I really don't understand some of the sentiment here...

[MsKandice01]

Yesterday, I had a conversation with my very Republican boss, who does not associate himself with the Tea Party. We were discussing the debt ceiling deal and I said the Democrats got screwed because we got nothing out of the deal. He said, "Yes, you did, you got your debt ceiling raised."

It really drove him the point to me that the Rethugs and the Tea Party had taken the nation hostage over this debt ceiling deal. They really couldn't care less if they drove us off a cliff, as long as they got their way. Obama wasn't in a typical negotiating position, he had to take on the role as a hostage negotiator. A hostage negotiator is tasked with the objective of rescuing the hostages. A hostage negotiator doesn't receive concessions from the hostage taker and often has to offer concessions to them in order to get the hostages released, which is what Obama did. As long as these wreckless, hostile, unwavering Rethugs and the Tea Party have control over the House, Obama and the Dems are constantly going to be in hostage negotiator mode, which is never going to yield a positive result for the Democratic Party.

The ONLY way to remedy this is to win back the House in 2012. There really is no alternative.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Interesting analogy. Recommended. nt

[William769]

2. a hostage negotiator, never creates the hostage situation to begin with. NT

[MsKandice01]

3. How exactly did he create it?

[William769]

5. December 2010.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. +10000

[MsKandice01]

9. If you think there was any way in hell...

That he was going to be able to get a tax hike on the richest Americans through the Senate, then I don't think you're looking at the reality of the situation. It was not going to happen. But he at least got an extension on unemployment benefits.

[boston bean]

26. the tax cuts were the only leverage he had. He should have tied the debt ceiling to that. nt

[JVS]

122. BINGO!!! If you have something they want and you foresee them having something you need...

then you don't let them have it without getting what you need.

[treestar]

195. Had anyone thought of that at the time?

No one can foresee everything.

[Armstead]

67. They should have started that battle early in 2009

Submit a middle class extension of cuts and and expiration of cuts for the top incomes early on, and keep submitting and resubmitting it. When the GOP continually blocked it, keep reminding voters, "Republicans want to block your tax cut to protect the obscenely wealthy."

Either the GOP would have kept resisting -- which would have given Obama and the D's more ammo in the 2010 election -- or they wold have eventually caved because of the political fallout on them.

EVEN IF that hadn't worked, at least Obama and the Dems would have actually tried, instead of wallowing in passive impotence.

[JVS]

123. He could have had the lame duck congress raise the debt ceiling sky high.

Or he could have used the Bush tax cuts to negotiate it.

[Schema Thing]

11. what happened then?

[seabeyond]

12. so, he should have thrown the unemployeed under the bus? nt

[William769]

14. As compard to all of the people thrown under the bus now. NT

[seabeyond]

19. you didnt answer. he should have allowed all those people to not get unemployment? nt

[Armstead]

68. It should NEVER have come to that point

please see my post above for one possible alternative

[uponit7771]

75. You're not answering the question.....this is typical

[Armstead]

83. I am directly answering the question

Democrats should never have ignored a fight they long knew was coming, and then had to scrambled at the last second to do damage control AFTER the GOP has pressed their backs to the wall.

That is what every one of these manufactured "crises" is about. Bush tax cuts, budget, debt ceiling.....Dems ignore an issue, while the GOP plans for it, and the Dems are placed in the helpless victim role and lose unnecessarily as a result.

[TheKentuckian]

182. It should have never came to that. The extensions should have been indexed to the unemployment rate

in the very beginning. Once that train left the station, we should have never went in for trying to use the benefits as a bludgeon by setting up for regular short extensions rather than doing the right thing and going long term.

I think there were a couple of misguided camps, one that felt they could beat up the TeaPubliKlans forever forcing them to vote against benefits or break with their base and vote for them and another that wanted folks to slip off to make unemployment appear better than it is.

Failing that, there was no choice but to end the hyper insane cuts even if it meant losing the extensions and I say that as someone that was completely dependent on those benefits and would have been literally homeless without them. That was my stance at the time knowing what would happen to me personally. That deal put us all under the gun along with the entire economy.

We're talking 60 billion in benefits for three quarters of a trillion in budget busting, job killing, agenda crippling cuts. Plus, a single year deal means we will come to the exact same pass in a few months. What do you think we should pay the hostage takers this time? Or will we suddenly get a case of amnesia about the millions that will be thrown under the bus without a whimper this time?

You do understand we are eating the seed corn, right? You do understand that there will always be more hostages? You do know that with each ransom we have less and less to bargain with while the demands will grow more extreme?

How many more will now be unemployed or have their incomes diminished? How will we get benefits for them?

This is exactly why the monstrosity should have been rescinded, first order of business. We'd bee better off without the cuts than even with the nearly half, jackass tax cuts stimulus by not allowing the hole to become the better part of two trillion dollars deeper.

Nothing is happening in a vacuum, the effects ripple throughout the economy and now matters are worse and will grow agonizingly worse between lack of revenue, crushing demand, continuing to encourage hoarding, and making the dire mistake of giving in to psychopaths with the appetite of a thousand solar mass black hole who are encouraged to keep going to the well to run it dry.

Nope, there is no way to say the pain (and it would have been harsh) of losing the extensions could equal what we set ourselves on the path to by making the deal. Hell, the loss of demand will result in much, much more damage and pain. It is like triage in the ER put the hospitals resources into saving one person and let ten more die that are much more likely to survive because we have zero stick to continue the benefits when they are no less needed other than extending the tax breaks again and superseding the last raw deal which will make matters that much worse and eventually spell the effective end not only of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but everything else the government does to aid the people and grow the economy.

The whole deal has been plagued either by severe lack of strategic vision or an epic ratfucking by our "leadership". Neither is acceptable.

[sabrina 1]

198. No, he should have allowed that issue to be part of the

2010 campaign. Instead they took it 'off the table' knowing full well that it would harm Republicans at the polls and instead stated it would be discussed AFTER the election.

They did the same thing with the Bush Tax Cuts, also an issue that would have harmed Republicans had it been part of the campaign. As soon as many of us saw that we predicted that a deal had been made and using UI would emotionally manipulate anyone on the Dem side who did not want the Bush tax cuts extended.

Why did Dems, who had the majority at that time, tie the Bush tax cuts to the Unemployment extenstion?

And as we now know, those millionaires made an awsull lot more out of the deal than the unemployed. Not to mention, that extension runs out, what will happen to the longterm unemployed now? Do you think Republicans will extent them again?

I really wish people would not fall for these tricks. This is why they keep playing them.

The UI extension should NEVER have been tied to the Bush Tax Cuts. IT simply didn't have to be.

[Ruby the Liberal]

+1

[CakeGrrl]

138. The President did not put Teabaggers in the House.

And don't bother with the "Wah, wah, he didn't give anyone a reason to vote Dem."

Those Representatives don't know how to campaign for themselves? They don't know how to compare themselves favorably to their opponents?

VOTERS didn't get off their asses. That's how Teabaggers get elected.

You and I and everyone else are responsible for completing and submitting our ballots.

Why didn't Feingold hold his seat?

Why didn't Grayson hold his seat?

The President was out on the stump repeatedly telling Americans not to give the keys back to the GOP.

America fell for the misinformation of the MSM and now America is paying for it.

And until they're voted OUT, you will continue to see them take more hostages.

What happens when the captor is willing to destroy more than you? How do you deal with them when they're there to stay unless the American people vote to get rid of them?

[William769]

140. How many teabaggers were in the house in December 2010?

They weren't seated till the following month.

So much for your "Wah, wah".

[CakeGrrl]

143. Yes, the 2010 GOP was content to only hold UI benefits hostage.

And the President wasn't willing to let that hostage get shot either.

Guess you wouldn't have minded that collateral damage if it didn't affect you directly.

