General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Spent Too Much Time Trying To Reach Out To GOP. A Bloody Stump Was All He Got.
I have and still support Obama. My disappointment with him is that he spent so much time reaching out to the GOP. All they did was race bait, attack and undermine anything he has tried to do from day one. Every reach out resulted in a bloody stump. I believe he would have been better off fighting these bastards every step of the way. He would have better approval ratings right now if he would have been more combative the last 6 years and stuck it in their eye.
His most notable errors was continuing Bush's destructive education policies and putting Arne Duncan in Charge. He should have scrapped all of the education agenda. The other error was supporting the CPI concept which damaged Democrats. He may be more of a fighter the last part of his administration and it should help but we needed a fighting progressive.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madokie
(51,076 posts)although I can understand where he was coming from. Being the first other than white man president he didn't want o ruffle too many feathers. If he would have come in sending the dick and w off to the Hague or started breaking up the banks he would have been labeled as a angry black man and would have been literary hung on the white house lawn. At the very least tared and feathered and rode out of town on a rail. That is the reality of where he was/is, why he was/is
Obama has set the stage for some serious Progressives in the future and for that I give him credit
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)The whole point is, he was labeled and trashed anyway, and he took far too long to figure out it didn't matter what he had done, that they were going to trash him.
I hope for a frequent use of the veto pen, though winning the Senate and House is possible for Democrats, if enough people actually realized we do have an election in the middle of presidential cycles, that elects the WHOLE House, and a third of the Senate.
Honestly, this country is dying due to the fact we're in general, just incredibly stupid. Most don't even know how government works. And when your brain is empty, it just makes it so much easier for some television pundit to put just about anything up in there!?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Republican Sociopaths don't compromise unless it's to their own selfish advantage.
KG
(28,751 posts)it's not like he didn't spend a few years in capitol hill
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)He reached out to the opposition, repeatedly, because that is what the job of President requires and it is what the American people have said they expected/wanted.
Logical
(22,457 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm pretty certain he knew going in that the republicans would not cooperate with him ... he read the reporting of the pre-swearing in meeting, too.
That does not change the job of the President, nor does/did it change the expectations of the American people.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It started with his first big proposal, the stimulus package. He offered a plan that was far smaller than what liberal economists were calling for. Furthermore, even aside from the question of the overall size, the breakdown was tailored to appeal to the Republicans, with the component of tax cuts being much larger than what liberals recommended. (Targeted spending increases have more stimulus effect, dollar-for-dollar, than tax cuts.)
My recollection is that, when he first rolled out the plan, Republican leaders were pleased with the size of the tax cuts. But the key point is that it didn't matter. The Republicans voted against it anyway -- unanimously in the House and almost unanimously in the Senate.
It's not just hindsight to say that Obama mishandled this. I've never dealt with twelve-figure matters but even in much smaller negotiations, I know that you don't start with your best offer. He should have proposed a much bigger plan that was all or almost all spending, and let the Republicans whittle it down and get some "tax relief" included, as part of a compromise that they would then vote for. That wouldn't have violated the expectations of the American people.
Even if you give Obama a pass on that incident, though, it's harder to deny that he didn't learn enough from it. He persisted in acting as if the Republicans would behave reasonably and responsibly. When it came to the ACA, for example, he loudly insisted on a "robust public option" and then proposed a bill that omitted it. The result this time was even worse in the sense that he got zero Republican votes in either chamber for a watered-down version of a major policy initiative. If he had proposed a public option and seen it eliminated in the course of Congressional dealmaking (which, I admit, is what probably would have happened), voters in the middle would not have seen him as excessively partisan, and his base would have been more motivated.
I'm not saying he should have "steamrolled them" (per Rose Siding in #29). That's pretty much what FDR did, and he won a landslide re-election -- but the makeup of the 111th Congress was such that Obama didn't have that option. My criticism is that, in striking the balance between pushing hard for a progressive agenda versus being willing to compromise, he tilted too far toward the latter, and that he persisted in doing so long after the intensity of Republican obstructionism should have been apparent.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What has his compromises that tilted too far netted? IOWA ... His "compromises" have moved the ball in a positive direction.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)To take the example I mentioned, the ARRA: If his initial proposal had been bigger and with less in the way of tax cuts, then he could have compromised back from that, to end up with something that was still better than what actually passed.
