Could you STILL support renominating this president as a Democrat

[Ken Burch]

if he puts "the entitlements" on the table?

If he does that, does that still LEAVE any reason to think he'd be non-conservative on anything in a second term?

Or at least anything that wasn't trivial?

[Ken Burch]

1. Wouldn't entitlements HAVE to be the "too far" point if you're a progressive?

We can't just reduce "progressiveness" to "it's enough that OUR guy is doing the cuts". It's not progressive just to fight to make the cuts smaller. In fact, it isn't worth anything.

[JoePhilly]

6. What if he masturbates in public???? I'd think that was "too far".

Or ...

[Ken Burch]

7. Well yeah, that too, although some of us don't ponder such thoughts...

If he just did that and left the entitlements alone, I could live with that.

[JoePhilly]

10. Just curious, given we are all spit balling here.

On edit ...

What if he doesn't offer the predicted cuts ... can we support him then?

Or do we just move on to a new reason to be mad at Obama?

[Ken Burch]

17. It's not about being "mad at Obama" for the sake of being mad at the guy

It's about what we had the right to expect from the person we elected. And it's NOT a progressive answer to say "no, WE didn't elect him". If the Republican leadership never disses their base, our leadership shouldn't diss OUR base either. OR deny that we have a base.

It serves no purpose to pretend this is a permanently right-of-center country and to accept the destructive, self-defeating meme that all we can do is make things slightly less beastly(no offense to actual beasts intended).

[DFab420]

11. It is progressive though

to not carry sacred cows legislation around on our backs, like crosses we must bare for our liberalness

If it helps, if the math proves it helps, then it helps.

I'm not about eliminating entitlements, I am about making the system work for our modern era.

[Ken Burch]

13. Can it possibly be progressive, though, to have NO core values?

What are we if EVERYTHING is up for grabs?

That leaves us with the Clinton Administration...I assume you'd agree we never have to lower ourselves to being THAT "flexible" again.

[DFab420]

16. I think you can

If your core values are:

Help those who need it

Don't be unjust or unfair

Do the best for the most

A rising tide lifts all boats


Then yea, I'm pretty sure you can debate anything

It's when we start thinking of current legislation and laws as THE ONLY WAY that we lose sight of grand picture. I would never be in favor of getting rid of entitlements, but figuring out a way to make them better, even if that means cutting waste, then yea I'm all for it. If you can show me it's a good idea, I'll pretty much listen to it, then way it against my core values, and go from there.

[Ken Burch]

20. Problem is, the rising tide DOESN'T lift all boats

It took a couple years to convince JFK of that, and he was killed before he could act on his realization that the "rising tide" swamps those boats that are chained to the bottom of the harbor.

[JustAmused]

35. Please explain...

as the Aussies say....what waste you see in Social Security?????

[RichGirl]

23. I would be thrilled to have another Clinton Administration.

The presidency is decided by the majority of the people....that's what democracy is. When 51% or more voting people agree with you...you'll get the president you want. And not a minute sooner. Until then I for one, am thrilled to have Obama! He may be centrist and even conservative in some cases, but he's not an evil nutcase like the republicans and teabaggers.

Would you consider it a democracy if a small percentage of people could elect the president???? That's what you seem to want.

Maybe when we have a President Trump or Bachman you'll get the foolishness of the "lowering ourselves" remark!!!

[Ken Burch]

18. One more thing:

"making the system work for our modern era" sounds like a center-right code phrase. It's another way of saying "you're just an old stick-in-the-mud if you defend the poor, the elderly, and the powerless from the natural right of rich people to get their way on everything". You should be aware of the implications of such phrases.

[merbex]

40. K & R +1 n/t

[RichGirl]

22. Too far!!!

NO! Too far is a republican president!

[polichick]

2. As usual, Dems will continue to vote for the lesser of evils.

[RichGirl]

24. I don't consider Obama the lesser of two evils....AT ALL.

I think he is doing as well as anyone could under the circumstances and deserves another term.

[polichick]

36. The choices are right-wing corporatist or right-center corporatist...

Both evil.

[dennis4868]

3. of course....

it will be a great day when he gets re-elected....GO OABAMA!

[Ken Burch]

4. Will you make sure you know how to spell his name by then?

:eyes:

[dennis4868]

8. thancs four the...

korrecshion....

[Ken Burch]

9. ennythyme

n/t.

[leveymg]

5. I was an Obama State delegate. I'm not going to be again.

Voting's a different matter. But, after suggesting he would cut Medicare/medicaid and the budget cave-in we just saw, I sure as hell am not going to knock another 4,000 doors for this man.

[FrenchieCat]

12. But he hasn't suggested.....

so you are being pre-emptive, when the truth will soon be known.

Why do that? How does that help you?

[Ken Burch]

14. And given this admin's past "truths", the "truth" that ends up being known

is invariably the most conservative truth possible. So why should be BOTHER waiting for the "truth" anymore?

