President Obama has been offering concessions to the Republicans

[cali]

for years now. They always spurn him and ask for more and they offer no concessions at all. It doesn't seem like a tactic that's effective and after a while, it looks weak. In addition, it gives the repukes a platform further to the right to supposedly negotiate from.

Now maybe, this is all to show that repukes are not operating out of goodwill, but if that's the case it still seems pretty pointless.

[Coyotl]

1. Don't you mean to the Rich?

There are a lot of poor Republicans and what do they get from corporate tax breaks?

Obama is a 1%'er serving the interests of the 1%'ers. Left and right is the illusion of politics, while rich and poor is the reality.

[cali]

4. no, I mean the republicans in Congress. I didn't think that I needed to

actually spell that out; it was clearly implied.

[Capt. Obvious]

2. You just don't understand 3D Chess

[AgingAmerican]

84. Or more accurately

3rDway Chess

[Trillo]

3. It's never "pointless" if it realizes the goal of those who run our world.

Two steps forward for the corporations, one step back for the humans. That's all they need to win forever.

[JoePhilly]

5. He should go close the drapes in the oval office.

Why try to do anything.

We're doomed.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. When did the choices become 'do nothing' or 'repeat the same failed actions endlessly'?

Got to say this is one of those times where there is a third way, a forth way, many other ways that are not redundantly reaching out to political opponents who refuse to reach out in return. The lack of imagination in the whole 'do nothing or keep begging the Republicans to cooperate' mindset is depressing to see. Centrism lacks vision due to the desire to remain so close in agenda to the right wing.

[JaneyVee]

8. Those aren't the choices.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. They are the choices as presented by the other poster, nice to see you agree with me that

there are a multiplicity of options and choices. 'Repeat the same or draw the drapes and give up' is a horrible way to think and I am glad you reject such limited thinking.

[JoePhilly]

16. What actions won't fail with this Congress?? ... please be specific.

The President has put something forward ... I'm guessing you and the OP don't like what he put forward.

Please tell us what he SHOULD put forward that will not fail.

The OP did not suggest anything.

Perhaps you can.

Go ahead.

[AgingAmerican]

18. Standing his ground for once

would be a good starting point.

[JoePhilly]

19. That's a bumper sticker, not a proposal.

Please, be specific as to what he should propose.

Or ... was that all you had?

[AgingAmerican]

21. Do you think he should capitulate...

or stand his ground when dealing with Republicans?

Republicans are threatening to shutdown the government in October when it comes time to appropriate funds to run the government. Bill Clinton stood his ground when Newt Gingrich made a similar threat, and the Republicans folded and looked like idiots.

Will Obama capitulate....again...or will he finally take a solid stand?

[JoePhilly]

22. Obama stood his ground and allowed the sequester.

Do you recall that? I'm betting no.

Given your response, Obama must allow the government to shut down, and ANY deal he might make which prevents that is a "capitulation".

Is that correct?

[AgingAmerican]

23. He 'stood his ground' and

allowed a GOP wet dream, AKA the sequester, to become reality?

Funny, the sequester went from 'unthinkable' to non existent on the radar. They don't bother talking about it anymore. This is because it handed the GOP cuts they have been drooling over for the past 30 years. Once cuts like this are handed to the GOP, they never hand them back.

That is a prime example of what I am talking about.

[JoePhilly]

24. Actually, folks around here said he'd CAVE and prevent

the sequester from happening with a terrible deal. It did not happen.

Which is why I ask you to be specific. But you don't seem to be able to do it.

I'll try again.

Your position is that Obama should not make any deal whatsoever. He must "stand his ground", make no deal at all, and allow the government to shut down. That is his only course of action.

Is that correct?

[AgingAmerican]

25. He was tricked by the GOP

You are correct, Obama should not make deals with the Republicans because he gets burned every time and America gets burned every time.

How many times will Lucy pull away the football before Charlie Brown stops falling for it?

[JoePhilly]

28. Finally ... you want no deal of any kind and a government shutdown.

The details of any deal are irrelevant to you.

Got it.

[AgingAmerican]

30. No more deals with the sociopathic GOP

Correct

[JoePhilly]

33. That's fine ...

Was the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 years worth getting DADT repealed?

[AgingAmerican]

37. No

It would have been repealed regardless. Not worth ruining the economy for two extra years.