[William769]

144. He had a majority in both chambers.

Want to keep trying. Or just call it quits & blame his lack of leadershipo skills.

On EDIT: changed houses to chambers.

[spooked911]

186. exactly-- and what ended up happening was so very predictable

depressing all the way around

[joeybee12]

4. Very good point...it's appalling that people are still making excuses for Obama..nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Only thing wrong with the analogy

When the hostage taker tells you he is gonna kill a hostage.. That is a trigger to send the tactical team.

Another. You always assume the hostages are dead and it is a bonus point when you get them out alive.

Thst is the real life of hostage taking. Our negotiator does not understand this.

[txlibdem]

63. Agreed, except: Our negotiator understands exactly what is going on... and approves

The Capitulator In Chief does exactly what he is supposed to do. First he makes speeches telling us he will stand firm. Then when the criminals begin their assault, instead of taking them out one by one, he capitulates to their every demand (getting nothing for the hostages in the bargain I might add). And then he holds a press conference praising a job well done, "it was the best deal we could get."

That's no negotiator, that's a secret member of the hostage takers gang.

[RegieRocker]

8. And what did they accomplish when they had it?

[MsKandice01]

15. Not as much as I would have liked...

But the Senate filibustered almost every bill that came to it. We only had a filibuster-proof majority for about 4 months.

[Dr Fate]

52. Wildly popular corporate mandated healthcare. BP crisis handled. We addressed the Bush tax cuts.

Things would have gotten even worse had Obama done or not done whatever he did or did not do.

[muffin1]

55. +1

:thumbsup:

[ljm2002]

10. "your" debt ceiling?????

What bullshit.

Previous presidents and their parties never had to beg to have the debt ceiling raised. Only this time has it been assigned to our president and our party.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. It's bullshit, but it explains what's going on.

They wanted the debt ceiling bill to fail because they wanted the debt ceiling bill to fail. They want the chaos that this would have caused.

When Obama said "I don't think anyone wants to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the US" he was wrong.

Teabaggers are maladapted kids playing with matches.

And we have a president who thinks a good compromise solution is to meet half way between what they now demand and what they demanded last time.

[seabeyond]

13. btw, raise the debt ceiling is a given and should be. has been with every other pres, thus far. nt

[MsKandice01]

16. It should be....

But we're not dealing with your typical opposition here.

[seabeyond]

18. and i totally agree with you. i was addressing your boss. but you are right

people with the intent to create chaos and destruction are not people you can call a bluff on. it is the many man thing to do, but then look what that got us with bushie. we would like to call them on it. allow them to take us to destruction so we didnt cave, but again, look at bushie.

bring it on. and they brought it on.

that was fun

[EFerrari]

17. Obama is in a dwindling spiral.

He did nothing about jobs those first two years, so we lost the House.

Losing the House (and Obama's lack of foresight or his agreement on fiscal matters) gave Republicans leverage in this deal.

This deal will further tank the economy and kill job growth.

Unemployment could/will cost us 2012.

[MsKandice01]

20. What exactly was he supposed to do about jobs??

Do you have any specific ideas??

[LaydeeBug]

29. Yes. INVEST IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. Use the bull pulpit to call them to the mat on this...

Oh, that's right. Another round of golf.

[MsKandice01]

31. He did....

With the stimulus. Was the stimulus big enough?? Not for my tastes but would he have been able to pass a larger one? I'm not so sure.

[EFerrari]

35. No, it was too small and he was warned about that at the time. n/t

[LaydeeBug]

62. perzactly. nt

[EFerrari]

34. If the only thing he did was call a foreclosure moratorium

over the illegal foreclosures (that still continue today), he could have saved jobs after the crash. Those foreclosures are decimating whole neighborhoods and that has a domino effect.

And his stimulus effort was too small, as most credible economists predicted to him at the time.

And, he talked a big game about shovel ready infrastructure projects that never materialized.

There's a whole menu he could have chosen from. Instead, he shored up Wall Street and hoped Reagan was right about trickle down economics.

[PufPuf23]

197. Yes but the opportunities have all been squandered.

1. Don't hire a neo-liberal economic team.

2. Trust bust "too big to fail", re-instate Glass-Steagall, confiscate ill gotten gains, and imprison. This is what happened under FDR, after the S&L crisis (Resolution Trust Corp), and Black Friday in 1987. People went to jail and were barred from the securities industry for life eg Neil Bush (banned) or Mike Miliken, Boyd Jefferies, and Ivan Boetsky -- the model for Gordon Ghecko - who were banned, paid fines and jail time but still made out like bandits.-

3. Put the stimulus into the bottom of the economy and not the top.

4. Lower rates for everyone with under say $100,000 income and have a progressive higher tax rates on higher incomes.

5. Raise tax rates on capital gains and inheritances.

6. Have government run work programs modeled after WPA, CCC, CETA, TVA, etc. There is no "right" size of government but a government to fit the times.

7. Make illegal synthetic securities that cannot be rationally valued, more Wall Street regulation (be up their butts with a flashlight) and put a transaction tax on trades.

etc. The solutions are not rocket science.

[closeupready]

28. I certainly see that. It's sad, but you know, we've

tried phoning, faxing, yadda yadda and he's just not listening. So fine, don't listen, but that's why your numbers are dropping. But what do I know...

[closeupready]

32. Obama is also a relative political amateur, and

the GOP played him on this. We need MORE government spending to stimulate the economy, not LESS, and the Republicans KNOW that. Therefore, they knew DAMN WELL they could get a twofer out of this - no tax increases for their constituency and no economic stimulus leading to continued stagnation which also serves to damage Obama's numbers.

[EFerrari]

36. Yep, he's going to run with even bigger unemployment in 2012.

[JVS]

127. When it breaks 10% officially, it will be bad news.

[EFerrari]

155. Yep. Although I hear there are more peole no longer being counted

than are being counted. Not good for our people.

[loyalsister]

132. Are the people who call Obama a political amateur high level elected officials?

or at least consultants and\or congressional aides\assistants? Or are they people who have watched the West Wing and CNN and therefore think they can determine who is an amateur and who is a professional?

[closeupready]

134. Right, because we know Tiger Woods is an experienced professional only because other pros tell us,

not because he has how many trophies and many millions from all his endorsements. :crazy: :eyes:

[loyalsister]

142. Right

Of course someone who rapidly rises through the pipeline of elected office, manages to get people with influence on his side, and raises enough money to even run for national elected office is obviously not ready for prime time until he accomplishes everything on the wish list of every person who votes for them. :eyes:

[closeupready]

148. Let's leave George W. Bush out of this discussion please.

nt

[loyalsister]

153. LOL

Yeah, it seems ridiculous to consider that privilege and legacy have any influence in politics.

[JVS]

125. The problem is that he makes bad deals and each time loses political capital.

Which leads to even worse deals.

[daa]

21. What like we did in 2008? Really. nt

[DefenseLawyer]

22. Except according to many, it was the President

who would not accept a simple up or down vote on the debt limit, but rather wanted to use the opportunity to make a "grand bargain" that allowed him to move to the right prior to the election.

[MsKandice01]

24. According to who??

Do you have a link??

[JoePhilly]

38. I have one, it shows how the House voted down a clean debt ceilign increase.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/house-gop-medicare-debt-limit_n_869468.html

[DefenseLawyer]

41. The politics of austerity look better than the economics

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/politics-of-austerity-look-better-than-the-economics-20110711


It won't be hard for you to find plenty of stories about the White House "grand bargain" strategy in the debt limit "negotiations".

[JoePhilly]

37. Except, the House voted on a clean debit limit increase, and it FAILED!!

Here ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/house-gop-medicare-debt-limit_n_869468.html

I'm amazed so many on DU don't know this.