Clearly, if SS and Medicare are compromised, the story's over and there are no core values in this party anymore. And without core values, the poor and the powerless ALWAYS lose. "Flexibility" and "Pragmatism" always lead to the most right-wing choice available.

And the base is dissed again in the service of...?

[leveymg]

15. David Plouffe suggested that on Sunday's Meet the Press.

If anyone was being preemptive, it's his spokesmen. Or, I guess you think it doesn't matter what the President's closest advisers have to say?

[FrenchieCat]

21. Interpreting (nefariously) what was said on Sunday, when more reports have come out

today and yesterday stating that he will be asking for tax increases on the wealthy, and increasing the cap on Social Security.......while maintaining benefits for Medicare, although there will be some cost cutting of waste in the program doesn't sound nefarious to me.....

To take criptic words from Sunday as some interpreted bible truth,
while ignoring criptic reports from today and yesterday,
when we will know wednesday is kinda of weird to me.
Makes me think folks enjoy experiencing freak-outs just cause.

-----------------------------------------

President Obama will call for shrinking the nation's long-term deficits by raising taxes on wealthier Americans and requiring them to pay more into Social Security, drawing a barbed contrast with a Republican plan to save money by deeply slashing Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic spending.

Obama will offer some spending cuts, including trims to the Pentagon's budget, but his speech Wednesday is likely to provide Americans with a vivid choice between higher taxes or fewer benefits, issues that will color the national debate straight through the 2012 election.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-spending-20110412,0,2255928.story

----------------------------
By Greg Sargent

A bunch of people today have been proceeding, with dismay, from the assumption — reported in various places — that the President’s deficit reduction speech tomorrow will embrace the Simpson-Bowles approach. But there are increasing signs that this may not be the case, and that Obama will lay out a vision uniquely his own that could — conceivably — be better than expected for liberals.

At the White House press briefing today, spokesman Jay Carney hinted that all the reporting out there today is wrong, and insisted Obama’s vision would not be based solely on any particular plan.

<snip>

What’s more, other stories out there today are encouraging. The Los Angeles Times, for instance, reports that Obama tomorrow will draw a sharp contrast with the GOP by insisting on tax hikes for the rich. Crucially, the story even suggests the model for what Obama will do is the 2005 fight over Social Security, in which Dems drew a hard line on entitlements and refused to budge.

Obviously that is a very optimistic read on what will happen. But I can say that the White House has indicated to me that Simpson-Bowles will not be the primary foundation for Obama’s speech. Ezra Klein was told the same.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/moderately-encouraging-signs-about-what-obama-will-say-tomorrow/2011/03/03/AFCGmXRD_blog.html

[leveymg]

25. It's real late in the game for catch-up baseball, at this point. He's struck out a lot and made a

bunch of unforced errors, if you follow the traditional logic of American political reporting, which is sports metaphors.

He has little time to salvage this game. I am still rooting for the home team, but it's not looking good for Mudville.

[FrenchieCat]

30. No.....it is you and some others running with the ball

before the game has really started....
and believing all along that the
other team would not show up and simply forfeit.

[leveymg]

34. That's just great. Blame us for "running with the ball."

We're running around here in the outfield watching ball after ball sail over our heads into the stands. Frankly, we're wondering if the pitcher on our team is actually trying to put so many of the opposing team on base. Meanwhile, morons in the pressbox are accusing us of throwing the game because we don't understand 11-dimensional baseball.

Well, fuck the morons in the press box. Fuck the pitcher. And, fuck the guy in the silk suit who owns the team. It sucks playing for the 1919 Black Sox.

[merbex]

39. Beautiful analogy, made me smile on a depressing day n/t

[polmaven]

29. Well, now, Frenchie...

You don't think having been reported to have had a look on his face like he had heard he might consider maybe doing it is enough???? C'mon!

[craigmatic]

19. No there'd be no reason to except for the SCOTUS appointments.

[Safetykitten]

26. He will be our nomination. He will not be the next president. That will be a republican.

[BklnDem75]

28. If wishes were ponies instead of horses...

[FrenchieCat]

31. And you will work your heart out to that end......

as you have been.

[Safetykitten]

32. Uh, he needs no help from little ol' me.

[FrenchieCat]

33. No,

I don't think the Republicans need your help, but looks like they keep getting it anyways.

Why work so hard toward that end, if you claim to care soooo much about the issues that
your defacto team (that you are rooting for) would not simply water-down, but would trample completely and without hesitation or mercy?

[MadMaddie]

27. Four Words - Supreme Court Justice Nomination

That's it and that's all!

If you think we are fucked now, think about how screwed future generations will be!

[polichick]

37. Either the party stands for something or it doesn't - if it doesn't, it's time for...

...some pretty big changes.

[Keith Bee]

38. Stupid Question

:thumbsdown: