProSense]

Obama To Press Corps: I Can’t Make GOP Cooperate On Budget

Brian Beutler

President Obama devoted several minutes at a surprise Tuesday White House press briefing to combating the conventional wisdom that it’s within his power — and the power of the presidency more generally — to make members of Congress, particularly members of the opposite party, cooperate.

But though he placed the onus on congressional Republicans to work constructively with him — specifically to replace sequestration — he did allude to an ongoing effort to provide GOP elected officials with the political cover they need to reach a budget agreement with Democrats.

Responding to a question from ABC’s Jonathan Karl that was premised on the notion that Obama might not have enough “juice” to push the rest of his agenda through Congress, Obama reminded the assembled reporters that elected officials are independent agents who reach their own policymaking decisions.

“You seem to suggest somehow these folks over there have no responsibilities and my job is to somehow get them to behave,” Obama said. “That’s their job. They’re elected, members of Congress are elected, to do what’s right for their constituents and the American people.”

- more -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/obama-to-press-corps-i-cant-make-gop-cooperate-on-budget.php

[gateley]

1. Agree with Obama on that statement -- he can not FORCE Congress to act.

They should be ashamed of themselves. Like sniveling, bullying children.

[They_Live]

98. Maybe he should just accomplish everything

through signing statements, like W.

Who cares what Congress thinks?

[gateley]

104. No Kidding. Congress could have taken an eight year recess during the Bush

administration. And now there's a President who WANTS to work with Congress, and they refuse to participate in the fucking jobs they were elected to do. Infuriating.

[kentuck]

2. "...to do what’s right for their constituents and the American people.”

Perhaps in the past?

But at this moment in history, is this a little naive? Just asking? Is he projecting onto Congress his own sincere beliefs?

[msongs]

3. Now, watch this drive. ok nt

[DevonRex]

6. That was ugly and uncalled for. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. Well, if he wanted to do what FDR who had fireside chats with consitutants who have some influence

over Congress, Obama could have regular televised conferences - on a daily basis even - to get the message through to the public. The public can put pressure on Congress, if that's what Obama wants.

As an example, Obama says that he wants to close Gitmo. But Congress won't cooperate in authorizing funds to allow it to be closed. He could invited news reporters with their camera crews down to Gitmo for a conference and some interviews.

He says that he wants to preserve Social Security. But he has not seemed to have had the time to consider raising the cap on the multi-millionaires and multi-billionairs. He could invite camera crews and news reporters to accompany him while taking a tour of the yacht clubs, the private airports, and other places where the super-rich own things and people.

He could talk about the good that he did in working with others to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the super-rich. He could take a plane trip with camera crews and newscasters to the Bahamas, Switzerland, etc., to show where some of the money went.

If he would otherwise spend his time doing other things, who is to say "That was ugly and uncalled for"?

[MannyGoldstein]

64. FDR had 600 press conferences

One a week. Because he figured it was important to have a conversation with the American people.

The results speak for themselves.

Did he ever whine that the other side was being mean? Not that I know of.

[JDPriestly]

65. Total vetoes: FDR - 635. Obama - 2.

FDR served longer than Obama, but FDR's secrets were a) communicating directly with the people through radio programs and with the press at press conferences and, b) vetoing bills he did not like. FDR had the courage of his convictions. He did not pretend too much wo be "cooperating" with people who did not care about our country.

[ProSense]

66. Total filibusters: FDR - 0, Obama - 250 +

first term. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022779783

[Number23]

68. Checkmate.

[JDPriestly]

70. Maybe if Obama used his veto more, there would be fewer filibusters.

Being nice does not work with this Congress.

[uponit7771]

91. um...what?! tia

[MannyGoldstein]

72. There were different filibuster rules then

Ones we should have again now.

[Recursion]

81. Only in that filibusters were even more effective and stopped all business

There bigger issue was that there weren't enough Republicans in the Senate to do them, which was why the ones you did see were the Mr. Smith kind.

[MannyGoldstein]

84. That's part of the difference.

Do you think that causes more filibusters, or fewer?

[Recursion]

80. Game, set, match to ProSense (nt)

[uponit7771]

90. +1

[JDPriestly]

99. If Obama used his veto more often, he would have to deal with fewer filibusters.

That's especially true if he used it on bills that specific senators or representatives want for their districts or campaign contributors or themselves.

Obama is naive and was not in politics (or a courtroom) long enough before he became president.

[ProSense]

100. That comment makes no sense.

"If Obama used his veto more often, he would have to deal with fewer filibusters. That's especially true if he used it on bills that specific senators or representatives want for their districts or campaign contributors or themselves."

