E.J. Dionne: Obama needs to ask why even his supporters are impatient.

[madfloridian]

This is a very thoughtful piece by E. J. Dionne. He points out that President Obama risks alienating those his party needs, "demobilizing" the very people he needs on his side now.

Obama needs to ask himself why even his supporters are growing impatient

Hard to choose just four paragraphs from this long article.

Rather than criticize the president, says former chief White House speechwriter Jon Favreau, those who want him to succeed need to hold Republicans in the House and Senate accountable. The president can’t do it by himself, Favreau said in the Daily Beast. He needs help from his supporters.

Well, sure. To pretend that the president can magically get an increasingly right-wing Republican House and Senate contingent to do his bidding is either naive or willfully misleading. The GOP really does hope that blocking whatever Obama wants will steadily weaken him.

But the president also needs to ask himself why even his supporters are growing impatient. His whole budget strategy, after all, is directed almost entirely toward gently coaxing Republicans his way, without any concern as to whether what he is doing is demobilizing the very people he needs on his side now.

That is an important point, one that many here have tried to make. Dionne says it clearly.

He still thinks he can coax the Republicans his way. They won't budge. The strategies are doing harm to seniors and needy, and the Republicans don't give a damn.

If Obama wants to underscore that his problem is Republican obstruction, he should tell those GOP senators he likes to dine with that they need to come up with revenue very soon or else he’ll withdraw that “chained CPI” offer he claims not to like much anyway. Put up or shut up is a cliche, but a useful one.

The Chained CPI should not have been on the table in the first place. The safety nets should be untouched except to make those who need them feel confident they will not be harmed.

Speech writer, Jon Favreau says he needs the help from his supporters. Yes, he does. But seniors and the needy don't know who to trust anymore because everyone in DC is trying to outdo the other side in being bipartisan.

You can not compromise with extremists, as Howard Dean used to say. He was right about that, but our Democrats are still really trying.

[progressoid]

1. He needs to take review what happened with gun control

Even though the repukes blocked it, in the process he didn't alienate his party and the majority of America NOR did he offer a compromise.

[madfloridian]

4. He needs to do the same on safety net cuts and privatization of education.

[progressoid]

28. Right.

Of course, that assumes that he supports our (Democrats) views on cutting safety nets and privatization of education. Sadly, I don't think we can count on that.

[winter is coming]

5. +1. The people who are taking the heat for that are the ones who blocked it.

I wonder if Begich proposed cpi-e and raising the cap in an attempt to win back people he alienated.

[Pirate Smile]

10. He's taken tons of heat for it.

[Bandit]

26. Begich actually made the proposal to lift the cap on SS deductions months ago.

It did not go anywhere then and I doubt it will go anywhere now...

[winter is coming]

39. So, is he re-making it? Or did it get stuffed in a parliamentary drawer for months? n/t

[AverageJoe90]

50. Very true. n/t

[NoMoreWarNow]

30. exactly!

liberal policies are way more popular than the asses in DC ever give them credit for.

[RobertEarl]

2. Obama is a bad cat herder

But he is all we got. If we cats ever gang up there is no blue-dog that could last long.

I did hear a bit of good Dem news the other day; local regulars now see that we need to put aside our differences so we can run off the dogs in the party. We'll see.

Obama has not gotten everything he has wanted or what we need. But he has done a hell of a job so far. If only he had us united he'd have gone a lot further.

[cui bono]

16. He's done a hell of a job getting Republican policy enacted.

So for me, he's done a mediocre job at best. And that's going easy on him.

[Hestia]

21. Well said - +1

[NoMoreWarNow]

31. yep

[grahamhgreen]

44. But he's pretty good at starving granny!

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. Oh ...

I get it; that would be snark, if you didn't believe it ... but then, that would be believing a lie.

[grahamhgreen]

77. It's not a lie - he wants to cut benefits to the elderly who are already not making it.

[Doctor_J]

63. He'd have us united if he would embrace some of our issues

instead of SS cuts, torture, corporatization of schools, and insurance mandates instead of health care.

[madrchsod]

3. is there any wonder why dean was deep sixed by the obama people

the boys and girls in chicago did`t like dean but they needed his ideas and organization. after they won then kicked him to the curb.

if they could get away with it they would be more than happy to kick us even further into the street.

[Beacool]

24. Which is ironic considering that Dean supported Obama in 2008.

He really didn't keep it secret either.

[rhett o rick]

6. The fallacy here is that Pres Obama is in his second term and doesnt need us on his side.

He has an agenda that doesnt help the 99%. He wants to cut SS and Medicare. He wants to prosecute corporate whistle-blowers. He wants to persecute medical marijuana users, people that are depending on marijuana to relieve their pain and symptoms. What could be lower than that? Maybe force feeding (read torture) political prisoners at a facility that he promised to close.
He embraces the Patriot Act, domestic spying and indefinite detention of American citizens. And he embraces the assassination of political enemies, including American citizens, in any country with disregard to innocent bystanders. He is willing to look the other way while Wall Street robs us blind but wont lend a hand to ACORN.
Most of his appointments are conservatives.

Will he pardon the war criminals?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Excuse me, but I don't understand the fallacy. What is it? I otherwise agree with almost everything

that you say. Am I wrong to do so?

The only exception is your question "Will he pardon the war criminals?" IMHO, he doesn't have to. He's already given them de facto immunity.

Unless I'm mistaken, the things that you refer to shows that he doesn't need us on his side. And he has shown that he knows it.

[cui bono]

17. He doesn't need us, but the party does. Not that he (needs to) cares about that. n/t

[rhett o rick]

19. Sorry, I wasnt clear. The fallacy is that Pres Obama needs us on his side.

"But the president also needs to ask himself why even his supporters are growing impatient."

We need to clarify who exactly "his supporters" are that he may be concerned about. Prior to the elections, he was concerned about voters. The 99% is growing impatient, but the pres seems to me to be concerned about keeping the 1% happy. He may throw the 99% a bone now and then but not in a way that will hurt the 1%. Definitely not an economic bone.

A pardon is way better than "de facto immunity". Without immunity a future admin might prosecute them. Besides, IMHO I believe it was part of the "Grand Bargain", the deal with the devil that Pres Obama made. Just sayin.

[grahamhgreen]

45. He already has pardoned the torturers by failing to prosecute.

[dgibby]

53. Too busy prosecuting (and persecuting) legitimate whistle blowers. n/t

[JDPriestly]

7. The chained CPI imposes retroactively a very regressive tax on baby boomers, war babies and those

younger than the baby boomers and war babies.

It seems very strange to me that people don't see that.

The chained CPI permits the government to simply take money that was paid in as payroll taxes on the smallest amounts of income people received and transform it into general fund revenue.

Right now, the government's general fund is paying a minimal interest rates to the Social Security Trust Fund for the money paid out in Social Security benefits.

Does anyone not understand what I mean when I say that the chained CPI retroactively transforms money paid into the Social Security Trust Fund into general fund revenues?

[fasttense]

73. Good point, I never saw it that way.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Looks like the same old bait and switch.

[gtar100]

9. I think Obama is way beyond worrying about what his supporters think.

He'll keep throwing us bones... not insignificant ones, mind you; but on matters of economics, banking, the New Deal programs, the Keystone pipeline, and the military, I see no indication of him doing anything with the people who elected him into office except to put us on ignore.

The article is really point on except that I have trouble believing that Obama cares enough to even listen. Keeping your friends close and your enemies closer shouldn't mean capitulation and compromise without getting anything in return. Besides, it appears he only cares for his supporters when it fits his need... like around elections or when he can look like a hero on non-economic issues.

Sorry if that sounds a bit bitter but I worked my ass off for his reelection and those promises he made to fight for our Democratic values are sounding a bit hollow about now.

[n2doc]

18. +1 n/t

[maddiemom]

34. Worked my ass off for his reelection too; was one of the local chairmen.

Even so, I was the only one in the bunch who had, and expressed, reservations. Everyone else was completely enamored. I was in because I felt he deserved another chance when not facing another reelection. Also because Mitt and the earlier possible Republican candidates were simply unthinkable (other than Huntsman, whose comparable sanity made him totally a non-starter to the Republican crazies). Sad to say I now have my regrets.

[840high]

60. Just talking to people - many

have regrets.

[whathehell]

52. +100 n/t

[840high]

56. Good post. Agree.

[Doctor_J]

62. What bones?

[Egalitarian Thug]

83. That's how the game is played. It is just a permanently exploitable fact that more than enough

people can be bought off or at least mollified with inconsequential trinkets. Meanwhile, the important stuff, the things that are going to directly effect them for generations, go unnoticed.

[tblue]

11. 'Growing impatient'?

I'm not growing. I already growed. And I am not impatient. I'm exhausted of all hope and trust. That ship's been sailed and sunk.

[madfloridian]

13. Know the feeling.

I am exhausted also.

[dgibby]

54. Exhausted, numb,

and feeling more and more like there is no fixing what's wrong with our government and this country. What was that Ben Franklin said-"We've given you a Republic, if you can keep it". ???

[BeyondGeography]

12. When EJ Dionne says you're being soft, it's probably true

[kitt6]

14. Young with a pooched ass.

That's about the size of it!

[yurbud]

15. this has been Obama's approach from the get-go. His starting offer is usually worse than

Dem voters would consider an acceptable final compromise.

[woo me with science]

20. "gently coaxing Republicans his way"?

Is he drunk? Obama's agenda is a freaking Corporatist wet dream.

What a surreal, fictional universe our corporate journalists inhabit.

[magical thyme]

22. sadly I think the Obama we saw at the first debate

is the real Obama.

He does. not. care.

Oh, he has personal issues he cares about. I think he may care about gun control.

But Social Security? There was no reason for him to offer chained CPI other than because he wants it (possibly on behalf of the people he represents).

There was no reason for him to create a "catfood commission" never mind appoint the people he did on the catfood commission -- with not a single honest counterbalance on that odious "team" -- other than because he wants it (possibly on behalf of the people he represents).

Health care reform? There was no reason for him to give up public option, never mind single payer, before he even sat at the negotiating table other than that he doesn't want it (possibly on behalf of the people he represents).

The sequester? There was no reason for him to immediately cave on travel, never mind not demand something in return (food and oil for the vulnerable poor, anyone?), other than that he doesn't want it (possibly on behalf of the people he represents).

And then there are his appointments. Monsanto, Big Money, you name it. There is his motivating force.

[maddiemom]

35. I'm beginning to believe that Obama's main agenda is acceptance

by the PTB as one of them. He doesn't seem to realize that his popularity rose from the hopes of the average citizen who, disgusted with the situation in Washington, wanted to see him kick some serious butt. But, heaven forbid he be seen as an angry Black man. Meanwhile his detractors continue to make him into a totally unreal boogyman no matter what he does. I.E. he truly "hates white people," even though he is just as much white as black and was raised by white grandparents.

[Laelth]

82. Thank you.

So I argued years ago, here: http://laelth.blogspot.com/2010/12/kissing-butt-and-taking-names-obamas.html

-Laelth

[maddiemom]

86. Just got the time to read your article in its entirety, I missed it when orginally posted.

Thanks. Very interesting perspective, with which I mostly agree.

[Laelth]

87. Thank you for the kind words. Glad you enjoyed the article. n/t

-Laelth

[grahamhgreen]

46. +1

[Beacool]

23. Recently one morning, I heard a former Democratic Senator on the radio.

I was taking a shower at the time and didn't hear his name or even his state, but something he said struck a cord. He said that Obama was a bad negotiator, that he didn't do the things necessary to get Congress to vote his way. He was referring to getting in the fray and using every persuasive skill he's got. This is something that has been said before many times about him. Obama proposes big ideas, but doesn't like the sausage making process that other presidents relished. Clinton would have been calling every Congress critter he needed for a vote. Some he would praise, others he would cajole, etc. The final vote may have gone his way or not, but at least you knew he got in touch with everyone he needed to contact to get that vote. Ditto for LBJ.

I remember during one of the debates (I think that Russert was the moderator) where he asked Hillary and Obama whether the president was the CEO or the CFO. Hillary chose the CFO. She said that the presidency was a hands on job. Obama scoffed at the idea and said CEO. That the president has the vision and others help to make that vision a reality (Congress). Well, it doesn't work that way, Hillary knew it by observing her husband for 8 years and knowing full well what the Republicans were capable of doing. I think that Obama meant well, but was naive enough to think that if he proposed it Democrats in Congress would, a) automatically fall in line with what he wanted and b) Republicans would see the righteousness of the proposals.

