The tendency that many progressives have to believe the worst about Obama is a big problem

[wndycty]

The minute the Washington Post story broke that claimed Obama was putting Social Security cuts on the table I knew what I would see here, hear on Ed Schultz, see on twitter, etc. The White House via Jay Carney went on the record and said:

"There is no news here. The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

But the damage is already done. There is a thread on the greatest page bashing Obama for caving, even though it appears he hasn't. The biggest obstacle facing us in 2012 is our circular firing squad, led by those who choose to always believe the worse about the president, hell they even root for it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. +1,000,000,000!! K&R!! n/t

[K8-EEE]

plus a zillion!!

K&R

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zen Democrat]

3. You're right. We have some real jumpers here. Sadly.

To my mind, the WP is again intentionally causing problems. They do it a lot. They put that stuff out and people are headed for the pavement!

[Armstead]

4. "There will be a public option." ..."The President will not allow Bush tax cuts for the rich"

There are reasons for skepticism

[AndyTiedye]

9. Sometimes You Can't Get What You Want, Even if You are President

[polichick]

20. Especially when you willingly and willfully hand over what you supposedly want.

[AndyTiedye]

24. The Votes Were Never There for a Public Option

Vote #60 was Lieberman (D?, Insurance industry). Need I say more?

[polichick]

26. The WH traded it away in a backroom deal long before votes were even considered.

[AndyTiedye]

50. You Know This How?

[polichick]

75. This article sort of sums it up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

[BklnDem75]

112. A lobbyist for the health industry

Why is he considered a good source again?

[Sheepshank]

81. Please do tell the juicy details...

...a link or two to confirm your accusation would be helpful. Until then, your statement us unfounded, baseless, and not much more than a lie.

[polichick]

91. See #75 - don't know how you missed this at the time.

[JoePhilly]

117. Lieberman was never going to vote yes ... NEVER.

There was no amount of pressure that would make him vote yes.

Or if there was a way to make Joe vote YES .... describe it.

The Senator from Aetna was a NO vote with a public option, period.

[rurallib]

49. I am so old I remember when 51 votes were needed.

[AndyTiedye]

53. The Repiglickins Filibuster Everything Now, so Anything Less than 60 is DOA

If they had been so obstructionist back then, the liberal media (which we still had back then) would have been all over them.

[Doctor_J]

67. Since 70% of the populace was in favor of it when he took office,

it certainly was worth discussing and fighting for. But I guess it wasn't worth it to Obama.

[Sheepshank]

83. To Obama it was worthy enough to make a public statement in support of those programs n/t

[muffin1]

28. Twould be nice if he fought for it, though. nt

[21st Century FDR]

29. Well, if you're gonna reference Stones lyrics

then you'll have to remember that Mick said "...but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you NEED".

Which implies that you have to at least TRY. And from here, it looks as though President Obama isn't doing so. And as a result, we the PEOPLE certainly aren't getting what we need.

[Sheepshank]

84. bull

you are attempting to state as fact that Obama isn't even trying?...Not true

[21st Century FDR]

92. Maybe you should e mail the President your own signature.

He obviously hasn't seen the quote.

[mazzarro]

70. +100,000,000,000% - Thank You For Reminding The Forgetfulls -- n/t

[Supersedeas]

118. keeping 'ours' honest means having a good memory about these things

[polichick]

5. That's one view. imo the tendency to accept the President's use of Republican framing...

...when negotiating critical issues is a much bigger problem.

If the Prez had adopted the framing of the Progressive Caucus - which seems much more appropriate for a Democratic president - we would be in a completely different place.

imo it's the duty of principled Dems to speak out - and the value of a place like this.

[Pholus]

6. Define "slash" versus "cut" and I'll be happy.

Words mean things. One can definitely enact "cuts" which are not seen to "slash" and so semantically that promise is worth very little other than to say a program CALLED social security will continue to exist.

Oh yes, it is petty.

But....

Ever since the word "Permanent" was inserted in the phrase:

"We do not support the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts"

I've learned that I need to parse statements carefully.

Words mean things.

So please define cut and explain why it isn't a slash. After all, I support Social Security with an EXTRA TAX that I pay.

Edit: Permanently -> Permanent

[Bluenorthwest]

61. In the dictionary, 'slash' is a specific style of cut.

One can most certainly cut while not slashing in the English language, much less in Beltwayspeak.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Big Blue Marble]

8. Obama is not a "leader" that has instilled confidence

in his base. You might think of it as PTSD Syndrome. When you have been injured,
dare I day abused, by someone, you tend to be reactionary. The trust between Obama
and the Democratic base is gone and with good reason. The outcome of these negotiations may be
the final undoing of that relationship that began with such high hope.