What the hell kind of rationalization is that? The two actions have nothing to do with each other. If Obama vetoed a perfectly good bill, Republicans wouldn't filibuster?

"Obama is naive and was not in politics (or a courtroom) long enough before he became president. "

You're calling the President "naive" and posting illogical comments. I really believe that's a problem: people desperate to prove they're smarter (Obama is too nice. Obama is too inexperienced. Obama is young.)

[cheapdate]

79. Both houses of congress were controlled by Democrats

from FDR's party, often by wide majorities, for 14 years while he was president. I think that was also a large part of his "secret".

[JDPriestly]

85. But FDR still had a huge number of vetoes. The Supreme Court was set against FDR.

FDR threatened to add justices to get a majority he wanted.

Face it, both LBJ and FDR outsmarted Obama when it came to handling Congress.

Obama could have gotten the filibuster rules he wanted had he worked with Harry Reid, the union leaders and real liberal/progressive allies as well as gone directly to the public.

Obama needs to take more risks on the side of the left. He won't end up that far left. But he has to show a lot more openness to the left. He is simply too cautious, too scared. And this is his second term. What in the world does he think he has to lose by showing the same openness and willingness to deal with the senators and representatives to his left as he does to those on his right?

Obama seems to have the mistaken idea that those on his right are just so powerful. Is there something Obama is afraid will be revealed?

If Obama, for example, wants to close Guantanamo, he needs to show publicly that he is discussing how to do it with people on the left. He needs to talk about how much money is being spent on keeping Guantanamo open. Maybe he should even go there and talk to some of the prisoners and guards. Why not? He could take his own army unit with him if he is fearful for his person.

Obama needs to put the extreme right on the defensive.

[MineralMan]

87. How many of Obama's Saturday addresses have you listened to?

Pretty much what I thought...I imagine.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

93. I listened to him when he said that he would close Gitmo, not hire lobbyists for his Administration,

reform NAFTA, etc.

Of course, he said all that and more before being elected.

Now that he has been the President for years, what do you want people to hear from any such addresses?

[MineralMan]

94. Listen to them, and you'll hear what he says.

Don't and you'll hear only what's in your head.

It's up to you, isn't it?

[dionysus]

12. bless their little hearts, they try so, so hard...watch the tiny lil fists flail in impotent rage...

care for a truffle? I got the good gold sprinkles this time

[DevonRex]

21. Hey you! Just where have you been?

It's almost cruise missile time!

[dionysus]

43. wadsworth dragged me on another one of his blasted safaris. you know how he gets

when he's on one of his "expeditions".

[Pirate Smile]

15. Standard post from them.

[DevonRex]

22. Yep.

I was afraid to come see who else had replied to me. Whew!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. No, it was not. Obama is weak, for whatever reason.

Complicit, bought and paid for?

[dionysus]

11. your bitter tears are nectar to my soul.

[Arkana]

24. You just have a way with words, dontcha? Bless your heart.

[MineralMan]

88. Crap! nt

[uponit7771]

4. YES AMERICA!! Obama has to explain this to them...something so evident that those with eyes to see

...and ears to hear doesn't have to have this mentioned.

Bashers of course will bash and ignore the obvious

One thing Obama can do to get the GOP to cooperate with his wishes to is to be for something so they'll be against it...

[kentuck]

5. That might work?

But he also said that for political reasons or whatever, the Repubs do not want to negotiate with him.

Therefore??

Why even bother? Why not delegate it to the leaders of the Parties? Let them negotiate? If you know they will not negotiate anything with you, why waste your time? Give them a deadline to figure out a solution and then bring it to the people's attention if they fail. Stay out of the fray. You are counter-productive to any solution because the Repubs refuse to work with you. Keep the pressure on Congress to do something. Take a break, Mr President. You do not have to be involved in every negotiation.

That would be my advice.

[freshwest]

8. I think...

Obama has been allowing the continued abuse against himself for the reason explained here.

'...he did allude to an ongoing effort to provide GOP elected officials with the political cover they need to reach a budget agreement with Democrats...'

Some need cover from the batshit voters in their districts, that's a given. So he's willing to take the abuse to get the job done. He doesn't need credit.

Tha'ts what some find difficult to understand. It's not about him, it's about getting it done.

[Rex]

9. This is true and they won't.

Even though it is going to cost the GOP bigtime.

[bvar22]

10. I agree. Obama can't do this job.

As Leader of the Democratic Party
with all the might and power of the White House at his disposal,
The Bully Pulpit,
and an overwhelming MANDATE from the People for CHANGE,
he can't get the job done.

He is much better at Stand Up and Late Night Talk.
Maybe he missed his calling.