I would think that by now he would realize the futility of his strategy and try a different way of doing things.

[maddiemom]

38. Wait: a CEO should be more overall hands on. A CFO should be more concerned

with budget considerations.

[Beacool]

42. CEOs tend to delegate.

I think that's what he meant, but politics is messy and presidents have no choice but to roll up their sleeves and get in the mud.

[ProSense]

25. "Similarly, it’s worth asking why so many of Obama’s initiatives have dropped out of public view."

Dionne:

Similarly, it’s worth asking why so many of Obama’s initiatives have dropped out of public view. Obama has called for raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour. Many Democrats in Congress think, correctly, that it should be set at $10. Would it be so hard for Obama to come out fighting for the minimum-wage increase — and for other steps to bolster the incomes of those stuck at the bottom of the economy? Why not expose that none of this is happening because of GOP opposition?

Obama wants to provide universal pre-K education. That ought to be a bipartisan idea. Many Republican governors have embraced the concept in their states. Shouldn’t the president be pushing harder to get it on the media’s radar by way of forcing a debate in Congress?

The president believes we need to spend more on our infrastructure to boost job creation now and to make us competitive for the long run. He’s right. But he needs to make clear it is something that’s genuinely important to him.

It’s true that Obama spoke about both his investment agenda and preschool plans at last week’s much-maligned news conference. And the White House announced on Sunday that he would embark on a series of “middle class jobs and opportunity tours.” These should be shaped by a consistent, driving theme: that the stakes in this debate are larger than the day-to-day drone of partisan invective suggests.

Good question.

President Obama's agenda will not be advanced by the current Congress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022694813

How to break the budget process (Republicans reject "regular order&quot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022805135

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. Good Question(s) E.J. ...

How about a couple equally good question(s):

Similarly, it’s worth asking why so many of Obama’s initiatives have dropped out of public view. Obama has called for raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour. Many Democrats in Congress think, correctly, that it should be set at $10. Would it be so hard for Obama to come out fighting for the minimum-wage increase — and for other steps to bolster the incomes of those stuck at the bottom of the economy? Why not expose that none of this is happening because of GOP opposition?

Why haven't the Democrats in Congress that think correctly, that it should be set at $10. Would it be so hard for those Democrats to propose and come out fighting for the minimum-wage increase — and for other steps to bolster the incomes of those stuck at the bottom of the economy?

Obama wants to provide universal pre-K education. That ought to be a bipartisan idea. Many Republican governors have embraced the concept in their states. Shouldn’t the president be pushing harder to get it on the media’s radar by way of forcing a debate in Congress?

Why haven't Democrats in Congress been pushing harder to get it on the media’s radar by way of forcing a debate in Congress?

The president believes we need to spend more on our infrastructure to boost job creation now and to make us competitive for the long run. He’s right. But he needs to make clear it is something that’s genuinely important to him.

Why haven't Democrats in Congress been pushing the need to spend more on our infrastructure?

Or is it President Obama's job to make those folks behave?

[AnnieK401]

27. Great article!

Thanks for posting.

[mother earth]

29. I think most are past the point of "impatience" and are leaning on disgust. I expected more.

Count me as completely disappointed & cynical. I feel we've been sold out.

[forestpath]

36. +1000

[Laelth]

32. "If he wants to rally us, he might want to change that."

Ah, but that's the catch. The President appears to be ambivalent to the wishes and desires of the people. He has no real interest in "rallying" us. What he wants is to be an accepted and acceptable member of the nation's political caste, and that means he wants to make Republicans, the rich, and the powerful like him.

Who cares what the people think?

Or, so I argued here: http://laelth.blogspot.com/2010/12/kissing-butt-and-taking-names-obamas.html

-Laelth

[Marr]

33. How can anyone still think he gives a crap about 'rallying the Democratic base'?

It's sadly obvious at this point that he's not trying to "coax" Republicans. Or at least, the items that are explained as "compromises" aren't really compromises-- they're policy goals. He's pushing the same 1%er crap the DLC has been pushing for years. Expecting him to drop his agenda in order to appeal to his base is wishful thinking. His whole political strategy is based around outflanking his own base.