The tea party's main goal was a default. That or the end of social security and medicare.

They are suicide bombers, they don't care if they kill themselves and the rest of us, just so long as Obama loses.

They will burn this country to the ground in their insane effort to "save it".

We better figure this out.

[EFerrari]

44. You're right about the tea klan but that vote was in June.

The Democrats allowed the tea klan to dance all over them instead of insisting on the same ceiling raise that every other president got. And that's likely because Obama wants to run on some version of fiscal responsibility. Well, he just screwed his own job growth.

[JoePhilly]

66. So what that it was in June (actually end of May I believe) ...

Read the article ... and do the math, it was voted down 319 to 97.

That means that, some how, you think Obama could get 100 votes to switch, in the House, where the GOP has about 240 seats.

Can you explain how Obama gets 100 House votes, most of them Republicans who hate his guts more than they love the country, to switch?

Please ... I'm all ears ... oh ... when you explain how, can you also tell me how he gets Boehner to bring that bill back up for a vote again?

If I recall, Boehner, as speaker gets to decide the legislative priorities. And during the June (late May) vote on this, Boehner knew it would be defeated by a large margin.

If he thought he didn't have the votes, it would not come up again.

And even if we add in all the other Dems (including those who voted AGAINST the clean bill) what leverage do they have?

You think the media was going to help ring this bell?

Sorry ... the GOP has gone nuts, and a clean bill was never going to happen. but I'll wait for some one to lay out specifics of how they get these numbers to work out. But I just don't see it.

[EFerrari]

90. Yesterday, bonds didn't even flinch. Wall Street wasn't even worried

about a default. And yesterday, Biden said Obama was prepared to used the 14th.

So, you tell me, with a safety hatch and no real crisis but only a tea klan tantrum, why did the Democrats allow this situation to even develop?

Of course, it's always better to be seen as collegial. But this deal, which could tank his re-election is of Obama's own doing.

[Armstead]

92. Starting in Jan. Obama and the Dems should have submitted and resubmitted and resubmitted....

And actually sell that as the solution -- and educate the public about it -- and point out all along the way that the GOP ios threatening to tank the economy.

No guarantees it would have averted what happened. But there's a good chance it would have -- and if not, at least the blame would squarely be placed on the shoulders of the GOP Teabaggers.

[EFerrari]

39. Obama inserted "entitlements" into the discussion, per John Conyers for one.

[JoePhilly]

72. Entitlements have been on the table for decades.

They exist. The GOP is regularly trying to kill them.

Obama did not "insert" them.

And btw ... wasn't the prevelant DU prediction that Obama was using this debt ceiling debate so that he could cut, slash, gut, dismantle, those programs?

Yet it didn't happen. I have to wonder "why not?" ... I mean if this was Obama's intent, this seems to have been the perfect opportunity to make it happen.

The Tea Party would have supported it.

But it didn't happen.

Odd.

[EFerrari]

101. Are you saying John Conyers is lying?

[B Calm]

23. You don't deal with terrorists, it made him look weak. He should have used the 14th.

[LaydeeBug]

25. Back when we controlled BOTH HOUSES, he did the Republicans bidding ANYWAY.

Allen Simpson on a cat food commission anyone?

Public option? Oh that's right, then they were beholden to the Gang of six. This time, it's the tea baggers.

See? WE COULD HAVE A FUCKING SUPER MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES AND HE WILL GIVE IT TO THEM THIER WAY.

When are we going to wake up and realize Obama is NOT one of us? He never even pretended to be.

[MsKandice01]

33. The Blue Dogs in Congress wouldn't have voted for a public option...

The Democratic Party is a whole is not as progressive and we would like to pretend they are.

[kctim]

47. Bingo!

[LaydeeBug]

60. suuuuuure. Because the gang of six hold more clout than Obama.

:eyes:

[kctim]

111. No, because not all Dems favor a public option

[Dr Fate]

119. Then the liberals refused to send money to them during the midterms.

Good thing the anti-PO moderate and centrist activists in our base were on hand to pick up the slack.

[kctim]

129. Wouldn't have mattered

if the liberals supported the Party in the midterms or not, those voters were pissed at another government mandate. And since the PO is a government mandate and the HCR bill we got is a government mandate, many opted to vote against those who supported it. That one bill gave control of the House to the Republicans.

[Dr Fate]

131. Exaclty- Tea-Baggers would have hated either one, so I'm glad we went with mandates.

B/c it is better than a PO, and much easier to explain to voters how they will be forced to buy a product from a corporation, as opposed to having a service they could choose to use or not.

Tea baggers would have hated either one, and we would have lost the midterms either way, so I'm glad we at least went with the better, more centrist plan.

[kctim]

136. Who cares about what the Tea Party wants?

We were talking about moderate Dems and why they voted against those "Blue Dogs" who lost in the midterms. The same moderate Dems who would have stood behind their Democratic Rep if not for any government mandate regarding health care.

[Dr Fate]

137. Obama assured us that we needed to hear them out and compromise with them.

Who cares what the tea party wants? Adult centrists in the Democratic party who realize that compromising with them and caring what they want is a good thing.

[kctim]

146. This has nothing to do with the Tea Party

President Obama knew he did not have Democratic support for a public option or universal health care plan. President Obama knew doing nothing would not help those who truly need aide, so he took a gamble and fought for something and got support for it. Unfortunately, it also had a government mandate and while the moderate Dem reps accepted it, their constituents did not.

[Dr Fate]

150. If that is what we are all now saying, fine. I'll go with that.

Yes- the Tea Party had nothing to do with how Democrats framed the HC issue.

We already agree that Obama should not have fought for the PO at all, since he already knew the Blue Dogs and the Tea Party opposed it. (On edit- scratch that part about the tea party- they had nothing to do with this)

I'm for whatever the other centrists are saying.

I'm just glad we got the mandates instead of being stuck with some rotten old PO. The Blue Dogs and the Tea Partiers never would have allowed it anyway. (On Edit: scratch that part about the tea party- they had nothing to do with this)

[LaydeeBug]

58. They're called WHIPS for as fucking reason.

Again, the bully pulpit requires a LEADER who will USE IT, not just sit on his hands and concede defeat without so much as a fight.

[Dr Fate]

65. And Obama COUNTED their votes several times, but the Liberals would not believe him.

They kept saying- "fight for the votes-fight for the votes."

But Obama calmly assured them that he had already counted them, thank you very much. He was not going to tlet the far left fool him into fighting for something that Blue Dogs were against.

I think his strategy worked too, but I realize it is unpopular to actually express SUPPORT Democratic strategy here on Democraticundergound.

[JoePhilly]

45. These hysterics are hilarious.

I'm curious, that commission ... have we adopted its recommended cuts in Social Security or Medicare?

No.

That makes me wonder, if Obama is so hell bent to slash and gut those, why didn't that happen?

The PO ... wake up. There were about 5 Dem Senators who were not going to vote for it. But let's play make believe, I'll spot you 4 of those 5 ... now ... explain to me how Obama gets Joe "the Senator from Aetna" Lieberman, to voet YES.

Just explain what SPECIFIC actions Obama could have used to flip Lieberman.

Oh, when you answer, please also make sure to indicate the leverage Obama has with Joe given that (1) Lieberman isn't planning to run for re-election, and (2) Lieberman endorsed McCain over Obama in the 2008 election.

I can't wait to see how you would have flipped Lieberman if you were President.

And feel free to type in all CAPS if you need to.

[LaydeeBug]

64. Oh, I know...it's a SCREAM!!!

My God, you're right. There was NOTHING he could have done. The 14th Amendment doesn't exist, and we are supposed to allow our safety net to be beholden to teabaggers because GOD FORBID Obama uphold his oath and protect us from that domestic threat.