We need a Junk Yard Dog who isn't afraid of what the Republicans might say
to FIGHT for our Working Class Democratic Party Values.


[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=5]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[ProSense]

13. "He is much better at Stand Up and Late Night Talk."

Yup!

You make a great point.

Loser!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223211

[Logical]

55. "Loser" Wow Prosense, angry? n-t

[GaYellowDawg]

14. Exactly.

He had majorities in both the House and Senate when first elected. And he wasted it. He didn't want to prosecute war crimes. He wanted to reach out to Republicans. He wanted to start the healthcare debate by taking single payer and the public option off the table. He chose to ignore all the Tea Party bullshit until the movement was too large for him to squelch. He turned the biggest defeat of the Republican Party in history, when pundits were asking if the Republican Party was dead, to a Republican-held House and a Senate that bowed to the filibuster. All this in two years. Woo hoo. Nice to see where the 9-dimensional chess got him.

If someone took the same approach to buying a car that Obama has taken to the Presidency, it'd go like this:

"So, looking for a new car?"
"Yes, I am. I came to the lot for something that runs really well, gets great gas mileage, looks really sharp, and I don't get gouged in the process."
"You did?"
"Well, actually, I could do without the mileage and it could be ugly. As long as it runs really well and I don't get gouged."
"I see."
"And price is, of course, negotiable. And I think I could settle for something that runs kind of well."
"All right, sir. I've got just the car for you. Take a look at this 1991 Chrysler Model POS. It gets 9 miles to the gallon, and frankly, once you get it off the lot, it'll start smoking from the tailpipe. Sold as is, so no warranty, but I don't think you'll have to take it to the mechanic for, oh, 4 or 5 weeks. How much do you have to spend?"
"Well, I didn't really plan on spending more than $24,000. And it's not a new car."
"New car? Well, la-de-frickin-da. The price is $26,000."
"Couldn't you please go a little lower? Say, $25,700?"
"$26,000. Oh, and you're a socialist devil, so once you buy the car, we don't want your kind on the lot any more."
"$25,900?"
"$26,000. What, are you afraid of your wife?"
"She keeps telling me I can get a great new car for $22,000. Maybe less, if I would stand up to you. But what does she know? $26,000 it is."
"$28,000."
"What?"
"$28,000. I'm tired of all your unreasonable talk."
"Dammit! All right, $28,000 it is."

Later that evening...

"Yes, honey, I know I told you that we'd get a new car for $24,000, and this one is a piece of crap, and we spent more than that, but isn't it kind of a nice car? And you know, you've got to deal with a real car salesman, not some fantasy Aaron Sorkin car salesman who will actually negotiate down a little."

[railsback]

17. Typical Tea Party response.

Seriously.

Daftness knows no bounds.

[GaYellowDawg]

26. LOL!!

A typical Tea Party response would be to call him a socialist communist nazi Kenyan. Not to complain that he hasn't spent way too much time bending over backwards - or even forwards - to the Republicans.

Try not to be such a dumbass (or shall we say, daft) with your insults.

[uponit7771]

45. nope, typical tea party response is to tell half the story like the "majority in both houses" crap

[GaYellowDawg]

47. That made no sense.

A little coherence, please?

[railsback]

53. Use your own logic

Teabaggers make idiotic arguments that have NO merit, totally void of logic. Saying that in order to be a Teabagger, you have to call people socialist communist nazi Kenyans, is just a pathetic lame ass way of trying to differentiate incoherencies. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN INCOHERENCY. Peas in a pod, man.

[GaYellowDawg]

76. That's apparently what you're doing

Using your own brand of unique logic. It wouldn't qualify as logic to anyone else. All you've done is sling mud and name-call. You haven't provided a single word of argument as to why my position has no merit, or is even wrong at all. Neither are you coherent. It's ironic that you've accused me of being just like fringe Republicans when you've used the single most common tool to Republicans: projection.

As far as my assertion about Tea Partiers goes, anyone who's been watching should have no doubt that their most common words for Obama are "socialist", "communist", "Nazi", and "Kenyan", and their only other form of conversation is some kind of inchoate speech about Obama taking some kind of ill-defined rights away and taking their country back. None of which applied to my original reply, so your use of "Tea Party" was both inappropriate and, frankly, fucking stupid.

I can easily point to many occasions where Obama has been all too accommodating to Republicans. Provide something to support your opinions, or shut the fuck up.

[bvar22]

39. Typical "Tea Party Response"?

When have you heard the Tea Party criticize President Obama for NOT fighting hard enough for
Traditional Democratic Party Values?
Never?

Thats right,
and that what we are talking about.
Your broad brush unsubstantiated personal attack is much more in line with Tea Party Rhetoric and Tactics.

Why don't you go find some documentation where the Tea party has attacked Obama for NOT being Democratic enough,
and caring TOO MUCH about what the Republicans think,
and compromising capitulating TOO many times to Republicans,
and NOT fighting hard enough for the Working Class and The Poor?

We'll wait.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[uponit7771]

46. Yes, I live by Tea Part utopia...that's all they have now is a bunch of half truths

[railsback]

54. Yes

Tea Party arguments are totally void of logic. Its all based on the Magic Wand mentality.

[GaYellowDawg]

77. No

You provide absolutely no evidence to counter what I'm saying - all you're trying to do is label what I'm saying under the "Tea Party" umbrella. Not going to work without a coherent argument. Until then, you're just another name-calling asshole.

[railsback]

95. You yourself proved your own shallowness in comprehension

by stating Obama wasted opportunities when he 'controlled' both the House and Senate. FYI, the Pelosi House passed over 400 legislative pieces, one of the most productive House sessions in our history, and 3/4 of them DIED due to Republican (unprecedented) filibusters in the Senate, who filibustered EVERYTHING, even things they all agreed on. And, FYI, the Teabaggers ALSO make the SAME claim that Obama controlled Congress and did NOTHING.

Whine and snivel all you want, you are peas in a pod.

[GaYellowDawg]

105. Really?

How many of the pieces were important legislation? How many of the pieces of legislation represented major campaign promises?

Did the President initiate a massive media campaign against the filibuster? No, and he could have.
Did he get out during campaigns and target specific senators who were involved in the filibustering? No.
Did he delineate what could have been done vs. what was done? No.

FDR said, "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred."

Obama has said NOTHING like that. He could have. He's a fantastic speaker, and he could absolutely have riled the country up against the Senators employing the filibuster. FDR got on the radio on a very regular basis, defended his positions to the country, and aggressively campaigned against opposing political and societal forces. Obama has not, and that is the difference between a great president who accomplished more for the middle class and poor than virtually any other, and a mediocre president who has dealt in half-measure, compromises, and appeasement. Obama held 78 press conferences his first term. FDR had 5 years with that many or more. We all know about the Republican noise machine. Obama did little to counteract it, and lost the House as a result. He hasn't used the most effective tool of the Presidency - the bully pulpit - in any meaningful fashion. He rarely steps up to the pulpit, and when he does, there's no "bully" to it.

And the Teabaggers don't make doing nothing a major claim AT ALL. I've never seen a Teabagger sign that said, "Obama has done nothing." I've seen a lot of signs about communist, and socialist, and him with a Hitler mustache, and Kenya, and birth certificates. Lots of Gadsden flags, and "take our country back," and firearms. But never a "done nothing" sign. If you can show photographic evidence that that claim is anywhere near as common as the things I've mentioned, then you've made your point. But you won't, because you can't, and we both know it. You haven't just failed to make your point, you've failed miserably. You're just an apologist douchebag making a false equivalency. Which is, by the way, another major Republican stratagem, along with projection.

[bvar22]

111. Well Done!

Concise.
Coherent.
To the Point.

[railsback]

16. Republicans just killed background checks for guns

even though 90% of the country approved of such a measure.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY GIVE A SHIT?

Good Gawd.

[bvar22]

40. Unlike our President, I don't CARE what Republicans do or think.

I don't vote for them.
I don't send them money.
I don't campaign for them.
I don't vote for them.
I EXPECT them to be Republicans.
I don't blame dogs for being dogs,
and I expect Republicans to be Republicans.

I send my Working Class money to Democrats.
I campaign for Democrats.
I vote for Democrats.
I expect Democrats to fight FOR MY Working Class Interests.

When Democrats act like Republicans and pander to The RICH,
I feel betrayed.

When Democrats quit the fight too soon and surrender to The Minority Party Republicans,
I feel betrayed.

When Democrats don't FIGHT for Working Class Interests,
I feel betrayed.

When Democrats abandon the New Deal/Great Society and dust off old Republican Policy,
and tell me that the Republicans were right all along and this Republican Policy is GOOD for me,
I feel betrayed,
and I WILL let the Democrats hear about it.
I've been a Democrat too long to Sit Down and Shut Up.

I have been a Democrat for a LONG time,
and I know what FIGHTING for something look like and sounds like.
I also know what NOT fighting looks like and sounds like.

[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]



The problem with the Democratic Party is NOT The Republicans.
It IS The Democrats.
When a President with overwhelming approval ratings
and a BIG Popular Mandate from The People for CHANGE
can't keep his own Party in line,
and is more interested in what the Republicans are going to do,
then WE have a BIG problem INSIDE the Democratic Party.