I expect he'd rather get nothing done at all that do the things his base would want to see done.

[forestpath]

37. Your last sentence nails it.

[Laelth]

78. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[cantbeserious]

40. Supporters - Don't Need Them - Second Term President Now

eom

[Jakes Progress]

41. I'm afraid arrogance is involved.

The White House simply doesn't think we are smart. They think they have a pretty good bead on things and that the public just isn't as smart a they are.

[kentuck]

43. In my opinion..

The President is a strong believer in the power of money in campaigns.

[Octafish]

47. The fact no one talks about raising taxes on corporations and the rich says it all.

Welfare for the Wealthy.

Austerity for the Rest of Us.

[madfloridian]

48. .....

[Octafish]

65. 91,000

On My Mind

[font size="5"]Tax Offshore Wealth Sitting In First World Banks [/font size]

James S. Henry
07.01.10, 09:00 AM EDT
Forbes Magazine dated July 19, 2010

Let's tax offshore privstr wealth.

How can we get the world's wealthiest scoundrels--arms dealers, dictators, drug barons, tax evaders--to help us pay for the soaring costs of deficits, disaster relief, climate change and development? Simple: Levy a modest withholding tax on untaxed private offshore loot.

Many aboveground economies around the world are struggling, but the economic underground is booming. By my estimate, there is $15 trillion to $20 trillion in private wealth sitting offshore in bank accounts, brokerage accounts and hedge fund portfolios, completely untaxed.

Much offshore wealth derives from capital flight and the proceeds of past and present tax evasion. Another source is crime. At least a third comes from developing countries--more than their outstanding net foreign debt.

This wealth is concentrated. Nearly half of it is owned by 91,000 people--0.001% of the world's population. Ninety-five percent is owned by the planet's wealthiest 10 million people.

Let's tax it. The pile of offshore anonymous loot is now large enough so that even a very modest 0.5% wealth tax would yield at least $75 billion a year.

SNIP...

Is it feasible? Yes. The majority of offshore wealth is managed by 50 banks. As of September 2009 these banks accounted for $10.8 trillion of offshore assets--72% of the industry's total. The busiest 10 of them manage 40%.

CONTINUED....

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0719/opinions-taxation-tax-havens-banking-on-my-mind.html

[ProSense]

55. There is

"The fact no one talks about raising taxes on corporations and the rich says it all."

...some talk: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040

[Octafish]

64. No mention of raising corporate profits tax or taxing Wall Street transactions.

Instead, there's "Various business tax cuts" that yield a $33 billion deficit over 10 years. Wonder what their specifics are?

Oh well. Warren Buffett's 30-percent minimum is under consideration, which would be nice if it were to become an actuality -- even if in 10-years it only delivers $53 billion to the Treasury.

Let's see some action on the uncounted trillions the banksters have looted and hidden offshore. We know how to identify the owners and how to tax it. We could solve the budget problem.

[ProSense]

67. Thanks for

"No mention of raising corporate profits tax or taxing Wall Street transactions."

There is a financial crisis responsibility fee, which raises $59 billion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040

It's not as much as the CPC budget, but it's something.

The budget would also impose a financial crisis responsibility fee on the largest financial institutions, a move that would encourage firms to decrease their liabilities and help to address the issue of “too big to fail” financial institutions ($90 billion raised over FY2014–2023).

http://www.epi.org/publication/back-to-work-budget-analysis-congressional-progressive/

[michigandem58]

49. 86% approval among Democrats

The notion of the left turning on Obama is a fantasy.

[graham4anything]

51. His SUPPORTERS aren't complaining. The normal whine team that is NOT his supporters are again

Jon Favreau is correct.

and President Obama said he would unite the people in this country and will do so

He did not say the extremists on either side.

