If anything could make Obama take a tougher stand against Repubs., running for a 2nd term should

[Cal33]

do it. And if that fails, I don't see what else could help.

He has to show where the differences are between his way and the Republican way. He
has to show where he thinks they are wrong. He'd probably still extend a friendly
hand for bi-partisanship, but they would have to compromise more, and he less.

He knows very well that there are plenty of Democrats who are angry at him, and that
he has to win their votes again. The very fact of his running for a second term shows
that he understands he must change. His budget speech of yesterday already is a strong
indication that he very likely is going to change.

Also, if he should win his second term, there is nothing further for him to lose if he
showed more strength in his dealings with the Republicans. He could say that he had
done all he could to bend over backwards to accommodate them, and they simply would not
respond. There is no other choice for him but to get tougher.

I'm just looking forward to his compaign speeches. He knows he has to get tougher
in order to win over more Democrats and Independents. The difference between his
present campaign and the first one, is that HE WAS NOT PRESIDENT DURING HIS FIRST
CAMPAIGN, BUT HE IS THE PRESIDENT NOW! And he has to live up to his own words AS
HE IS CAMPAIGNING.

This will be interesting to watch,

[Cal33]

1. My, my, my! Not one reply - neither pro or con. Opinions, anyone?

[KoKo]

2. Good Points. We are all hoping he will define Democratic Ideals more forcefully.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Moosepoop]

5. The "Democrat Party" ??

Really?

Enjoy your stay.

[phleshdef]

6. Please continue. I love it when you people underestimate Barack Obama, just like you did in 08.

[creon]

11. No

No

[treestar]

4. this tough/weak thing is so Republican

All of these people are "tough." That's how they got where they are. They are not easy to deal with.

People should quit pretending all we need is some stronger personalities. This is politics, not your daily domination of your household.

[phleshdef]

7. lulz. "This is politics, not your daily domination of your household."

I think thats one of the best summations of this faux-chest beating attitude that I've seen thus far.

[phleshdef]

8. A President can't spend the entire time verbally beating his opposition over the head.

It turns a lot of the general public off. And it just gives the opposition a semi-legit excuse not to work with him on anything (at least from a popular opinion standpoint and lets face it, what voters think actually does matter). At least this way, their stonewalling and overreach BS eventually catches up with them politically, and it really is starting to catch up with them.

Barack Obama knows when and how to show restraint better than a vast majority of the politicians in Washington. That the damned truth whether the net progressive community wants to admit it or not.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Yeah, like the asswhipping they took last fall.

Or Reagan's defeat shortly after Watergate.

Or the price Poppy paid in the wake of Iran-Contra.

Or Bush's failed attempt at a second term.

There is absolutely no evidence of any serious blowback. The theory is an article of faith based on the thought process of those that hold the belief.

The maximum Republican time out is about four years no matter how much they behave like criminals and then they come back not contrite but emboldened, each and every time.

The opposite also holds true, Democrats are never rewarded for compromising or biting our tongues. In fact, it looks to me like such behavior is punished.

You are trying to justify a failed approach with a ten mile long track record of not just failure but consistent setbacks.
You are promoting fantasy.

[phleshdef]

14. Right, because there were absolutely no other factors present in any of those cases.

I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to another one of your insufferable gibberish rants, but regardless.

Jimmy Carter had a really poor run during his first term. Half of his own party ended up turning on him. It was a tragic and unfair predicament.

The next 2 elections were lost because the Democratic party ran some really shitty candidates.

Yes, I'll say it.

Walter Mondale was a shit candidate with an even shittier running mate. A great guy but a shit candidate for President.

Michael Dukakis was also quite a shitty candidate. Also a great guy but also a shit candidate for President.

Those 2 elections, the Democratic party suffered from a Bob Dole type situation.

George Bush only won a second term, ultimately because of 9/11. Had 9/11 never happened, John Kerry would be in the latter half of his second term right now, I guarantee it.

I never set that Democrats should always bite their tongues. I'm saying NO President should, for his or her best interest, spend their entire time beating their opposition over the head. Polls reflect that too much of that does in fact turn voters off. Overly-negatively aggressive Democrats do not sell. Just ask Alan Grayson why he isn't in congress anymore. There is nothing to gain by being a mean spirited dick 24/7.

[TheKentuckian]

16. You still can't support your premise that Republicans get blow back of merit

I hope you are correct but it is faith and faith alone.

The last time the Republicans paid a significant price was when leaders made no bones about hanging their shenanigans around their necks in the wake of the Great Depression.

[joentokyo]

9. My grandmother always said that if wishes were horse, beggars could ride.

[Exilednight]

10. Maybe, but if he wins, what then? Does he go back to his centrist ways? n/t

[creon]

12. Do not worry about Obama

The issue:
Recruit, nominate and elect liberals to Congress.
That is what needs to be done.

[Citizen Worker]

15. Hollow platitudes on the campaign trail are...well, hollow. Haven't we learned that by now?