You remember Blue Dog Senator Blanche Lincoln?
The Wicked With from Arkansas who crowed about killing the Public Option?

White House Rescues DINO Lincoln's Failing Primary Campaign in the 2010 Arkansas Democratic Primary.

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the “electability” excuse: this is a conservative state, the incumbent has the best chance to win, and the progressive challenger is out-of-step with voters. That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman. And while it would have also been difficult for Halter to beat Boozman, polls consistently showed that he had a better chance than Lincoln did. That’s unsurprising, given how much better non-Washington candidates are doing in this incumbent-hating climate than long-term Washington insiders. And it’s rather difficult to claim that Halter is out-of-step with Arkansas given that they elected him their Lt. Governor. Whatever the reasons Washington Democrats had for supporting the deeply unpopular Lincoln, it had nothing whatsoever to do with electability.

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

[font color=firebrick][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[smirkymonkey]

42. Bravo! +10,000

[DevonRex]

49. LOL!!! As you sit on your duff and type your fingers to the BONE!!!

HE was going around state to state, trying to get people to call their representatives to vote FOR GUN CONTROL. That is what fighting looks like. But that's okay. You just sit on your duff some more and type more complaints about HIM.

[bvar22]

51. He DID do a good job touring the country for modest Gun Control legislation....

...AFTER the issue had 90% Approval with the public.
"Way to get out in front on that issue Mr. President"!!!!

Looks like he got the part about standing in front of approving crowds down pat,
but the part where he has to twist arms and cut deals INSIDE HIS OWN PARTY
to Get the VOTES......another failure.

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

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

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

Meanwhile, on the BIGGEST ISSUE facing America today:
Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/?mobile=nc


Have you finished rolling on the floor,
because I'm not laughing,
and if you took a REAL look at the direction we are heading,
you wouldn't be rolling on the floor either.
(By the way, you should see someone about that.)


[font color=firebrick size=2][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of The Wealthy & The Powerful
at the EXPENSE of The Working Class and The POOR. [/font][/center]

[A Simple Game]

106. He was going around the country trying to get support for an issue that already has

85% support? Does that sound like a good use of time?

[DevonRex]

112. AND IT STILL DID NOT PASS!!!!!

Shouldn't that tell you guys SOMETHING????? Hello?

[railsback]

50. You seem to have a serious lack of understanding

of what our president has the power to do, OR the power that ONE Republican Senator has to force EVERY vote to a 60 vote threshold, OR the complete, utter animosity the current GOP has towards our country and this president. You really think Obama can just wave a magic wand and make everything wonderful? That's Teabaggin' thinking.

[bvar22]

60. Aside from your personal unsupported opinion...

...that I lack understanding and am the same as a Tea Bagger,
can you offer any documentation to support your opinion
that Obama is an inherently weak president,
and there is nothing he can do?

I have offered plenty of substance uptread to show that what you are saying is just another lame excuse,
and not a very palatable one for his legacy.

Did you see the part where the Obama White House rescued DINO Blanche Lincoln's Failing Primary Campaign against a REAL Democrat in 2010?
I was on the ground in Arkansas with Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots working to give President Obama exactly what he asked for:
a Democrat who would vote FOR a Pro-LABOR Pro-Health care agenda in the Senate.
Did you see that part?
Did you see what happened in the Arkansas Primary of 2010?

But it was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault.
He is a Big meany Bully,
and ruined it for everybody.
There was NOTHING Obama could Dooooo.
It was horrible."

You really want to stand on THAT?

Is THIS kind of LEADERSHIP too much to expect from a Democratic President?

[font size=3]"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus."[/font]
-Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

[railsback]

67. You offer nothing but fairy tales

Just as this economy will NEVER be the same after having all its resources outsourced, making all past models IRRELEVANT for comparisons, today's GOP have outsourced ALL their sanity, making all comparisons to the past IRRELEVANT. The Republicans have rigged districts, they filibuster everything, including things they support, they have their own personalized national propaganda media outlet, bought and paid for 'scientists', dark money SuperPacs, control of SCOTUS, TRILLION$ in off-shore accounts, not to mention the millions of registered Republicans who believe Obama is coming to take their guns and kill their grandmas. Go ahead and cross reference a previous model to this. THIS is the New World Order. The only chance of an immediate turn around is if this lazy electorate gets off their lazy asses and overthrows Washington. Fat chance.

Its time to wake up from that deep slumber, take a cold shower, change those soiled sheets, and come back to reality.

[Number23]

69. "take a cold shower, change those soiled sheets, and come back to reality."

Owww!! My sides!!!