It's true. He's perfect. Forgive me for even thinking he should be a Democrat, and not a Republican. Really. He's perfect. Everything is great. he wants you to have a pony.

[JoePhilly]

86. Didn't say he was perfect ... simply asked you to explain

HOW Obama gets Lieberman to flip on the PO.

Can you do that ... ??

And the safety net is fine. Nothing has happened to it ... other than the GOP is attacking it again ... like they did under Bush 2 , under Clinton, under Bush 1, and under Reagan.

[Armstead]

98. Might have started with a PR campaign to rally voters in CT for it

And behind the scenes quietly mention defense contracts that are up for review in CT.

Things like that. Just a couple of ideas off the top of the head.

AT LEAST F'n try instead of making excuses.

[JoePhilly]

110. Ok, at least you are trying ... I appreciate that ...

Let's tackle both ...

1) What are you rallying the CT voters to do? Lieberman had already said he's not going to run for re-election. And even if he was, he won in 2008, as an Independent, mainly thanks to Republican votes. If Lieberman WAS running again, maybe there is something here. But he's not.

2) Ok ... this one I like too. I've seen other versions of it. And think this is a realistic approach. So let's follow it in the Lieberman case.

First, if this approach happens "behind the scenes" how would you know that Obama didn't "F'n try" it? Isn't it possible that he DID "F'n try it"? You'd never know ... but skip that ...

Second ... do we want the President using defense contracts as a way to pay off / punnish, Senators? Personally, I'm against any President using the military and defense for political purposes ...

Third ... having said #2, I'm not so naive to think it doesn't happen all the time. So let's say we take that path. Disgusting, but let's do it. How does Obama get the rest of the Dems in the Senate to go along? Obama can't just make the threat. He needs a way to be able to carry it out. Thoughts on how?

[Dr Fate]

115. There is no way a President with a majority can twist arms or carry out any threats.

Unless we need to make the liberals support more war spending or unless we need to make liberals compromise with the far right on budget issues.

Twisting the arms of Blue Dogs and pro war, economic centrists? Just plain silly. Not gonna happen. What would be the point of that after counting the votes not once, not twice, but many, many times?

As far as the call for Obama to twist the arms of centrists, Liberals were just trying to fool Obama into getting into a fight with Blue Dogs- one they knew he could not win. Then they were going to come out and say "See- Obama is just a corporate hack- he cant even win a fight with Blue Dogs..."

Obama fooled them by never giving them the chance to point this out.

[Armstead]

118. Many carrots and sticks available

I was being a bit crude with the defense contract stuff, I realize. I don't like the idea of buying votes with unrelated matters either. But, unfortunately that's the way things are done, and if it can be done to accomplish good results, might as well.

Regarding rallying the CT voters. Maybe it would not have worked, but there is a chance that there is still a human being somewhere inside of Joe, and he doesn't want to get tarred and feathered and be friendless when he goes back to CT. And he probably doesn't want to be totally frozen out of the cushy lobbying job he's probably angling for either.

Those are just a couple of ideas. My main point is that time after time, I see all the pressure being put onto liberals and progressives to "swallow it" while conservatives are catered to.

And also I get frustrated when I see many lost opportunities to avert last-second disasters and the need for half-baked emergency solutions long before they start

And I'm just an average putz, not a political rocket scientist....Which raises a lot of questions about why the supposed smartest guys in the room don't see such opportunities and at least try harder to get what the base (not only hardcore progressives) wants, like a public option or a "clean" raising of the debt ceiling....At least not giving up the fight against the GOP before it starts.

[LaydeeBug]

103. Really? MAYBE DO ANYTHING AT ALL would be a start...instead of taking it off the table

like he did.

I don't need perfect. Just someone who will fight, and do what he said he was going to do every once in a while. Because each and every time he has needed to step up and fight, he has bent over and grabbed his ankles. Instead of DOING ANYTHING AT ALL he fucking caved.

[JoePhilly]

114. That would have made better sense in all caps ...

You continue to repeat yourself ... and then, mangle what I said.

For instance, you took the position that I must think Obama is perfect. I said I don't think he is perfect. Then you said that you don't need him to be perfect ... I never suggested that you did.

I asked you a few reasonable questions about the actual math required to move legislation given the structure of our government.

You respond with claims of "ankle grabbing".

Thanks for helping to prove my point. Many of those screaming the loudest can't do that math either.

[Dr Fate]

73. Exactly Obama fooled Liberman by not even trying.

NOTHING could have been done to make Lieberman flip.

No calling him out by name, no asking the base to go after him, no listing his conflicts of interest, no debating him on the issues-nothing.

NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. And even if there weer something, it would NOT have been his style or it would not have been in good taste.

I think the Liberals were trtying to make Obama look silly or trying to make him fail as to going after Blue Dogs.

Obama fooled them by not even giving them a chance.

[jeff47]

76. You just have to know what makes Joe tick.

"Just explain what SPECIFIC actions Obama could have used to flip Lieberman."

Joe, if you don't vote for this we're cutting aid to Israel.

[JoePhilly]

81. That's actually one of the better responses I've received ...

I don't think it works, because Obama would never be able to make that go in the COngress ... but I think you are correct that THAT issue is one Lieberman cares a great deal about.

My favorite response so far was ... use the DOJ to dig up dirt on him. That was a serious proposal.

[myrna minx]

27. Why did the President accept and use the radical right wing framing?

The moment he accepted their terms and worked within the confines of their radical worldview, we lost.

[LaydeeBug]

30. He did it during Health Care too. Only we controlled both houses then nt

[myrna minx]

40. This is what frustrates me the most about these so called "crisises".

Why does he inhabit and adopt their radical right wing framing and then claim to fall "victim" to their hostage taking? I'm completely baffled as to where he stands on anything. :-(

[closeupready]

48. Because he's an amateur who is unsure of how to outmaneuver people like McConnell

and Hatch and Grassley, all of whom have been at this game for decades and play as a team. And it pains me to say that because as much as anyone, I wanted to see him succeed, very very much. But, there's only so much his supporters can do.

[JoePhilly]

49. You mean a debt ceiling driven default would not be a crisis?

Actually, every credible economist agrees that a DEFAULT would be a crisis.

It is a manufactured crisis, only in the sense that the GOP is happily willing to allow it to happen.

Normally, the potential for a default never becomes a crisis because no party has ever threatened to allow it to happen.

In this case, mush of the GOP House actually wants that crisis to occur. That is their intent. That would be their PRIZE.

That is what they want more than almost anything else.

[myrna minx]

53. Why does he accept their radical framing of these arguments?

On Edit -

It didn't need to get this far - the President had a powerful position and can profoundly influence the debate. Instead he accepted their worldview and worked within their narrow and dangerous frame. I don't understand why time and again he does this.

[LaydeeBug]

54. Meaning there would have been a clean bill had he fought for it

Notice Bill Clinton got that shit done when democrats controlled neither house and they WERE IMPEACHING HIS ASS.

And you don't think Obama could have done more? Jesus H Christ.

[JoePhilly]

78. A clean bill failed in the House, you know that, right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/house-gop-medicare-debt-limit_n_869468.html

It failed 319 - 97.

Now ... please feel free to explain how Obama flips 102 House votes from AGAINST a clean increase to FOR a clean increase.

Because this is a math problem ... please show your work.

[myrna minx]

82. Please explain to me why the President works within the narrow and radical

framework of the teabaggers and not from the Democratic economic position of strength (which is supported by the vast majority of the American People?)

[Dr Fate]

87. Because you never win if you refuse to compromise.

I think the tea baggers will realize that one day.

[MsKandice01]

88. Because the vast majority of the American People don't get a vote in Congress

Only those who are elected...and the majority in Congress are NOT on the American people's side.