He said the actual majority of people, and 80% of the country wants the extremists to stop

therefore, Jon Favreau is correct and stop the draconian republicans and vote
STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET

LBJ had 67 votes AND he also had to stop the dixiecRats that Racist George Wallace a democrat led. He gladly accepted republicans to get the Civil Rights/Voting rights acts

something the extremists didn't like but LBJ didn't care about the extremists-he rammed the bills through with support from the other side

President Obama does NOT have 67, never had a super majority(wth Leiberman and the fact that Al Franken took over something like 1/2 a year to be seated) and had obstruction from day one.

So the whiners should stop whining and do what is needed- vote straight democratic

[madfloridian]

57. You call anyone who questions the president a whiner. That is not a good thing.

Not a good term to use.

[graham4anything]

58. Don't sweat the small stuff, everything is small stuff (and I mean wedge issues.)

all Ralph Nader and Ron Paul did was whine

none of them worked a hard day in their life

whine is easy
one can whine in their underwear

being in office is harder. It requires work. Hard work.

[LooseWilly]

68. And pants...

Don't forget pants.

Being in office requires pants, and pants are hard. You can't whine in pants. Only the hard can wear pants.

Or skirts. All of the above, also, but in skirts.

It starts with small stuff. But underwear is small stuff, so not everything is small stuff. Whining is small stuff. The big stuff wears pants. Or skirts.

The truly awesome stuff. History-making. That stuff wears a skirt over its pants.

Which ain't easy.

Like Lincoln.

[Jakes Progress]

75. Just another example of the president's men

telling liberals to go to hell.

We were lied to. The garden path leads to the right.

[dgibby]

59. Whiners?

Just when I think your posts can't possibly get anymore offensive, you outdo yourself.

[Bohunk68]

74. Looking at what that poster has

posted on another thread, we can spot all the whiners by putting cameras on every forehead.

[treestar]

81. I agree

This team never SUPPORTS him on anything! Not a damned thing! They second guess everything. How is that supporting?

He knows they don't have his back and that's why he really does have to account for the Republican House!

If he "came out swinging" for $100 hour minimum wage, it still would not be enough for the Whine Team! We know it and they know it. They keep using the blackmail of withdrawing their support. What support?



With supporters like these, who needs Republicans?

[libdude]

61. Sell out

A sell out is what is coming to mind more and more when I think of the President. All his very good and principled speeches just seemed to be just that, speeches with no real conviction behind them. I would rather see him lose legislatively but brand Republican party and their leadership as the true obstructionist they are whose actions have punished the American people and are continuing to do so, and have created such suffering unnecessarily.
What good does it do to continue to reach out to the anti-American Republicans that have no interests but self-interest and don't give a damn about what their actions are doing to the people of this country?
Perhaps he is as he stated, a 1980s type Republican, well along with that, the 2013 Democratic party is not like the 1980s Democratic party. Sad time for America.

[Jakes Progress]

76. At least the president

will get some nice board memberships and corporate speaking fees. The real cheap sell outs are the ones who used to profess their liberalism but sold that away for the small price of getting to be a fan.

Sad time for America for sure.

[blkmusclmachine]

66. 1 Party, 2 Faces.

The Party of Big Money.

[Demo_Chris]

71. Obama is not attempting to coax the GOP left, he is moving Democrats to the right...

Which, as virtually every major policy he has endorsed demonstrates, is exactly what he has always wanted to do.

[ProSense]

79. Every

"Obama is not attempting to coax the GOP left, he is moving Democrats to the right... Which, as virtually every major policy he has endorsed demonstrates, is exactly what he has always wanted to do."

...comment is pure nonsense.

E.J. Dionne and Robert Borosage agree: push the President's best initiatives.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040

Keep pushing for gay protections in immigration reform, Dems
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022814360

[SemperEadem]

72. It seems to me that this happened 4 years ago as well

he got 10 months out before the midterm races began in earnest and he lost momentum which allowed the "independents" to totally lose interest in his agenda and most everyone else on his side to sit out the mid terms and we got the tea party. He did not keep his base energized enough by demonstrating that he was in there fighting for them. It looked more like he was bending over backwards to try to make those who were vowed to oppose him on every front work with him for the good of the country. They were and are never going to do that as long as he is the president. To compensate, he took on the veneer of being republican-light; basically a republican in sheep's clothing, to become the dominate facade that took over and that demoralized the progressives.

It seems the same thing is happening again. At a time when the thugs should be really and truly not only down on the mat, but being ground into the fiber and foam of it, it appears their obstruction is their strong suit and it's their way of increasing their numbers in 2014. The Chained CPI is something that never should have been put forth by anyone seriously against it---he should have been forcing the thugs to stand in their truth and take their asswhippin' for it. In fact, any talk about touching SSI and Medicare should have been shut down. The fact that the thugs have an all out war against women on every front should be compelling him to reject any harebrained policy the thugs come up with with absolute derision.

But he and his "advisers" won't do that... boehner and his ilk should be truly crying and begging for mercy right about now, but they are all emboldened in their wrong-headedness and steaming toward what they believe will be their victory in 2014. The sequestration needed to be tied like a millstone around all of their necks, but so far, the crap they've pulled has not really ruffled the administration's feathers enough for them to speak out forcefully against what has been allowed to happen.

I just hate seeing history repeating itself because it means that Obama didn't learn anything from this tack 4 years ago.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. I agree with the first part ...

but not the conclusion.

At a time when the thugs should be really and truly not only down on the mat, but being ground into the fiber and foam of it, it appears their obstruction is their strong suit and it's their way of increasing their numbers in 2014. The Chained CPI is something that never should have been put forth by anyone seriously against it---he should have been forcing the thugs to stand in their truth and take their asswhippin' for it. In fact, any talk about touching SSI and Medicare should have been shut down. The fact that the thugs have an all out war against women on every front should be compelling him to reject any harebrained policy the thugs come up with with absolute derision.

Now IS when the thugs should really and truly not only be down on the mat, but being ground into the fiber and form of it. And they are ... but it's not the Left doing it. It is, exactly, BECAUSE the gop believes their obstruction is their strong suit and it's their way to increasing their numbers in 2014; but the polls indicate that it is not working.

Look at the polling, Democrats and the rest of the Left hate them; but more importantly, (and I’ve written this so many times, all I have to do a push control-V) a solid plurality of Independent voters AND republican voters (a solid majority, when taken together) see the gop as the party unwilling to compromise; therefore, the reason nothing is getting done in Washington. In order to flip the House (because of gerrymandering) and expand the Senate in 2014, Democrats need this cohort of Independent voters and republican voters to either: vote Democratic (which is unlikely); to vote 3rd-party (which will reduce the gerrymandering effect, as it will dilute the gop vote more so than the Democratic vote); or to stay home.

Enter President Obama’s Budget Proposal that included the CCPI … to the Left, it’s Hair On Fire time because NO REAL DEMOCRAT would ever propose “cutting ‘entitlement’ programs”; but look at it from the POV of the target cohort … they see President Obama (and by extension, Democrats) as willing to move on “entitlements” IF the gop is willing to move on taxes (i.e., COMPROMISE). (It is only the Left that is viewing CCPI in isolation). And what is the cohort seeing … the gop continuing to refuse to compromise (that’s what the polling is saying).

Does this strategy risk, disillusioned Democrats sitting home? … Well, yes. And some on the Left are, seemingly, doing everything in their power to make that happen, with their constant President Obama is (and by extension, Democrats are) sell-out devil(s)” mantras, without pointing out that President Obama is not running for office, AND by not pointing out what Democrats (that ARE/will be running are actually saying … which goes from Pelosi’s, “We’ll consider CCPI; BUT ONLY IF the gop GIVES on taxes” to Markey’s (and the majority of the Democratic Caucsus’) “Hell NO … Leave SS and Medicare alone.”
While I, personally, think that the Pelosi/President Obama position is the wiser strategy, 18 months out from the election, as it continues to reinforce what the targeted cohort already believes … that the gop is unwilling to compromise, Democrats saying “Hell NO!” signals that SS and Medicare will not/cannot be touched.

So Message to the “Hold ‘em accountable” Left and waivering Democrats:

Stop saying/promoting President Obama’s Budget Proposal as merely CCPI (and a few other “anti-Democratic” positions) and help the Democratic Party’s cause by, at a minimum, stating what the Democrats in Congress are actually saying!

[treestar]

80. What journalists need to do is realize that

they can say or write anything but don't have to actually do it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Lessons ...

for internet posters, as well.