[bvar22]

83. Number23, You & I are at an impasse.

I think we can ALL agree that it is not OK to fabricate False Statements (LIES) about members of DU,
and post them to DU.

Number23,
You have knowingly posted false accusations about a member of DU.
This diminishes YOU,
and it diminishes DU.

I am referring to your post #263
of the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632517
where you stated:
[font color=red][font size=3]"Those recs are obviously putting food on your table."[/font][/font]
which, of course, is an outright fabrication (polite for "LIE&quot .

I called you on your fabrication,
and asked you to support it, or retract it.
You have failed to do so,
and have knowingly left false information about another member of DU standing
with YOUR name on it.
That is much worse than making a mistake out of confusion and frustration.
That is a sign of desperation and low character.

I take that seriously.
So should you.
So should DU.

We are now at an impasse.
Any response you make to a comment of mine on DU,
or any mention of my posts or name on DU
will be followed by this post.

YOU have the power to end this.
Either support your fabrications,
or retract them.

If you have enough integrity to correct the falsehoods you posted about me,
I will amend my posts publicly calling attention to them.

Sincerely,
bvar22
DU Member since 2001

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2644074

[Number23]

101. Oh, that is comedy gold every single time you type it. Every SINGLE time.

Keep it up! But make sure you change those "soiled sheets" first.

[bvar22]

82. Now THAT is impressive.

You should send your Magic Wand to President Obama.
Yes.
The Magic Wand you waved to make "all past models IRRELEVANT for comparisons".

I have to give you credit for realizing that the ONLY way your argument holds any water at all
is if you eliminate:
*All American History
*All historical Precedent
*The performance of ALL past Presidents
*All past Economies
*All successful Economic Interventions
....and just make it ALL up as we go.

If I accept your Premise that NONE of that matters anymore,
then YOUR position IS just as valid as mine.
Unfortunately, only FOOLS and Lemmings ignore HISTORY.

You may proceed.

[railsback]

96. You live in the past

like when Jesus rode on dinosaurs.

[Number23]

102. ! Even better than the first zinger

The question now remains, will the person you are responding to now respond to me for the THIRD TIME with his astoundingly stupid "we are at an impasse" foolishness which leaves me at an loss to explain precisely how stupid that post always makes him look?

It is so funny the people around here with these massive egos. And it's usually the ones that have no business having any type of ego at all...

[bvar22]

103. You are wrong again.

I live in today,
but I REMEMBER the Past.
Especially THIS Democratic Party Past:

"
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."--FDR, Economic Bill of Rights, 1944

I EMBRACE that Democratic Party past.
It is inscribed indelibly on my soul,
as are the stories from my father and grandfather who shed BLOOD for the hard fought Union Rights of the Working Class.

Those Democratic Party Values built the Largest, Wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working Class the WORLD has ever seen.

There was a time in MY living memory when voting FOR The Democrat
WAS voting FOR those values and RIGHTS listed above.
Sadly, this is no longer true.

It is revealing that you feel we have Moved On,
and fighting FOR the above Traditional Democratic Party Values is
"Living in the Past". There are certainly those here who agree with you,
but I don't.

I won't go gently into that Good Night.
I will continue to fight for the Values listed above,
even if YOU and the other "New Democrats" (Old Republicans) have moved on.


...but you know, its OK.
Thanks to the OLD Values and Working Class Policies of the OLD Democratic Party of the PAST,
my Wife and I HAVE ours.

*We are retired and drawing OUR Social Security (thanks FDR).

*We went to college, got our degrees and graduated DEBT FREE. (Thanks OLD Democratic Party)

*We were able to find and keep GOOD jobs with high wages, benefits, and health care BEFORE "Free Trade" and "Deregulation" (Thanks OLD Democratic Party)

*We were able to buy and pay off good property back when Banking was REGULATED,
and were smart enough to Cash In before the Bubble Popped. (Thanks OLD Democratic Party that protected us.)

*When we weren't happy with a job,
we were able to quit and shop around for a better one without the FEAR of today's "Free Trade" New Democrat perpetual high unemployment and "jobless recoveries" Invisible Hand Economics.
(Thanks OLD Democratic Party)

So, thanks to the legacies from the Past and the OLD Democratic Party
we are BENEFITING from the Past, but living nicely in the present.

The Working Class could have all those things again,
IF enough people studied, embraced, and DEMANDED the PROUD Working Class Values of the Old Democratic Party, but I guess you have moved on.
Too bad.
Unless you can produce some "change" things are very bleak for the American Working Class.
They have NO voice in either Political Party today,
but at least THE RICH won't have to suffer the inconvenience of a delayed flight. (Thanks, New Democrats!)

I fear for the youth who don't KNOW the past,
and will have to repeat all the old mistakes.
The hard fought battles of the Working Class from the 30s - 60s will all have to be fought all over again.
Good Luck to you.
It wasn't easy the first time.

Those who don't know History are condemned to repeat it.


--bvar22
an old, mainstream-center FDR/LBJ loyal Working Class Democratic Party Activist for over 46 years,
now a "Fringe Leftist" in today's "New Democrat" Centrist Party.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[leftstreet]

89. +1

You should make this an OP - if you haven't already and I've missed it

[bvar22]

97. Thanks.

I'm working on it in the context of a plan for Progressives in the upcoming Democratic Primaries.
You are free to use any of the above anytime you wish.



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

[stevenleser]

18. That's ridiculous. As another responder pointed out, the 'pugs dont care if 90% of the country is

against them on something. They simply don't care.

You can show all of the pictures of crowds you want. They don't care.

[Super Iridium]

19. Obama = moderate Republican in all but name only

Obama is no different than the average moderate Republican of the last 30 years. He only starts to look and sound like a Democrat when running for election (or re-election). Hillary Clinton isn't going to be any different, by the way, but that's for another day.

As it's been observed here many times, Republican politicians fear their base; Democratic politicians despise theirs.

[Kolesar]

58. Go away...eom

[DallasNE]

20. Jonathan Karl Has Some Explaining To Do

He needs to explain what he means when he says that Obama doesn't have the "juice" to get things done.

Both of Obama's parents where PhD's and Obama himself was President of Harvard Law Review. Obama has plenty of juice. So what is Karl really saying.

It sure seems like Karl is implying that because Obama is black he doesn't have the juice to be President. If that is not what he means then he needs to tell us what he does mean because it sure came across as more dog whistle politics. And I think it would be in ABC's interest to get Karl out there and explain himself.

Given that this was a disrespectful personal attack on Obama and right to his face I think Obama handled the question with grace and tact and that is far more than I can say about Jonathan Karl.

[JDPriestly]

25. He means that Obama doesn't have the energy, drive, stubborness to get his way.

[DallasNE]

28. Bush Was A Lazy President

I don't think you can say the same thing about Obama.

[GaYellowDawg]

34. Which has nothing to do with "juice."

Obama is completely ineffectual with Congress. Completely. He can't even get Republican ideas past this Congress without putting Social Security benefits on the table. That's what "no juice" means.

Bush wasn't a bit lazy when it came to things he thought were important. Bush worked his ass off lying the country into attacking Iraq. His ideas were the worst possible ones, but he bludgeoned his way through Congress to get them all done. That's what made him such a disaster. He was extremely effective at getting the worst possible things done.

[JDPriestly]

38. Obama is not lazy. He is, however, too nice.

Republicans think you are a pushover if you are nice. Obama tries too hard to accommodate Republicans. That is not working, and it never will.

[GaYellowDawg]

27. I agree, he's got plenty of juice.

It's just that he never turns the juice loose except when he's criticizing the left. The right? The right gets no juice, except during election time. When the election's over, there's no juice for Republicans.

And "juice", racist? Please. That's just stupid. Saying that someone has no juice doesn't mean, "Hey, he's black!" It means, this guy's got no spine and no pull. When it comes to Republicans, that's absolutely true.

[DallasNE]

30. So You're Saying I'm Stupid

That sure convinced me. lol

[GaYellowDawg]

32. I'm saying your assertion is stupid.

And I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Anyone who says "no juice" is racist isn't going to be convinced of anything anyway.

[MrSlayer]

31. Juice means clout or power.

The President has none of it.

It has nothing to do with race.

[1KansasDem]

33. I thought he was referring to political capital.

[DallasNE]

37. None Of These Answers Are Satisfactory

Power, clout, political capital. Why would Obama not have these. After all, just 6 months ago he won a resounding reelection, winning the popular vote by 4.5 million. All of these responses suggest that elections don't matter. Something else is in play here. So, what is it.

[JDPriestly]

23. What does he want to force Congress to do -- cut Social Security -- enforce No Child Left Behind

and bring in more charter schools -- silence dissenters and whistleblowers -- bail out the banks once again -- return to high levels of defense spending?

Maybe if Obama himself really wanted what Americans want, maybe if he really tried to get the legislation and policies passed that he said he wanted during his last election cycle, then maybe he could get the American people 80% on his side and Congress would do what he and the American people want.

The problem is not with Congress. The problem is that Obama is more in sync with the policies that Congress wants than with those the majority of American voters want. Obama can't bring public opinion pressure to bear on Congress because the public does not support quite a large number of Obama's current policy plans.