[Dr Fate]

93. Which is why it was so important for Obama to compromise with them.

The majority in Congress are NOT on the American people's side, which is why Obama was correct to tell us that we need to compromise with them.

Sometimes being a grown up means that we have to promote compromise with people who we know are not on the side of the American people.

[JoePhilly]

91. So you aren't good at math then?

Your statement above does nothing to move those numbers.

A clean bill would have needed 217 votes for it. It got 97.

How SPECIFICALLY do you as President get enough GOP votes.

[myrna minx]

95. Why does he make his arguments within the confines of the radical tea party

framing? He could make his own arguments from the Democratic Party position, instead he chooses to work within the radical framework of the teabagging framing. Why is this?

[Dr Fate]

96. Liberals also said Obama should swim in the ocean and plug up the BP hole himself.

We are not dealing with people who are willing to work within the politics of the possible.

[myrna minx]

104. So all I receive is an insult to my intelligence? That's not very helpful. n/t

[JoePhilly]

116. I asked a very specific question ... about the math ...

Can you answer it?

I'm sorry if I seemed insulting, but I ask the math question regularly. And almost every time I do, on any issue in which the DU theme is "Obama was bad" ... no one can make the math work out.

They can't describe specific ways to change the vote counts ... but they regularly skip the direct question and go in some other direction.

So I'm still there ... there were 319 votes in the House against a clean bill. 97 votes for it.

How do you change that math so that a clean bill passes?

If you are President, what do you do?

[Dr Fate]

117. SIGN IT, and smile while doing it. That is what you do.

At least that is what I would do.

All he can do or ever could have done, has been done.

The ONLY thing left to do is to sign whatever it is that they put in front of him, then rest up for the next fight.

[Armstead]

147. Maybe you should change your user name to Dr. Fatalist

Nothing can be done, so don't bother trying.

[Dr Fate]

151. It's called counting the votes. Obama & Centrist DEMS do it well.

You cant fight for votes once you have COUNTED THEM.

[myrna minx]

126. I've been asking a very specific question that has gone unanswered.

I think the answer to my question answers yours. One doesn't accept and inhabit the radical framing of one's opponent and expect successful results. If a President comes from a position of strength and uses his own party platform to make a strong and valid argument against radicalism, he has leverage with the people in Congress as well as the winning the public support of the American People. This is not what happened. The President chose to use the horrible and dangerous framing that was constructed by the teabaggers, leaving us in a position of perceived weakness - in addition, providing legitimacy for the teabagging arguments for them to be hauled out for another day.

This leaves me completely baffled as to what he stands for, to be honest. Does he believe their framing? I have no idea.

[JoePhilly]

130. Your question does not answer my question.

You claim Obama accepted their framing. Fine. Let's say he did.

So ... YOU be the President. What was the correct framing that would change the math?

Repeating the phrases "position of strength" and "radicalism" doesn't cut it.

You are the President. The GOP holds about 245 House seats, the Dems hold about 190. And you need about 217 to pass anything.

Be the President ... re-frame the debate in a way in which (1) you can get 217 votes for a clean debt ceiling bill, and (2) you can get Boehner to bring that bill to the floor given that he knows he doesn't have the votes to stop you doing so.

[myrna minx]

145. Well, did he or did he not accept their radical framing? Why did he?

To accept your opponent's radical framing is a position of weakness right out of the gate. In addition, it validates their position. Why didn't he frame the debate from the Democratic platform and economic perspective instead of this neo-Hooverism of deficit and tax cuts during a time of war and severe recession? Why didn't he combat that insanity by taking the case to the American People to put pressure on Congress to do the right thing? Knowing the "negotiating" thuggery of the Republicans (*see Bush Tax Cuts 2010), was he unaware of their tactics? Even before we get to the House math, the leverage has been lost. Even when it appeared that he had a bargaining chip (the 14th amendment) he quickly "took that off the table" while leaving everything else on it. Why toss in a powerful piece of leverage even if he had no intention of using it? Last week when the President asked the American People to phone Congress we flooded the lines. Why didn't he do that at the beginning of this mess, and not when we were on the raw end of the deal? He clearly has the power to call for the American People to pressure Congress to do the right thing.

I seriously don't get it. At all. I want to be a huge supporter, but this stuff makes me shake my head in amazement.

[Armstead]

139. One should have been filed on the day Congress convened in January and the next day and...

If Obama and Democrats had introduced a clean bill early, and let the GOP reject it, then submit another one the next day...and the next....

PLUS made the case, and repeated it firmly that the ONLY responsible course of action was to raise the debt ceiling -- and that it was not a liberal or conservative position but basic common sense to avoid a catastrophe. And that any representative not willing to do that was economically unpatriotic I(or something similar).

If they had kept filing and hammering publicly -- and worked behind the scenes with the saner Republicans to get it done -- things might have gone a lot differently....And even if it had gotten down to the wire, at least the public would know which ideological faction of which party was willing to blow up the economy.

All the other stuff about long term deficits, etc.was a separate issue and should have been kept separate by the Democrats, instead of being intertwined with some Grand Bargain tied to GOP blackmail.

Your mileage may vary.

[Dr Fate]

46. Despite liberal revisionism, we did not have the votes while we had the majority.

Fortunatley we had a president who knew how to do math and count votes- depsite all the liberals begging him to "fight" for votes that we did not have.

He COUNTED the votes and they were not there. He cant just swim to the bottom of the ocean and plug up the hole. Only a dicator can do all those things liberals wanted- not a President with a majority in congress.

[LaydeeBug]

51. When will you stop making excuses for him? HE DID NOTHING, so there were no votes

Despite wishing otherwise, Our President SAT ON HIS HANDS AND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except take single payer off the table immediately.

He didn't fight. Therefore there were no votes.

[Dr Fate]

61. What part of "We did not, do not, will not have the votes" do liberals not get?

We are not going to have the votes for far left stuff.

This is a center right country- Obama seems to "get" that even if the Professionan Left does not.

We are only going to get more progressive if we compromise some of the liberal stuff in favor of more centrism.

This is why liberals need o get behind centrists and start helping us come up with excuses to tell swingvoters instead of always attacking us and helping the conservatives win.

[jeff47]

85. This is the problem with your idea of how to govern.

You don't start with the votes. You end with the votes. Unfortunately, Obama shares your flawed philosophy and will never work to get votes for the policy he claims to support.

"This is a center right country"

False. It's only "center-right" if you're lazy enough to only look at party identification. If you ask about details like Schools, Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Single-payer, Jobs programs, NAFTA and all the other policy details, we're actually a center-left country.

"We are only going to get more progressive if we compromise some of the liberal stuff in favor of more centrism."

Compromise with the extreme right wing only provides right-wing results. Not centrist results.

"This is why liberals need o get behind centrists and start helping us come up with excuses to tell swingvoters"

I'd much rather explain to the swing voters how the cult of centrism is destroying the country. If purging your failed philosophy requires a terrible Republican White House, well I've lived through 16 years of that so far in my life. 4 more is perfectly doable.

[Dr Fate]

89. Democrats would lose elections for the next 20 years if we followed that advice.

Fortunately, clearer heads in DC prevail.

You COUNT the votes, then you count them again. THEN you work within the politics of the possible.

You dont win by attacking the conservatives in your own party- you win by go after the fringe liberals and twisting their arms to make them support centrist policies.

This is the secret of Obama's success- as you will see when he wins in 2012.

[jeff47]

106. So the New Deal, Great Society, Civil Rights act never happened?

They all started with not enough votes to pass. In fact, all "great" liberal accomplishments in our country's history started with not enough votes to pass.

Great Presidents get politicians to change their vote.

Bad presidents whine about working within the votes they already have.