Clinton retroactively got rid of the Reagan tax cuts. It took balls, the Republicans cried and howled in agony....and the economy took off like a rocket.

Had Obama retroactively gotten rid of the Bush tax cuts upon taking office, the budget would have been balanced by 2012.

All it takes is balls.

[JoePhilly]

38. How exactly was Obama supposed to do that?

The President can just change taxes however they want?

[AgingAmerican]

42. It is known as the

"Bully Pulpit"

Again, all it takes is BALLS.

Supreme court allows retroactive tax hikes

[JoePhilly]

43. That article doesn't say what you think it says.

Congress had to repeal the tax deduction, and make it retroactive, first.

The 9-0 ruling upholds a 1987 move by Congress to apply tax changes retroactively to returns that were filed in 1986.

Congress passed a tax law back then.

Congress did not, and was not going to, pass an early end to the Bush tax cuts. And no amount of "Bully Pulpit" was going to change that.

Might be time for a civics class.

[AgingAmerican]

46. It also talks about him using the bully pulpit successfully

Which is how Bill Clinton got his economic plan passed, facing Democratic opposition, and with zero Republican support.

Balls or bargains? Which reaps the biggest dividends?

[JoePhilly]

47. Right ... and Obama was going to talk this congress into

ending the Bush tax cuts early.

What nonsense.

[AgingAmerican]

50. He didn't have 'this congress' when he came into office

"Why bother trying" = guaranteed failure

The problem is that Obama wasn't going to use the bully pulpit to end the Bush tax cuts. It isn't the 'Third way' to do things. The 'Third Way' is to seek 'half Republican and half Democratic' "Solutions" which include the problem as part of the fix.

[Jackpine Radical]

53. Let's start with your likely accurate belief that anything he proposes will fail.

Then I'd rather have him proposing Single Payer even though it will fail.

I'd rather have him proposing expanding Social Security even though it will fail.

I'd rather have him proposing severe cuts to the military budget even though it will fail.

I'd rather have him proposing a bill to allow a government-run WPA program to put Americans to work building infrastructure even though it will fail.

I'd rather have him proposing equitable taxation of the rich and of corporations even though it will fail.

I'd rather have him proposing a radical restructuring of the goals & methods of the Intelligence Establishment even though it will fail.

I'd rather have him proposing tough bank regulation even though it will fail.

I'd rather have him proposing universal public access to K-16 education even though it will fail.

I could go on, but maybe you get the drift.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Why? …

So we can all FEEL better … as nothing gets done. No, I’d much rather see the ball moved down the field, even if it’s 4 yards at a time.

[Scuba]

69. Failing in Congress can be a positive if the American People see Obama standing for them ...

... and the Republicans standing elsewhere. Jackpine is exactly correct that it's better to strive for a better America and fail than it is to succeed at making America worse.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. I disagree ...

first, that President Obama is succeeding at making America worse.

I, also, disagree that "moral victory" loses are better than incremently positive changes.

To point out a real life example: I wanted a single-payer system ... IMO, it would have benefited the entire nation. However, the incremental victory of, I, and the millions of others, able to get health care insurance, despite having pre-existing conditions, with no life time spending cap, where 80 of the premimum dollars must go to medical care ... is far better for America, than the moral victory of losing a single-payer fight and being stuck with the previous health care insurance scheme ... even though there are problems in the program and even though it was a "heritage foundation" generated plan.

See, it's easy to lose on moral victories when you aren't personally negatively affected.

[Scuba]

72. Please explain how the Prez's endorsement of chained CPI makes things better?

Standing up for Social Security would have earned the Dems more support. Instead, his position has undermined support for Dems across the country.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. Do I have to go over this again? ...

Will you consider my point this time?

Democrats alright have Democratic support on Social Security and Democrat are not going to withdraw support from the Democratic Party because the President offered a CCPI proposal, in the midst of budget negotiations, that did not, nor could not go anywhere.

What Democrats DON"T have is enough of the independent voters and semi-sane republican voters that poll as having the republican party as obstructionist that are so convinced as to either: vote Democratic in 2014 (highly unlikely); or, vote 3rd Party in the general election (splitting the republican vote); or stay home (diluting republican vote).

Everytime President Obama gives the gop something that looks like what they say they want ... and then the gop backs away from that offer, it wins a little more of the above-described cohort ... and I expect this to play out again in the corporate tax lowering/job creation deal that President Obama has offered and the gop has rejected.