[Rex]

29. Work.

I think he would like to force them to agree and start working.

[ProSense]

35. Well,

"What does he want to force Congress to do "

...how about any of this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022777294

...or this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043

...or this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022673679

[Logical]

56. LOL, I swear, a hired Whitehouse PR person would be less biased! n-t

[ProSense]

63. LOL!

Stupid comment.

Still, I'm enjoying the obvious lament.

[JoePhilly]

107. If you don't run around with your hair on fire, you are clearly a paid operative.

[JDPriestly]

71. Thank you.

[uponit7771]

92. bias = linking facts? tia

[stevenleser]

36. Nope, your contention doesnt work. He has 90% of the people on his side with background checks

it didnt matter, the bill still went down. Republicans don't care. They know that because of citizens united, and gerrymandering they can oppose a ton of popular bills and with the money thrown at campaigns and the districts architected the way they want, they still have a good shot to win.

[JoePhilly]

108. You'd think more on DU would get that.

[dionysus]

44. lol nt

[forestpath]

48. +1000

[LWolf]

109. +1

[bike man]

41. With so many people saying sequestration is a bad thing, and even the President apparently

not agreeing with it (or, at least parts of it), why was it signed into law?

From the excerpt in the OP "...But though he placed the onus on congressional Republicans to work constructively with him — specifically to replace sequestration..."

[bvar22]

62. Becuase "they" got exaxctly what they want....for the 1%.

Now that the precedent has been set that the Sequestration is Flexible and Ammendable,
we WILL see a continual dismantling of the parts that cause the slightest inconvenience to THE RICH, while the Working Class and The Poor get to shoulder ALL the pain of the cuts.
But it won't be ANYBODY'S fault,
and there is NOTHING they can Doooooo.

Aside from that,
did you enjoy the Kabiki Theater?
These guys are smooth,
and I have to admit that they had me going for a while with the "Shared Sacrifice" scam,
but then I realized that I've seen this one before,
and it ends badly for the Working Class & The Poor.



[font size=3]Hold on to your memories,
Because we're TAKING everything else,
and ain't NOBODY gonna stop us!
Hahahahahahahaha!

[bowens43]

52. More bullshit excuses

[still_one]

59. Really, and what do you think he could do. When the racist party, er, repuke part does not want to

Deal with an African American

[Kolesar]

73. The sad types who can't write complete sentences love threads like this

They were in their glory a few weeks ago with their "chained CPI" jerk-a-thon.
"All you non-donors, join the circle"

[still_one]

74. That is a valid issue, which the President deserves every single bit of criticism he gets. However,

the fact remains, that the repukes will not talk with the "African American" in the White House, because the republican party IS RACIST. This administration along some Democrats have caved into the repukes on everything, including the ACA, compromising SS, etc. even though many of those proposals he presented are straight out of the repuke policies. The COLA proposal is outrageous, and not only have I condemned this administration for it, I have written him, with a response that did NOT even address my points which were, that SS has nothing to do with the deficit, and we should NOT be touching it.

The criticism I have was that the press does not recognize the fact that this administration has done everything to appease the repukes, and they still won't work with him, not on the substance of his proposals which are garbage.

[still_one]

57. True, then that prick Ed Henry asks the president why they are blocking people from testifying

About Libya

The president says he does not know anything about that

I'll tell you what I think Henry pulled that source out of his fat ass, which is Fox News who make shit up

Faux news is a disgrace

[ProSense]

75. Ed Henry is a clown. n/t

[Larkspur]

78. Technically he is right.

The Executive is the weakest branch of the 3 defined in our Constitution.
However, it's imperial in the realm of foreign affairs. That power is starting to hinder the domestic side as wars are expensive and lead to increasing the national debt.

Obama's problem has been in his naivete that Republican congressmen were just putting on a show for the public with their attacks on him but would be reasonable with him in private and when the votes really mattered. He never believed, despite the evidence to the contrary, that Republicans would be willing to sacrifice the health of our nation for their narrow minded political ideology.

Obama might have been playing 3 dimensional chess, but the Republicans were playing war.

[kentuck]

86. The fly in the ointment:

“You seem to suggest somehow these folks over there have no responsibilities and my job is to somehow get them to behave,” Obama said. “That’s their job. They’re elected, members of Congress are elected, to do what’s right for their constituents and the American people.”
=========

No, Mr President, they are elected to hold you at bay and to keep you from passing any of your socialist agenda until they can get back in power. At least, that is what they believe.

[judesedit]

110. Can't make brain-dead cloned robots do much of anything, obviously. Useless parasitic slugs. Sorry

you had to get stuck with these losers, President Obama.