As for 2012, no president (or his party if term-limited) has been re-elected with an economy this bad. The debt deal means nothing can be done for the economy before 2012, and the cuts that start today guarantee the bad economy will continue, if not get worse.

[Dr Fate]

108. FDR's Socialism may have been a good idea back when it was centrist.

Which explains why we should have been for it then, but not for it now.

Obama should copy FDR's pragmatism and ability to COUNT VOTES, not his outdated liberalism.

FDR had majorities in congress that Obama never had (Both know how to COUNT VOTES)- and he did not get those majorities by being some crazy liberal. Obama is working on following up on FDR's pragmatic, vote counting strategy as we speak.

[RandomKoolzip]

120. THe New Deal is FDR's"outdated liberalism?" "CRAZY liberal?!" Damn; are you SURE you're not a

republican?

[Dr Fate]

135. No- I read the truth about FDR from centrists here at DU.

If you refused to click on the blue links, that is not my fault.

I note that you could not counter any of my facts. Liberals hated FDR, which means he was really a centrist.

Someone might come along with the links if we wait. I've already put in a PM request.

[jeff47]

158. You provided no links

And no, liberals didn't hate FDR. Though considering you think all 3 of the examples I gave were passed under FDR, it's not too surprising that you're wrong on that too.

[Dr Fate]

163. I've PMed the person who has all the "FDR was really a centrist" links.

I knew I should have saved them.

[jeff47]

177. Apparently he showed up. And apparently his 'research' doesn't show what you claim.

[Dr Fate]

179. If those are the links Prosense was passing out, then they do show it.

nt

[Number23]

171. Doc, you are SPOT ON

I made this exact same point just last night when someone made the comment about Obama being the reason that the Dem party is split, as if the Dem party was one great big ol' happy family 'til the brother from Hawaii/Chicago/Indonesia moved into the White House. :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1638312&mesg_id=1640385

The Dem party is as fractured and incoherent as ever. And folks here wonder why after seeing this behavior for FIFTY YEARS, the number of Americans who willingly identify as "liberal" shrinks by the day.

[jeff47]

176. Did you actually look at the link you tried to use?

'Cause the objections to the New Deal are nothing like the objections Obama is facing for the Bad Deal.

All of the objections to the New Deal are of the form "It's a good start, but it should go further".

The objections to the Bad Deal is "this isn't even a good start".

More to the point, did you notice that the majority of the objections cited in that article were not from members of the Democratic party?

[Number23]

181. Lol Goalposts moved once again

So now, one can only be a member of the Dem party to be "from the left?" I'm sure that will come as news to 2/3 of GD who are constantly screaming that the only 'real' left are socialists, greens and those outside of the Dem party. And it's a moot point anyway because as the Wiki piece reveals, many of FDR's "left" critics were Dems.

As for your point about objections that the deal is a "bad start," as has been evidenced by the plethora of information on the Internet, there are plenty of liberals/Dems/leftists that don't think this is a bad deal. If one wanders out of GD every now and then, you'd be surprised the diversity of thought and opinion on just about every issue.

Both articles make my point beautifully. Thanks.

[jeff47]

187. Your argument was not that he got opposition from the left.

Your argument was that he got opposition from within a fractured Democratic party. So yes, one can only be a member of the Democratic party for your thesis to be true.

"there are plenty of liberals/Dems/leftists that don't think this is a bad deal."

There are morons of every political stripe.

[Number23]

190. Listen,

I know you don't have a point -- or more appropriately whatever point you were trying to make was wrong -- and sadly, I know this won't stop you from continuing to want to argue, but it should.

Your argument was that he got opposition from within a fractured Democratic party. So yes, one can only be a member of the Democratic party for your thesis to be true.

From my initial post,

Every single criticism hurled at Obama from the "left" has been hurled at every single Dem president. Clinton (to his immense credit) gave back as good as he got. Carter was "redeemed" by his great works after he left office. Even FDR, the Dem president so many here seem to have pornographic dreams about, was criticized and hounded by the "left."

I made no mention of the Dem party. My comment referenced the "left." So your mischaracterization of my initial and still very much true comment is just that.

There are morons of every political stripe.

On this, we WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. :rofl:

[jeff47]

191. Can't read your own posts?

"The Dem party is as fractured and incoherent as ever."

So FDR being attacked from people outside his party means the Democratic party was fractured during the New Deal?

See, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that when you claimed FDR was hounded by "the left", you meant the left of the Democratic party. Because otherwise your argument is utterly incoherent.

Your post in this thread and in the other thread claim that the Democratic party is fractured and has always been fractured. In order to back that up, you bring in opposition to the New Deal to show that the fracture in the Democratic party has been going on for a very long time.

Except that opposition was not from the Democratic parry. It was literally from the Communist party.

Now if you want to make the argument you're trying to make, I'd recommend the Will Rodgers quote. But opposition to the New Deal from the communists doesn't say anything about the Democratic party.

[Number23]

192. Sweet Jesus, there is NOTHING worse than someone who won't stop when they are down

I know what I wrote. I know what I said. My points have been made, my two articles back them up brilliantly, particularly the Wiki piece which highlights SEVERAL (not one or two, but SEVERAL) criticisms for FDR from members of the Dem party. Which, in your desperation to prove that you are right when you are so CLEARLY wrong, you manage to keep overlooking.

You want to argue? You go right ahead, darling. Just as long as you realize you're sitting here arguing with yourself.

[Dr Fate]

178. I know. But no one believes me when I tell them that socialism used to be centrist.

Maybe they will after they read the links I have been trying to tell them exists.

[jeff47]

156. Wow, your ignorance really has no bottom, huh?

The New Deal did not have enough votes to pass when FDR started whipping it. Doesn't matter that there were more D's in Congress, they were not all going to vote for it.

The Great Society and Civil Rights Act were passed during LBJ's administration. Again, neither had enough votes to pass when LBJ started whipping it.

Are you seriously arguing the Civil Rights Act is left-wing socialism?

[LaydeeBug]

107. +5,000. nt

[Mimosa]

172. Some people don't TRY hard to get votes

Tip O'Neill and LBJ were masters at wheeling and dealing. I think Obama didn't have sufficient time in the Senate to learn the tactics of vote getting.

[closeupready]

71. +1,000,000.

Would K&R this post if I could.

[Dr Fate]

42. What part of we did not, do not, will not have the votes do the Liberals not understand?

When we had the majority, we tried to tell the Liberals "we do not have the votes." They refused to believe us. Well, thanks to that far left attitude, that excuse is now FOR REAL.

We must win back congress in 2012- so that we can go back to NOT telling our base that we do not have the votes.

[Armstead]

74. What part of "Stop making excuses and at least TRY" don't you understand?

[MsKandice01]

79. How do you know he didn't try??

He sure in the hell tried to get increased revenues out of Republicans during this debt crisis and got absolutely NOWHERE. His steadfastness on that is part of the reason why this crisis ended up stretching all the way down to the wire. If his goal was just to capitulate and bend to Republican demands, this could have been over weeks ago.

[Dr Fate]

84. He tried real hard. He counted the votes, then counted them again.

He should hat least get some points for trying, but Liberals will not even give him credit for that.

Obama fights/counts the votes of Blue Dogs and DLCers all the time, but no one ever believes us when we try to show them the links.

[Armstead]

105. Because I saw it unfold (ever since December)...Obama joined the GOP Shock Docturne strategy

The only thing he really tried was to jump in with the GOP to create a false linkage between raising the debt ceiling and the larger and less immediate problem of the long-term deficit.

Instead of actually challenging the GOP "frame," he echoed it, and expanded upon it with his phony Grand Bargain, which set this whole mess up.

Somewhere further up this thread I laid out one possible way they could have tried to get around this. There were many other alternatives possible. But President Obama, and certain other Dems (not all) seemed hell bent on echoing the GOP Shock Docturne strategy of creating a phony crisis to make people support bad "solutions" they would not normally support.

[Dr Fate]

80. Centrists got HC mandates passed, and it is WILDLY popular. We also got you a good deal just now.

Or at least it is better than what you could have gotten.

And we are making it easier for gay people to fight in Our Glorious Freedom Wars.

So stop saying we are not doing anyting!

Centrists dont just "try"- we DO all we can within the realm of the possible.

[Armstead]

112. HC mandates were a Republican idea to block single payer coverage

Force people to buy expensive private insurance, without providing any public non-ripoff alternative. That's Corporate Conservatism on steroids.

If it had been mandates as part of true universal affordable public coverage, mandates would make sense. But NOT what they did.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was a good accomplishment. I have never said nothing good has been done along the way.

The difference is that the so-called centrist idea of the "realm of the possible" is a very limited range, and usually has the side effect of defjusing real reform and increasing the power of the few over everyone else. Maybe that's an unintended consequence or deliberate. I dunno. But that is often the result.

[Dr Fate]

113. We would have lost the midterms even WORSE without them. They are very, very popular.

I could show you some blue links that PROVE just how awesome they are, but you would probably not click on them.

[Armstead]

121. A public option was popular, Mandates were only half the equation.

Drag out your little blue links if you want, but I could drag out my own that state the opposite.

As for the midterms, HCR helped to inflame the teabaggers. If anything it added to the reasons for defeat in 10.

[Dr Fate]

152. Not as popular as Mandates now are. n/t

n/t

[PufPuf23]

199. The health care mandates are not wildly popular

and POTUS Obama campaigned against them in the primaries.

On the whole the HCR Bill is a transfer of wealth from People to corporations with token special interest gains (my kid can be covered til age 26).

We would have been better off if Obama's HCR Reform had not passed.

Recall Zeke Emmmanuel was a health care advisor for POTUS Obama; according to Zeke the mandates institionalize corporate control and further a move towards privatization of health care.

Recall POTUS Obama said one thing in public (veto without a strong public option) while he did back room deals with Pharma and excluded those that supported public options or single payer from the negotiations.

Opening Medicare to all and making a robust Medicare system would have been better for consumers and providers of health services.

Dr. Fate, you are not making strong support for your arguments in this thread.

Your apologetics in this thread

[Auntie Bush]

50. I say we pass these 2 laws:

1. Pass a law that says the debt ceiling is automatically raised and we will pay our bills...no need for a vote.

2. Pass a law that no one can sign a pledge to someone other than the USA.
Congress was sent there to compromise...not sign pledges that they can't.

Laws like those would save a lot of our problems in running the government. Of course there are a lot of others we need to control the stubborn teabag idiots

[MsKandice01]

57. Sounds good to me...

But they'd never pass with this particular Congressional makeup.

[YvonneCa]

70. True. But IF we ever have a majority...

...again, these two laws would be GREAT. Here's a couple more:

1. Citizens United fixed by Constitutional Amendment...corporations are NOT citizens.

2. Election Reform...lots of reform needed, but the effect of technology on voting needs to be debated.

3. How about a 6 year term for Presidents...no re-election. Once elected, they can focus on the job on behalf of the American people...not fundraising to get re-elected. Thoughts?

[onpatrol98]

56. They did what they wanted to do...

We need a way to educate our population...the adult population. Some of this just boils down to ignorance and a lack of foresight. But, it's dangerous and unnecessary. We need a real news medium to help people understand how the economy works. Of course people have to want to learn more also. We need better avenues for sharing the truth. What we have now...sponsored by corporations, isn't working.

[Little Star]

59. We had the house, the senate and the presidency before 2010

lot of good that did us! How is everyone liking that universal health care for all?????

Screw em all!!

[Dr Fate]

77. What part of "We did not, do not, will not have the votes" do liberals not get?

n/t

[Little Star]

185. Those votes should have been "Whipped" up!

That's why we have a whip in the house and in the senate! And some strong leadership (of which we had none) goes a long way in politics! What part of that do moderate Dem's not get?

[PufPuf23]

200. Potus Obama had his "Mission Accomplished" moment with HCR

but for most People, Obama HCR is a travesty.

The model is RomneyCare in MA and not all that successful. Why push GOP and neo-liberal policies that don't work but just transfer wealth upslope and harm the People?

Some posters here at DU defending this stuff are intellectual frauds.

[jeff47]

69. There was no hostage.

The hostage was just a mannequin.

Congress passed two contradictory laws. The budget and the debt ceiling.

Honoring the budget is illegal, because of the debt ceiling.
Honoring the debt ceiling is illegal, because of the budget.

In the past, when Congress passed laws that were contradictory, the Executive branch picked which law to follow until Congress resolved the conflict.

So Obama could have ignored the debt limit until Congress raised it, or passed a smaller budget.

If you are going to break the law no matter what you do, then break it in the way that works best for you.

[WinkyDink]

94. The buck stops, and all that.

[yurbud]

97. We need to be sure we get Democrats who aren't corporate wolves in disguise

[Dr Fate]

99. We had that b/f the midterms. Then the Liberals sagotaged the party with a midterm purge.

It was in all the papers.

[yurbud]

100. the corporate Democrats did it to themselves by not standing far enough away from the GOP

the public wanted to repudiate those policies and corporate Dems wanted to keep as many as possible.

[Dr Fate]

102. No, Liberals simply did not show up. It was in the papers. We are going to blame liberals for this.

We got a "shellacking" b/c the public heard people on TV saying that Obama was TOO liberal and too socialist.

If the Liberals had gotten behind the Obama/Blue Dog approach to HRC, BP, tax cuts, etc, then voters would have seen a united, centrist party and they would have responded in kind.

We need to start reading the papers and working within their framing instead of making up our own version of the news.

[U4ikLefty]

109. LOL...simply ridiculous

[mmonk]

124. One correction. The President had a chance to take the McConnel out

or to attempt the 14th amendment route. He wants "deficit reduction" and "entitlement reform".

[MsKandice01]

128. The McConnell plan wouldn't have had enough votes....

And the legality of the 14th Amendment route is questionable. With the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I don't know how wise it would have been to take that chance.

[mmonk]

133. So he rejected it outright based on? Basically said no at the very beginning.

That would have been a proposed way out and he could claim his most valued "bipartisan" moniker for the plan. When tea partiers failed to pass it in the House, he could claim tea party or Republican obstruction to the debt ceiling raising. But he gave the war away earlier negotiating bush tax cut extensions behind closed doors.

[Pisces]

141. Great analogy, but the die hard Obama bashers are past reason. THere is no amount of medication that

can cure Obama Derangement Syndrome. They expect Obama to wave a majic wand or act like a dictator. If we want Obama to enact the laws and principles the Democrats would like to see, we need to elect a Democratic Congress.

[Dr Fate]

154. Exactly- Only a dictator could do what Liberals thought a President with the Majority could do.

We saw this far-left attitude well b/f the midterms.

Everytime the Liberals wanted Obama and his majority to "fight" for something (whatver that means), we had to remind them that Obama was no dictator with a magic wand- merely a powerless figure-head executive with a majority in both houses.

He did not have the votes for any of that crazy liberal stuff- only a dictator wildly waving a magic wand around can have the votes for any of that.

Well, thanks to the midterm purge, now that excuse is now FOR REAL this time, and the Liberal malcontents still wont believe us.

[BlueCheese]

174. Indeed, what we got was the best of all possible worlds.

[Fire1]

149. As another member so aptly put it, "you don't negotiate with

terrorists."