Oh yeah ... what the Democrats also don't have is enough "democrats" on democrat supporting message boards that refuse to accept rightwing framing of everything Democrats do.

GOTV in 2014!

[Scuba]

76. Your very first premise is wrong ...

"Democrat are not going to withdraw support from the Democratic Party because the President offered a CCPI proposal ..."

Yes, many voters who have supported Democratic candidates, including the President, are withdrawing support. They are rapidly becoming disenchanted with the Party and, in the absence of any supportable alternative, will stay home on election day.

Your being in denial of that fact does not change it.

Your second premise that we can win by appealing to "independent voters and semi-sane republican voters" is also flawed. The available votes are far to the left of the President, not found by appealing to the middle or right of there.

If Democrats want to win elections, they'd better abandon the "not the Republican" strategy and start standing for something that appeals to voters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Well ...

Yes, many voters who have supported Democratic candidates, including the President, are withdrawing support. They are rapidly becoming disenchanted with the Party and, in the absence of any supportable alternative, will stay home on election day.

No ... we/they are not.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

Your proclaiming it does change the FACTS, i.e., supported by data beyond personal anecdotes.

Your second premise that we can win by appealing to "independent voters and semi-sane republican voters" is also flawed. The available votes are far to the left of the President, not found by appealing to the middle or right of there.

Care to support that statement with some facts? (please see the above definition of fact). Since your first "refutation" was/is factually unsupported, I am disinclined to accept this one.

But ...

There is gridlock because Republicans are determined to block any Obama initiative, 51 percent of voters say, while 35 percent say President Barack Obama lacks the skills to convince leaders of Congress to work together.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1921

Your being in denial of that fact does not change it.

If Democrats want to win elections, they'd better abandon the "not the Republican" strategy and start standing for something that appeals to voters.

No ... the polling suggests that to win elections Democrats must appeal to the cohort that I referred to above, i.e., independent voters and semi-sane republican voters to either that poll as having the republican party as obstructionist to convinced as to either: vote Democratic in 2014 (highly unlikely); or, vote 3rd Party in the general election (splitting the republican vote); or stay home (diluting republican vote).

And this strategy is necessary because Democrats took they eye off the ball in 2010 (much like some are doing today), which allowed for the gerrymandering of republicans into non-competitive districts. Democrats win in Democratic districts ... Guess where the cohort that I am speaking of resides?

[Scuba]

85. What people tell pollsters about Congressional approval is far different than what they feel ...

... about being thrown under the bus on SS by the Prez.

And appealing to "independent voters and semi-sane republican voters" might pick up a vote or two on that side of the equation, but it ignores 40 million potential voters on the left. Want their votes? Then Dems need to come out strong for ....

.... A living wage

... Medicare for All

... Strengthen Social Security

... Legalize weed

... Pay for it all by cutting the military

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. Oh, I see ...

Polls = facts, until they do not support what you feel or think, then it is a completely valid argument to refute a fact with an opinion ... especially, if you cannot find a poll to support what you think/feel.

I'm talking to a very specific group of potential voters ... that are located where your 40,000,000 voters on the left are not ... in gerrymandered districts and red states.

you also seem to be quite sure that those 40,000,000, or even a significant portion of them think/feel like you do. The polling data suggests we don't.

I agree I would love a candidate that came out strong for all those thing ... But I, also, recognize that in my state that Democratic candidate would have zero chance of winning ... though he/she might be almost competitive, but would likely lose, in the district to my South. (And that district's Representative is currently a member of Progressive Caucus)

[Scuba]

89. I never claimed polls are facts (or not). Discounting the idea that Obama has turned off ....

... a whole lot of voters is dangerous for Democrats.

The 40 million I referred to DID NOT VOTE in last election because neither Party offered them squat. You are clearly not one of them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. No ...

I wasn't one of the 40 million.

And aren't you assuming these voters, or a significant purtion of them are "to the left" of President Obama?

And even if they are, what are you accomplishing for Democrats, or even the left, (assuming posting on an anonymous message board accomplishes anything) posting, day after day, &quot President) Obama Bad" posts?

[Scuba]

91. Please link to any post I made that says "(President) Obama Bad" or similar...

... and then think back to how Fox News and other Republican tools screamed that any criticism of President Bush was treason.

Criticizing bad policies and advocating for better ones is our job!!!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. Okay n/t

[Scuba]

70. Nailed it. If the American People saw Obama standing for them ....

... while the Repukes stand in the way, they just might vote in the next election.

Succeeding at making America worse is not a "win" for Obama or the American People.

[joshcryer]

73. His budget proposals have been trimed by 10%+ every time.

So he does propose more than what our Representatives will allow and has failed to get one single budget passed without it being gutted.

Of course, what can you expect from a President who, in his nomination acceptance speech, talked of cutting the deficit. Perhaps the Representatives were just taking him as his word?

I'd be happy if he pointed out how he was stopped from achieving his goals, but then, I dunno, he ran on a bipartisan message, and that just wouldn't be who he is. I don't know why Americans want bipartisan Presidents. They're a bane to progress.

[Capt. Obvious]

10. But he hasn't even picked out the drapes yet

He's not even 7 months into his second term.

[TBF]

34. When "doing anything" is tax cuts for our corporate "persons" -

yeah we have a problem.

We know trickle-down doesn't work. I have watched since 1980 and income inequality has steadily grown. We do not need more of the same.

I'm sorry - but Obama is doing the wrong thing here.

[JoePhilly]

35. What if the "tax cut" actually increases the effective tax rate?

This is the reason the GOP is saying NO.

While the official corporate tax rate is 35%, no corporation pays anywhere near that rate. With deductions and loopholes, they pay around 20% usually lower.

And so, if you (a) cut the rate to 28%, and (b) remove those deductions and loopholes, the effect is a net tax increase.

As you might be aware, Senator Ron Wyden gets lots of praise here on DU ... he proposed lowering the corporate tax rate to 24% while closing the loopholes and deductions for the same reason.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Wyden-Gregg-Tax-Reform-Tables.cfm

From that proposal ...

On the corporate and business side, the proposal would replace the graduated corporate rate structure with a flat rate of 24 percent, reduce or eliminate many business tax preferences, and allow unlimited expensing of equipment and inventories for small businesses.

Was Wyden wrong too?

[TBF]

39. The latest in the NYTimes -

This is the article I found in the NYTimes about it today: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/us/politics/obama-offers-to-cut-corporate-tax-rate-as-part-of-jobs-deal.html?hpw&_r=0

Obviously if they can do what you say and close those loopholes/deductions (and in effect raise what corporations will pay in) yes I think most here would agree with that. They need to be more specific in the press so folks understand what will happen.

[JoePhilly]

41. My guess is that ...

The administration will be louder about the corporate tax cut part because, whether we like it or not, the American people (all else being equal) want government leaders that are willing to make reasonable compromises. And he'll mention the closing of loopholes and deductions but maybe say things like "simplified tax code" or something like that.

The reason is that if he shouts about the impact on the effective tax rate, the fact that this is an increase will be used in the media to call his offer insincere and to provide cover to the GOP obstructionists.

By focusing on the cuts part, he can claim he's giving them something they want in the deal (and that's the part that's pissing off folks on DU). They won't make the deal (no matter what's in it anyway).

So he'll continue pointing out that he can't even give them what they say they want.

[maui902]

66. Obama has also pointed out that he'd use the funds from corporate tax reform

to fund a job creation/stimulus program. As proposed by Obama, at least in the short run, it's not intended to lead to lower taxes overall but lower tax rates on corporations that don't rely on evading US taxes by going offshore or significant deductions. Given the alternative (the status quo-significant evasion of US taxes by multinational corporations and zero support for funding for job creation programs), I share your view (at least I think it's your view from your posts) that this is a proposal that progressives should support. It doesn't go far enough for some, but it's a pretty good proposal to cast Republicans in an unfavorable light before next year's elections if they're not willing to negotiate something reasonable on this proposal. If the Republicans accept the proposal, it's pretty good for progressives; if they don't, their refusal to negotiate should make them more vulnerable in the 2014 elections.

[JoePhilly]

80. Agree. nt

[JaneyVee]

7. Except Obama's approval rating is about 5x higher than the Republicans.

[cali]

12. and what has that achieved for the people?

[JaneyVee]

14. 111th congress was most productive since LBJ. 112th and 113th? Not so much.

My point is that it is working, people are rightfully viewing the Republican Party as obstructionists holding America hostage.

[joshcryer]

74. This message isn't heard loud enough.

And there is still 30% or so of the American voting population who actually approves of Republican obstructionism.

[JoePhilly]

20. My 17 year old neice, who had cancer at 2, now gets full coverage.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. Oh, that? …

That doesn’t count because WE want single payer!

[treestar]

82. Yep. Much better we should stand on principal!

And await the REVOLUTION!!!!!!

if needed

[treestar]

81. the people are the same ones polled for the approval rate nt

[Marr]

13. This isn't a sporting event.

That attitude is what's allowed the Democratic Party to wander so far to the right. Viewing everything through that partisan lense may be good for your "team", but I doubt it's very good for you or your family, in the long term.

[JaneyVee]

15. It is a sporting event. It's the republican hunger games we're preventing.

[cthulu2016]

9. But look at the bright side

Since a "known Marxist" proposed all these things Republicans *should* like than future candidates who propose mainstream Democratic things will be identified as extremists

[msongs]

17. OMG siding with republcans is evil don't you know. feel free to kick your own thread often lol nt

[Safetykitten]

26. It's all Kabuki now with President Obama till the end of his term.

[JoePhilly]

29. And then 8 more years with Hillary as President.

[dembotoz]

31. here comes the new boss same as the old boss.....

[JoePhilly]

32. and complaining is easier than doing anything else.

[TBF]

36. Resistance

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. -- Thomas Jefferson

The history of liberty is a history of resistance. -- Woodrow Wilson

It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. -- Benjamin Franklin

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Our system requires compromises (call them concessions) to work.

If you look at this congress, it has come close to total non-functionality.

Republicans are not compromising, or doing so little of it that our naturally divided government is coming close to a failed state.

Concessions are necessary to govern, because most of the work of the government can not be done by Presidential order.

The answer is to elect a Congress that is more willing to work.

[Puzzledtraveller]

40. Popcorn, cotton candy, corn dogs?

[forestpath]

44. Especially when Obama's determination to implement the TPP shows just how concerned

he really is about American jobs.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Question: Would not this deal be unaffected by the TPP?

The Jobs created are in the area of infrastructure, etc., i.e., higher paying, non-out sourcable jobs. Further, wouldn’t provisions in this deal BRING MORE JOBS and INVESTMENT to America, as this deal provides incentives to on-shore/expand production here and penalizes off-shoring of profits?

[forestpath]

67. Since the TPP will pretty much turn US sovereignity over to corporations I don't

think there is anything in this country that won't be affected by it.

But even if that weren't the case, Obama can't claim to care about creating any jobs in this country when he's so desperate to sign a deal that will outsource so many of them. Not everyone is qualified to work in the area of infrastructure anyway. I doubt if Obama's infrastructure jobs, if they ever appear, would do much to help those who lose their jobs due to the TPP.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Okay ...

Since the TPP will pretty much turn US sovereignity over to corporations

Hyperbole much?

But even if that weren't the case, Obama can't claim to care about creating any jobs in this country when he's so desperate to sign a deal that will outsource so many of them. Not everyone is qualified to work in the area of infrastructure anyway. I doubt if Obama's infrastructure jobs, if they ever appear, would do much to help those who lose their jobs due to the TPP.

I think you need to look at the proposal again. It incentivizes bring jobs and profits o-shore.

Not everyone is qualified to work in the area of infrastructure anyway.

But everyone that worked in the housing industry (the current drag on the economy, relative to middle-class jobs) is qualified to work in the area of infrastructure repair.

[Rex]

45. Not only is it wrong, but Congress should be held criminally liable

for their inaction imo. The GOP already stated it would take down the country in a heartbeat, if it would in any way make Obama look bad. That is all they care about; appearance is more important to them then reality.

Then again, what do you expect from crazy people living in denial? That only have two emotions; hate and fear.

[louslobbs]

54. Agreed +1 n/t

Lou

[n2doc]

49. It just seems to be who he is

He, or his advisors, really want to show that they are sincere in being 'bipartisan'. It is part of the 'nonthreatening' posture that Obama generally takes.

I frankly don't know what he could do at this point. If he attacks, he gets skewered by the press (and seemingly, by a lot of the public) as an "Angry Black Man". If he sits back, he gets skewered as "do-nothing, passive, lazy". I wonder if his advisors have told him something like "it does more harm than good when you speak out in support of something or someone" so he is left with these plans that the DC policy wonks love but no one else cares about.