A possible compromise always runs into two competing considerations: We should hold out for more, versus this mediocre version is better than nothing. Would a more aggressive posture get a better final outcome, or would it torpedo the whole deal and thus forfeit the chance to move the ball in a positive direction? It has to be decided case by case.
I'm not saying that Obama should never compromise with the Republicans. The ARRA that actually passed was far better than nothing. In your phrase, it did move the ball in a positive direction. My argument is that this was an instance where taking a tougher line would have ended up moving the ball even further.
In other instances, it isn't even clear that the compromise moved ball forward. For example, his compromise at the time of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts left most of them in place. He could have refused to compromise unless he got a much better deal. Because of the sunset provision in the law, plus the existence of enough support in Congress to sustain his veto of any extension bill, his batna (best alternative to negotiated agreement) was that ALL the Bush tax cuts would have expired, and the Republicans couldn't do a damn thing about it. There's a good argument that that outcome would have been better than the one he got by compromising.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)He appealed to better angels. Tragic that there were none. Still, he's a good man for trying.
I was as frustrated as everyone at the time but if he'd steamrolled them right off even conservative dems in Congress would've deserted him.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)People seem to forget that the swing we've seen in polling indicating the dislike of republicans for their obstructionism started with his continued attempts to reach out to them.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Despite what so many accuse him of, I believe he has maintained his
integrity through all of this. That it has been pure hell much of the
time. That his family is solid, and they will go on to do much good
after they are out of the White House. Probably all of them. I think
once he is out of office, he will be freer to do more, have more of
an impact here and around the world. He will be the number one
speaker in demand almost everywhere. He's a man with an active
conscience, I tip my hats to him.
I've been brainwashed, too. Often when I am faced with a daunting
task, and think I can't do it, there is now a popup message in my brain,
which is absolutely, reliably there, always: "yes, I can"
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)He is a corporate politician.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Obama is not gullible. Please. He is one of the smartest and best Presidents. Just because he doesn't have shit fits, like people like to watch for entertainment in their dull lives, doesn't mean he is gullible.
CanonRay
(14,103 posts)It was never going to go well.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
But, he was warned, before he took office, by Frank Schaeffer, one of the former leaders of the religious right.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 4, 2014, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)
1. Always split the difference between two sides
2. Stay above the fray, don't get dirty
3. Bankers are better than everyone else
4. The little people must respect their betters
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Once you split, then get rejected, the Republicans will negotiate again, to split from your new position, and their newly moved further right, position.
And by the way, one of Obama's biggest flaws was in negotiating from the center, rather than from the right--and at times, not even realizing he had the power, like with tax cuts in 2010. Let them expire--start over with negotiations. They should have expired, as they weren't passed properly in the first place.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)under Obama.
Keep splitting the difference, splitting the difference...
Unless that's the result he truly wanted, which may be the case.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Since you know absolutely nothing about his core beliefs
except what is born out of your own imagination.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)We certainly know a bunch of things that they're *not*, based on his actions.
The set I proposed seem to explain his actions pretty well, no?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Don't you think we should know what his core beliefs are by now? Why are we all still guessing? Because that is how the game is played, blank slate and all.
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)So, you're #2 is just plain ol' bullshit.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)In passing ObamaCare, Obama fought with no one, threatened no one. He simply paid off almost everyone involved, so he could ignore the people (like unions) who got hurt by the plan.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)". . . He simply paid off almost everyone involved . . . "
eomer
(3,845 posts)Notice how quickly and easily things are passed that the owners want. For the rest of us they've created the pretense of gridlock.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Wall Street, Education Reformers, Insurance Companies and DLC/Third Way. When Rahm Emmanuel trashed those of us Left Activists in the Dem Party...the game was revealed. Hard to know what Obama really thinks because he danced with those who brought him to the Party. Did he have much choice? But, what difference would there have been with Hillary? The Party of the People has changed. It's the Party of Special Influence, MIC and only different on Social Issues where Dems have an edge in fighting for expanded rights of women, LBGT and minorities.