[Capn Sunshine]

157. Actually if you let the hysteria die down and the smoke clear, Obama outmanuevered the Teajaddists

First of all, next to nothing happens until 2013. The triggers scare Repubs much more than Dems. Anything evil that comes out of the 'super committee' still needs to pass congress (including a Dem senate) and be signed by Obama. Beyond that, the winners of the next election will ultimately be the budget-setters, as they always are.

The triggers are draconian in their cuts to DEFENSE.
What ISN'T Cut?

Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid ARE SEQUESTERED. Not subject to cuts of any kind, or even review.

Does DU understand this? Clearly not.

[peace frog]

159. The super congress will pass and be signed by Obama

Then all the teabaggers on the team need to do is refuse to compromise with the others in the group (we know how well they dig in their heels and refuse to budge), which will trigger automatic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Their holy grail of savaging social programs, accomplished at long last! They can barely contain their glee at the prospect (watch Cantor's face and body language in the last 24 hours, he's ready to cut a caper on the House floor). Do you think they will accept automatic defense cuts along with cuts to social program? In a heartbeat, in a hot minute, in the wildest wet dreams. It's so close they can see it, smell it, almost touch it. And the beginning of that victory will be theirs in just a few short months.

[Capn Sunshine]

160. what part of my statement did you NOT READ?

THERE ARE NO AUTOMATIC CUTS. SS, Medicare, and Medicaid ARE SEQUESTERED, AS IN NOT A PART OF THE TRIGGERS, EXEMPT, SAFE.

Get it?

[peace frog]

161. I get that you don't get it

Prepare to be very contrite when you must eat your words in the very near future. That is if you can feel any sort of contrition at all. I won't hold my breath waiting to see.

[Capn Sunshine]

162. what you don't get is the bill they just passed

Obama has repeatedly stated despite what you so fervently desire to believe, that he will not sign any bill that has cuts in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

[Dr Fate]

164. Right- adjustments are not the same as cuts.

He will stregthen the big 3, *IF* liberals would just sit back, trust centrism and let this thing work itself out like it always does. If they keep on protesting & opposing him, there is no telling.

[peace frog]

166. Sit back, trust centrism and let it all happen by magic

Magical thinking is for teabaggers, and I trust this process to work for the benefit of the people like I trust Boner's and Cantor's every assurance.

[peace frog]

169. I get that you still don't get it

but you're free to (mis)place your trust in anything and anyone you see fit.

Edit to add: take a look at this if you dare:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1645687&mesg_id=1645687

[TheKentuckian]

184. and everything else will gutted. 1.5 trillion in cuts in discretionary spending is a huge fucking

wave of destruction an a massive destruction of demand.

Hell, the military cuts in a demand depression are dangerous, it isn't like the money is going to be re-purposed and used to fill in the hole or that anytime soon "things will pick up" when there is less actual movement of money THROUGHOUT the economy.

This whole paradigm is at least situationally insane. Where the hell are resources supposed to come from here? None of this makes the least bit of sense. This is all literal madness we are trying to diet our way out of hunger when the only possible outcome is starvation.

There is no defining this as "ok", "acceptable", or even "resembling some that might be mistaken for sanity in an asylum" because it is fucking suicidal. Not only suicidal but could easily get much worse.

Could it be worse? It can almost always get worse, maybe always. The experience of new levels of depravity expands the imagination for such things as new heights inspire the minds of others.

This is Prime Time Hoovernomics, failure is the only option. I can't even grasp what it is to not see here. A reprieve for Social Security, Medicare (kinda), and Medicaid as much as they can to at least get the Wealth Care and Profit Protection Racket off the ground or it will cause a meltdown.

No they mustn't get tooooo hasty, quite yet but here, there, and everywhere waivers for little chips to set up a time short down the road when the Jinga tower falls and so a few more exemptions go out? At least the too big to fail/de facto IRS enforcer and back door tax scam is put in to tie up with the full faith and credit if (and help bring down) the United States government.

It is stripmining. There is no celebration because they haven't got all the coal out yet.

[Number23]

170. +1 But we know this won't happen

Actually if you let the hysteria die down

Some of the absolutely bizarre responses in this thread prove that there are alot of folks that are INVESTED in hysteria. When confronted with the facts about any issue, they just hunker down with the "knowledge" that their beliefs are truth, anything that contradicts that is propaganda/excuses/what the hell ever.

The triggers are draconian in their cuts to DEFENSE.

That has become apparent to everyone who's been paying attention and not letting emotion take over their ability to think.

Rec for this OP too, by the way.

[BlueCheese]

165. There's always an excuse available.

In response to some of the other posts on this thread, not the OP.

The evidence is clear that Obama gave away the public option to the insurance and drug industries at the beginning of the health reform process, and then pretended (lied) about keeping it on the table afterwards. This idea that it didn't have the votes in the Senate is an excuse. If he really wanted it, there would have been a lot of arm-twisting or talks about the "nuclear option" or whatever else the Republicans have done to get their way in the past.

The idea that the president is a helpless, powerless weakling who can't do anything at all to change the votes of those in Congress is a strange one. People simultaneously claim that it's tremendously important to re-elect Obama, but then say that he can't stop the Republicans from getting everything they want. In fact, the president has a lot of power to shape public opinion and to encourage or threaten individual lawmakers with political support, financial support, or whatever. If Obama had been out making the case for the public option, instead of claiming he never campaigned on it, it might have turned out differently. If he had made the basic argument that a weak economy needs demand, not austerity, and at any rate the debt ceiling itself is not what causes spending, it might have been different. Instead we got ludicrous analogies about how the government is like a family that has to tighten its belt, etc. No wonder the public wasn't on our side, and the Republicans won, again.

[MsKandice01]

167. The "nuclear option" is a Congressional thing...

Not a presidential thing. We didn't have enough DEMOCRATIC votes for the public option, let alone Republican ones. George Bush was able to get whatever he wanted because the Republicans walked in lockstep with him. The only thing they disagreed with him on was privatization of Social Security and he got his ass handed to him. The Democratic Party is an entirely different animal. We need to work on getting more progressives into office or the Blue Dogs will always get in the way.

[BlueCheese]

173. I'm sure we had 50 votes.

Of course we'll never know, because we didn't have a vote on it, did we? As for whether it's Congress or the president who uses the nuclear option-- if Obama had told Reid to use the nuclear option, maybe it would have happened. Did he even try? No.

The evidence is clear that Obama had agreed early on to get rid of the public option. The rest of it is just flimsy excuses to cover it up.

[BlueCheese]

183. I should also say I agree with your main point.

It's obscene that Republicans say that "we" (Dems) got "our" debt ceiling was a Democratic win. As if the calamity wouldn't hit everyone, and as if it isn't mostly their fault to begin with.

[Taverner]

168. Winning back the House won't do anything - General Strike Oct 6

Is about the only thing that might *might* work

[proud patriot]

175. Yes the only compromise republicans made was to not default

I keep using this when posting on the WH facebook page battling these wing nuts.

[peace frog]

180. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1645687&mesg_id=1645687

Nuff said.

[bvar22]

188. Watch this clip, and get back to me.

The main point of interest is a clip from a Press Conference last December, and begins at 4:28.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-1-2011/dealageddon----a-compromise-without-revenues

That kid in the Press Pool knows HOW to deal with this "Hostage Situation".
You don't let them take hostages.
It is THAT simple.



"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

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

[Shagbark Hickory]

189. Arguing politics with the boss... Do Not Try This At Home, folks. nm

[trayfoot]

193. Agreed!

[treestar]

194. Rec'd

and would a thousand times more if that were allowed!

[bluestate10]

196. Agree 1,000,000%. I also do not understand the whining by people

that call themselves progressives. They should be out working their local districts to find democratic candidates that they can back, work to understand those people;s hearts, then work their asses off to elect them. If DU progressives held sway, the country would be ruled by republican extremists for the next century, all because so called progressives are hot to blow up democrats.