I do wish he put as much effort into supporting other government functions as he does in supporting the NSA/FBI/CIA/DHS. The one thing he doesn't do much of, to my knowledge, are signing statements. Seems like a lost opportunity, although I am sure the repubs would be howling in rage should he push major change that way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. It has been like that …

Since Day 1 …

frankly don't know what he could do at this point. If he attacks, he gets skewered by the press (and seemingly, by a lot of the public) as an "Angry Black Man". If he sits back, he gets skewered as "do-nothing, passive, lazy". I wonder if his advisors have told him something like "it does more harm than good when you speak out in support of something or someone

In his “non-threateningness” he HAS been skewered as the “ABM”, by the right; and in his, many successes, he is skewered by the left as “too passive.”
And it is something that every “1st” is well aware of, and the ground upon which we work … it just takes others (non-“minorities”) a little while to understand … some never do.

[davidpdx]

78. Isn't that the truth

The 'Obama is evil' crowd on DU has gotten louder with their howling. They really should have their heads examined.

Side-effects from ODS include foaming at the mouth, diarrhea, Rush Limbaugh Syndrome, shortness of breath, irritation of the brain, irrational thinking, the sudden need to scream, vomiting while speaking, and possibly homicidal thoughts.

[Deep13]

51. Well, that comes as a complete no surprise at all. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Maybe he should stop digging.

[snooper2]

55. A site you frequent often?

http://biasbreakdown.com/category/in-our-own-biased-opinion/

Five controversial (and award-winning) ideas for proactive conservative evolution

At National Review, Jonah Goldberg notes an observation by Friedrich Hayek: “It has . . . invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing.”

Whether it’s the fiscal cliff negotiations, entitlement spending, or any other form of government expansion, the progressive agenda steams ahead, dragging and ripping from the ground the constitutional and conservative roots of this country. Conservatives never win on core principles. Our successes only slow the rate of acceleration toward leftist domination.

Goldberg highlights federalism, where each individual state would regain the powers our constitution assigned it, as the path to proactive conservative re-emergence. We agree with the merits of federalism. However, the deck is stacked against that prospect. The federal government has too much leverage over the states.

So what’s the roadmap for returning to federalism?



149 years later
As conservatives grow more discouraged about a country that seems to be losing itself, and as millions grow more and more frustrated with the seemingly unbreachable divide between two differing visions for the country, we would do well to revisit the Gettysburg Address, given at a time when a unified country was nothing more than a fanciful dream. In the 21st century, may we continue to fight for a “new birth of freedom,” a cause our ancestors “so nobly advanced.”

[AnotherMcIntosh]

56. Nope. Never have. I found it on Google Images. Try Google yourself.

[snooper2]

57. I do all the time, but check the source

Like I wouldn't link to a jpg that was on FR

go on to next picture-

I'm anal like that-

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. The source is Brian Farrington, a cartoonist. His cartoons are retrieved by Google and are

all over the web.

[snooper2]

60. that's cool, I'm over it LOL

I've moved on it's already 4:30

[Catherina]

77. Perfect cartoon n/t

[pnwmom]

58. Are you suggesting he should behave as badly as they? n/t

[Catherina]

79. There's no excuse for it. The point of doing that is to lower the negotiation starting point

Why is the President offering concessions to the Republicans? That's Congress's job.

Good morning Cali

[markpkessinger]

86. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result . . .

. . . I think there's a word for that.

[Harmony Blue]

87. The problem is that the Republican party

has decided that their gameplan is to be obstructionist and an opposition party. Concessions simply don't work because all that happens is that the Republicans dig their heels even more. In theory, this makes the Obama administration look like responsible while the Republicans look like dolts but reality is that Republican diehards (30%) of the population lap it up. It also de-energizes the Democratic base and Independents are turned off. As someone else pointed out, not being Republican, or Republican lite, simply isn't palatable anymore with the American population. In general, the American population is very progressive on many issues, and yet our government is so conservative compared to Western and Eastern Europe for example. Or even Canada and Australia (the commonwealths). So, until the conservative bubble of DC beltway pops, we have to hold out that the third way will lose steam given it is not a perpetual engine. Basically, what worked for Clinton in the 90's is not resonating with voters a decade later. The demographics are changing, and will continue to change towards a progressive, multi cultural society in America.

Obama administration has misread the tea leaves and need to be shaken out of their apathy because this isn't the 90's anymore. Following Bill Clinton's playbook in these times doesn't energize a base.