[polichick]

18. Sad, but true - many of us worked our butts off for this prez...

...only to see him become a Republican enabler at almost every turn.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

42. partly because a fair number of those unhappy want a fisticuffs and loud leader

rather then one that is more silent and working to get things done with little fanfare

[w4rma]

109. Get what done? Nixonian legislation that Democrats voted against years ago? (nt)

[mzmolly]

10. "But the damage is already done." Indeed, people are played

like fiddles.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. It makes me wonder what the difference is between the ultra-Leftwingers and the ultra-Rightwingers.

From what I've seen...ZERO difference. Both are frighteningly fanatatical.

[polichick]

35. Here's the difference: the right is principled about fighting for corporations...

...and the left is principled about fighting for people.

Too bad you don't know the difference.

[AndyTiedye]

73. The Right's Principles Resemble the Ferenghi Rules of Acquisition

[BlueCaliDem]

96. You say "principled". I call it fanatical. And there is a fine line between them.

The only difference I see is how both ultra-sides of the spectrum want our society to look like, and neither side is pragmatic making them both fanatical. They're unbending, unrelenting, uncharitable, unfair, and unfriendly as hell. And they're more than willing to destroy something to make their point just to "teach us a lesson", not understanding that their fanaticism turns people off and their message gets ignored.

So, yeah. I do know the difference. Do you?

[Number23]

120. You win the thread

Spot on. A fanatic is a fanatic, no matter how "wonderful" s/he claims to want to make the world.

[Bobbie Jo]

36. There's a very fine line. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

95. A barely visible one. They both, however, believe in their ideologies and tolerate NO dissent

In fact, they can barely handle it when it's put to them. Again the word "fanatical" comes to mind.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

11. After the dodge on the public option, after keeping bu$h's tax cuts

after the stalling on DADT.... and other issues....can't say I blame them for being a bit trigger-happy -- IF in fact they are.

Edit:

Also, I don't see a THING wrong with letting the President or any other gov't reps know what is expected of them by those who put them in office ie: where WE draw lines in the sand even if they won't. I'd rather have easily outraged voters who are paying attention and giving 'em Hell than complacent, lazy voters who are ignorant and half asleep.

Celebrate the activism. Ditch the criticism.

[wndycty]

13. Stalling on DADT or getting done right and sound. . .

. . .believe what you want to believe.

Did Obama promise us a public option? Did he campaign on one?

I am pissed about the Bush tax cuts, but lets not forget there were hostages (the unemployed).

[MadMaddie]

45. Okay "Stalling on DADT"

Perhaps a little perspective...

How long did it take to Desegregate the military?

September 1945: Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson appoints a board of three general officers to investigate the Army's policy with respect to African-Americans and to prepare a new policy that would provide for the efficient use of African-Americans in the Army. This board is called the Gillem Board, after its chairman, General Alvan C. Gillem, Jr.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology


October 1953: The Army announces that 95% of African-American soldiers are serving in integrated units..

So if the math is to believed it took from 1945 to 1953 to get the Army 95% desegregated ated....lets..1953-1945 = 8 Years....Look at the detail in the link......how many studies and other things did they do before they would let blacks like my Dad, Uncle, Sister and myself into the military..

Yet President Obama has taken 3 years to put DADT on the table and get it repealed....WOW!! He did it in a extremely hostile environment. Yet you will not give him credit..

There is something twisted in the Democratic community and all of the projections, aspirations and dare I say Hope have been put on one man. One man that needs the continual support of people like us to try and get more things accomplished.

http://obamaachievements.org/

Even with all of his successes many will not give him credit. Has anyone stopped to ask themselves.....why? I know as many others know why....but do the naysayers know and are they willing to accept the reason?

[BlueCaliDem]

14. Yeah. They are. eom

[scheming daemons]

17. 2.5 years after being sworn in, DADT is *DEAD*.... not fast enough for you?

Geezus...

[ProfessionalLeftist]

27. ... And he made backroom deals to ditch the public option

even quicker. ;)

Now, he's offered to CUT Medicare and SS - to COMPROMISE - even while the Tealiban still sits there with their smug little mugs and arms crossed repeating over and over "no tax increases". If there are to be no tax increases then why is sam hell is he offering to compromise when THEY are not and they DO not? Why is he offering to cut FOUR trillion when the original deal was TWO trillion and to do so by cutting Medicare and SS?

And no one should be concerned? Puhleeze.

But you know, you can be a cheerleader for Obama's jellyspined "fighting" style. Go ahead. But I and millions of others will not sit silently by while he COMPROMISES with extortionists to bargain away our retirement and health care when we're old - allowing them to steal money that is rightfully ours and that we need to rely on in the future.

In other words, while he's handing the K-Y jelly to the Tealiban and bending over - HE isn't the only one being screwed.

Anyway - carry on with your pom-poms. :hi:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

43. i'm still looking for evidence of the backroom deal for the PO, care to show it to me? nt

[vaberella]

58. FALSE. He never made any backroom deals to ditch the PO.

You didn't pay attention to what was going on if you say that. Dems and Repubs were against the PO. Obama NEVER had the votes in the Senate. Do your math on this?

[polichick]

88. The deal was cut early on, before votes were even counted...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

[uponit7771]

123. Please quote Obama claiming this....regards

[Palmer Eldritch]

127. Are those the only things you care about??

Who said we would ever get everything we want?
This is not a dictatorship.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. I wish I could rec'd your post 1,000,000 times over! Some Progressives

are getting a little ahead of themselves, and believe everything corporate media tells them - just like the TeaBaggers.

Some ultra-left Progressives are the pistol and the bullet pointing down at the Democratic foot. I guess they haven't learned from the lessons of 2000.

[VeryConfused]

15. As the saying goes: With friends like these, who needs enemies?

[polichick]

30. More accurately, that's what principled Dems should say about this WH...

Over and over again, it works to enable Republicans.

[VeryConfused]

40. Are you using "more accurately" in an ironic sense?

because other wise you couldn't be more wrong

[polichick]

44. As a principled Dem (not just a club member) I'm saying...

With friends like these who needs enemies - in reference to the President's Republican enabling negotiation positions.

[VeryConfused]

51. A grown up mature Democrat

doesn't act like a spoiled child and think they can get everything they want 100% of the time.

[polichick]

54. Obviously you don't know the difference between those who are Dems...

...because of critical policy positions and those who aren't.

[VeryConfused]

57. I think you don't understand what it means to think like a grown up Democrat

hence our impass. A grown up Dem understands the limitations reality poses. A "principled Dem" by your definition is reality be damned I want... I want....

[polichick]

68. Not at all - a principled Dem will FIGHT for critical policy positions...

Not toss them away before negotiations even begin - you don't get everything you want but you go down fighting for what you believe in.

[VeryConfused]

71. Fighting for something means working to get more Democrats and Progressive elected

not crucify the one's in office because you believe they might do something.

[polichick]

74. It also asks that a leader doesn't toss away the policies...

...Dems have worked for over many, many years.

With a leader like that, who needs enemies?

[VeryConfused]

77. Please be specific, what policies on SS has the President Proposed

not what you think he might do, what he actually did and would justify your statements.

[polichick]

86. I'm not only talking about the most recent negotiations, but ALL of them...

It's always the same - he lets Republicans frame the issue when he is the one with the bully pulpit and could frame it himself, and then signals that he'll give a lot before the other side even sits down.

imo he's either the worst negotiator ever - or not nearly as invested in Dem policies as Dems should be able to expect.

So once again he's signaled that he'll mess with dearly held Dem principles. Ezra Klein suggested today that the prez wants to appear as the adult in the room and that the problem comes when the deal is finally cut. His method means Dems give way more than they want to give for Obama's political image. Maybe that's it - in any case, it's not a method I support.

[VeryConfused]

107. This thread is about BELIEVING the worst

which is what you are doing on the SS issue and it's wrong for you to do it.

[ProSense]

19. Here's the thing

this has been ongoing since the first months of this Presidency. The same people. There were reports in March and July of 2009 writing him off. It has always been a self-fulling prophecy. Certain people decided long before the President accomplished anything that they were going to brand him as weak and as caving. Greg Sargent once pointed out that he disagreed with this strategy. The problem with it is that it's easy to do, and can be accomplished even if everyone isn't coming from the same POV. Those determined to tear down the President will jump on any criticism or actual progressive activism to justify their actions. It's easy for someone calling for the President's impeachment to use progressive push back by Bernie Sanders as justification for his/her position. Al Gore stated this when he wrote his piece about the President on climate change legislation.

Any action that doesn't go far enough is a "cave." Anything not yet accomplished is a broken promise. Anything debunked or put in the accomplishment category is met with a new goal post.