It's our Party that we need to blame for going to the right which lead them into Koch Brothers, Chamber of Commerce, Petersen Foundation and RW Think Tanks influence.
A strong Party that broke from the Wall Street, Military Industrial Complex and Big Money influence could control a President. As it is ....we haven't been able to reform our Party because there aren't enough of us to do it.
The Gridlock does seem what you say in that it always works for a Republican Minority and not a Democratic one. When we Dem Voters worked hard and gave the US House a Dem Majority with Nancy Pelosi as Madame Chairwoman....we thought we finally had influence. It was not to be.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)It was perfectly clear back in 2007-08 that then-Senator Obama was not a progressive. That became even more clear when he filled his administration with the likes of Rahm Emmanuel, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, etc.
The president has done a decent job under difficult circumstances, and unlike his most vociferous defenders here, I can actually vote in U.S. elections and have voted for him twice. I would do it again.
But I can't buy the notion that the preisdent is a naive idealist who had no idea how the game worked when he moved into the White House. He's actually an expert at that game.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)
Nicely stated
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)When the Dems controlled the government, what did they accomplish? If the Affordable Care Act is all you've got, it ain't much. Look for approval of the Keystone XL and the TPP, coming soon to make life in America even more miserable.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)His cabinet picks show us exactly who he is working for - no way to defend this, yet the BOG tries desperately. Hillary will be more of the same.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bnot only Rahm who dissed the left. Gibbs did it, too. Barack "Make me do it" Obama also scolded the left for pushing for a public option, chastising us because the public option is "only a sliver." (Not exactly what he campaigned on, was it?) Still on occasion refers to "my friends on the left," as though we were the other party.
When FDR said, "Make me do it, he did not mean it. FDR was going to "do it," no matter what, as his first 100 days proves. When Obama stole FDR's line, Obama did not mean it, either. He wasn't go to "do it" no matter what we did.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
We must resist the ABSURD rewriting of history to excuse and deny the monied corruption that controls both parties now.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)as Koko's post, and DAILY REALITY clearly show.
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Democratic faithful.
The Tea Party was also manufactured to that end. However when something unexpected like OWS came along they had to hurry and squash it.
coldbeer
(306 posts)wish I had hours instead of minutes,
Thanks everybody!!!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Although I'm not sure it wasn't intentional and premeditated. I think we were gamed.
Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)out". Your example of Arne Duncan is a good one, but only one of many. Reaching out would have been, "I will appoint Arnie Duncan, if you agree to continue funding foodstamps." Pres Obama's agenda can be seen from his appointments. Penny Pritzker? Really?
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)....they are capable of was HRC's greatest advantage over O. She would have met the same stubborn resistance and nasty attack, but I think would have been a more fierce fighter from the beginning.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)HRC, for sure, will be more bellicose in foreign policy compared to Obama. In fact HRC will be near neo-(con/lib) than Obama.
merrily
(45,251 posts)anyone can say anything.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)actually interested in moving the country forward.
They are only interested in gaining power.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Elections have consequences. It's too convenient to blame other things.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Are we *still* pretending that Obama has not been working full-throated for corporate interests?
JEB
(4,748 posts)This has been true at least since Clinton.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Now when it comes to defending his legacy he's not so interested in reaching out.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Look more closely and you'll find that CPI didn't happen, the Keystone pipeline hasn't been and may never be approved, ditto TPI. Meanwhile ACA is miraculously entering its fifth year of life. And that war with Syria probably won't happen either. In fact the bombing sorties have already quietly dropped from the headlines as I suspected they would. Yes there's a bit of kabuki but you have to realize that it's part of a strategy. That's the real story IMHO.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Both (this and upthread) make good points.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Social Security cuts are still on the table, where they will remain until the government tires of USING the threat of them to slide through other types of vicious austerity. The PR machine seriously needs new talking points, because this alternate reality in which Americans have not been repeatedly and deliberately gutted under this administration using these threats as a TOOL is growing beyond tiresome.
Every Democrat, every American, should be sick of the constant Third Way claim that these Social Security threats have been just words and didn't harm anyone. They have harmed EVERYONE.
1. Without the threatened axe of Social Security cuts (which kept returning as the austerity kept escalating), the Third Way would never have been able to sell the vicious budget and social program cuts they HAVE inflicted on Americans...by justifying them as the lesser of two evils.
If you had told us a few years ago that the Barack Obama administration would be presiding over government spending that assaults the poor even more viciously than the RYAN plan, we would never have believed it. Yet that is exactly where we found ourselves, surrounded by corporate mouthpieces exhorting us to be grateful, "because he didn't cut Social Security."
No, what he DID was collude with Republicans in the debt ceiling fiasco to orchestrate a situation in which the only possible outcomes were austerity or even more vicious austerity. We sat here and watched the entire obscene process, including lecturing speeches about eating our peas and inexplicable right-wing offers like this coming from a Democratic president....all of which crap we were expected to swallow gratefully, "because at least he didn't cut Social Security."Look at the OFFERS: Look what passes for Democratic "representation."
Look at where our Democratic president starts with OFFERS.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060108
Third Way Surreal: President seeks credit for election-year pause in his own hostage-taking.
He's *temporarily* removing, during an election year, the ax *he* suspends over our heads repeatedly as a tool to continue implementing vicious Third Way austerity. ('It will remain on the table." )
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=7335022. For years, Republicans have drummed lies into the heads of the American people about the source of our economic problems and how to fix them. They have pushed vicious austerity and malignant, economy-starving deficit-cutting instead of the real help to the 99 percent that is needed, and they have preached lies about the need to cut SS and LIES about its contribution to the deficit.
President Obama had from Day One of this Presidency to correct Republican lies linking deficits and Social Security. He had from Day One to correct lies recommending austerity for the "health" of the country. Three hundred economists stood up early in his presidency and warned about these vicious Republican lies. But Obama instead chose to cement for the entire country the vicious Republican narrative that austerity was needed and to repeat the lies tying SS to the deficit. He CEMENTED the lies and and made them a *bipartisan* narrative in a way that we will struggle to correct for a long, long time. These lies damaged our country, and they viciously poisoned the message and identity and reputation of our party. We are two relentlessly lying corporate parties now.
And the fleecing continues. We just got yet another round of food stamp cuts signed by this president, and a farm bill based on pension smoothing. And all the other assaults that have been posted here over and over and over again. And still we are treated to the surreal, Orwellian lectures of the PR machine exhorting us to be grateful that the SS cuts are off the table during this election year, even though the administration itself says they will be back....because this president persists in perpetuating the right-wing lie that they should be connected to the general fund.
Thanks to this administration, we have massive, new longterm war of choice to pay for. What's that gonna cost? Oh, and let's not forget Obama's TRILLION dollar commitment to ramp up our nuclear program! And what's on the horizon economically? Obama's TPP and TISA, which will further gut American jobs and wages and trade away our democratic protections against predatory corporations.
Corporate money floods Washington, and these manipulations by the two corporate parties are what we get as a result. That, and this absurd PR that tries to pretend that what they do to us every single day isn't really happening. Your attempt here to sell all of it with some pathetic reference to gazillion dimensional chess is the obscene Third Way cherry on top.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)
progressoid
(49,991 posts)This is just the beginning of our meddling/war in Syria/Iraq.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Yes, the door is open to another wave of bombs if ISIS should capture the headlines again for another round of clamor. But it probably won't because the threat has been decisively addressed and that dog won't hunt anymore, so to speak.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)We just bombed them again last night.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/04/us-jets-attack-isis-syrian-town-turkish-leader-rebukes-biden
You make it sound like this is a just a PR exercise.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)high-res searchable scan of Sat. Oct. 04 NYT page 1:
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2014/10/04/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf
See what I mean? 
progressoid
(49,991 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Sorry to disappoint the complainers.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Nothing to stop them after midterms.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and then stick the new guys for the bill. That's a Bush-Cheney trick but they were looters to begin with. A lot depends on what happens on Nov. 4 as to what he can and can't get accomplished, and the teabaggers will most certainly double down on mayhem and obstruction, but I can guarantee that Obama will do everything he can to assure that the government doesn't fall to the GOP in 2016. Dems actually care about the future and not just their own.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Since then he has been in Black Knight mode. I suppose 2015-2017 will give him renewed opportunities to reach out to what may well be a congress with both chambers controlled by a party that would cheer his assassination.
ffr
(22,670 posts)After all, it would be using their strategy against them. I like it!
Orsino
(37,428 posts)There are a couple of hundred million more of the rest of us who could stand to get involved.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I don't think a president in his position should ever stop trying to reach out to them, depending of course on exactly what that entails. If he is ever to get laws passed that might benefit us, he is going to have to shame them enough to motivate them, while shaming them sufficiently little that they'll save face and allow themselves some minimal cooperation.
Bloody stumps are what they do. Giving up, however, is not an option for a president determined to pass even mildly progressive reforms. I expect him to continue reaching out, because that outreach is to the public as well as to the GOP.
Perhaps one day enough Americans will agree with the need for some real reform that the GOP will find it impossible to deny us. Until that happens, the president's outreach to Republican leaders hardly matters, and shouldn't be our focus. Every time he reaches out, he's pointing out their empty seat at the table, and keeping alive the possibility that one day we'll think enough of ourselves to demand they participate.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Continuing Bush's war policies is his worst mistake.... He is using similar rationale to explain his reasons for going after Isis...I thought he was smart enough not to get snookered by the Neocons but I guess their lures are just too powerful...
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)
AnAzulTexas
(108 posts)It's almost as if he were playing along with their little game the whole time
merrily
(45,251 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"almost"
AnAzulTexas
(108 posts)If President Obama would have come out swinging in his first years, he would not have been hanged in the front lawn as someone earlier said. He had total backing from the base he built yet he loaded his cabinet with toadies and here we are trying to make excuses for the man's decisions.
Thanks for not sending my original post to a jury, sheesh
mountain grammy
(26,622 posts)an elected representative should strive to represent all of her/his constituents, even the ones who don't vote for her/him, unlike Republicans who don't even represent the fools who DO vote for them. But, President Obama, being an honorable man, tried to do this very thing. Engage the other side, incorporate their ideas with your own. It's called compromise and it's the way all of us live our daily lives. I believe he actually thought this would work. Fucking, crazy ass Republicans will destroy us.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)make sure the greedy, environment killing, anti civil liberties, warmongering, anti commons, despisers of self determination, destruction of public education, "shrink the pig", anti tax zealots, and anti labor folks continue to drive policy.
That is shit isn't "honorable", it is a soul crushing sell out in actual context. These forces are destroying our nation and our world, there is no nobility in aiding them.
What that is statement adds up to is a rationalization to call pig shit chocolate ice cream. Fucking crazy talk. "Splitting the difference" with the insane is still nuts.
CrispyQ
(36,470 posts)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)want them to give the republicans ANYTHING. their appeasement was a disaster for the president, the party, and the US.
Autumn
(45,097 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)They don't do their jobs and still they get paid.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)In the Senate and in the House.
I think it is time for them to step aside and give the Party new leadership.
We know Mitch McConnell and John Boehner should be gone also, but we should not wait for the Repubs to make any changes.
When you have leadership in both Parties and not one of them can figure out a way to work with the others, then maybe it is the fault of all the leadership, in both Parties? The results speak for themselves, in my opinion.
The two Parties are locked in political gridlock and they cannot serve this country well. Sometimes I think we need another Party, a progressive Democratic Party, that could form a block between the two major roadblocks to governing this country? But then, I wake up...
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)from the right, and the 'left'.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)He welcomed their hatred and saved America from the great depression and the world from Hitler.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Com'on, surely you have an opinion on the 2016 presidential race.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)worries about his stump. He is not a selfish man.