If you declared the President a failure in March 2009, you have little to no credibility.




edited word

[vaberella]

60. There's a bipartisan effort to see the President fail---at least by netizens.

Too many Dems seem to want to run on, "I told you so." when no "I told you so," even happened.

[Phx_Dem]

21. AMEN [phone]

[Webster Green]

22. Not really too surprising. The prez has a habit of going back on his words.

Remember when he told us the feds would not be harassing medicinal cannabis patients and providers?

It seems that statement is no longer "operational" (referencing Nixonian double-speak here).

Some of us (who are paying attention) have good reason to be very skeptical that Obama will do the right thing.

[Enrique]

23. Obama's white house always denies everything

they say one thing for people who want to hear one thing, they say another thing for people who want to hear the other thing. The pattern was set very early in the presidency.

[Sheepshank]

89. "The pattern was set very early in the presidency."

so were you talking about your attacks on Obama, in this last sentence?

[chowder66]

25. It's frightening isn't it?

I don't think many people really listen anymore. He said as much in his State of the Union but again they have to go over it for those who either did not watch, listen, or look up what he said. Oh wait. I forgot....he's not to be trusted. I'm sorry but I think I will take my chances with O over the repubs, the media and well I could go on.

The repubs are attacking everything the dems hold dear so we and our elected officials are busy trying to protect existing policies,laws,services,etc while still trying to get things done. Sorry folks, but it's the repubs that need to be held accountable and blamed and the dems need support and constructive criticism. Seems as though some on the left are helping the repubs in their quest of fueling dems to eat-their-own again and boy are some biting.

Believing the repubs, the media, the unnamed sources, the speculators, etc is not helping. Start following your senators and elected officials. Write to them, call them, support them or let them know what concerns you.

Lesson from my father long ago; Stop reacting and start acting (or you will get an ulcer).

[CakeGrrl]

31. Exactly. Dems play into the R's hands again and again

And somehow for Obama, it's even more intensified because some of them are laying the problems that were set in motion by previous administrations at his feet.

People will learn the hard way: Buy into MSM spin and severely cut off their noses to spite their faces.

And they will sit there pointing fingers when we have a 7-2 Republican supreme court and Religious camps to "cure" liberals and liberal interests.

The thing to remember is that the general opinion of this particular segment of the Left is an outlier in when it comes to national overall approval for the work the Administration is trying to do considering the massive obstacles and obstructionist players it's facing.

[theaocp]

32. Believing the worst is waaaaay different than rooting for it.

You're being disingenuous. The man has earned the distrust and if he and you can't take the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. There's a-doins a-transpirin'.

[CakeGrrl]

34. Crap. People were talking about "bringing out the crow"

for "Obama apologists" to eat last night.

Disgusting.

[theaocp]

78. That's still not rooting for the worst.

If the stories prove to be accurate, y'all can suck it and we all pay the price for it. If the stories are inaccurate, you can bring the crow for the feast. I want the man to succeed, but I don't trust him anymore. That's all.

[Sheepshank]

90. "There's a-doins a-transpirin' "

like what?

The only person I know who uses this line is a tea bagger attempting to threaten an overthrow of the government using 2nd amendment remedies.

I'm pretty sure that is not what you mean...but given I don't know what you mean, perhaps you could clarify.

[theaocp]

93. Hahahahahahaha!

It's a quote from the Simpsons, when their lemon tree was stolen by Shelbyville. Beyond just loving the quote due to its utter silliness, I meant that there is stuff to do, so deal with the fact that there are a large number of people who want progressive success, but don't trust Obama. "2nd amendment remedies..." :rofl:

[Sheepshank]

97. I don't watch Simpsons

....

[Palmer Eldritch]

128. You want him to fail. Can you at least admit that much?

[damntexdem]

33. No, that's not the problem at all.

The problem is Obama's tendency to arouse such beliefs. But we have yet to see whether he will confirm them.

But to tell us not to suspect the worst is to try to disempower us. So stop it, now!

[wndycty]

37. I ain't stopping shit. . .

. . .seriously, I will keep it up.

[MadMaddie]

39. Alrighty then!

[wndycty]

41. Why should I not be participate? I am defending the Democratic President. . .

. . .am I missing something.

[MadMaddie]

46. I misread your post...my apologies.

[wndycty]

52. No worries

:kick:

[MadMaddie]

38. People want to believe the worst

no matter how much proof is out there.

I agree they do root for his failure. They can claim otherwise but it's kind of obvious.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OHdem10]

48. Why did he say they were on the table if there was no intention

of cutting. I am sorry but the Republicans would have
the right to hang him out to dry if he was only teasing.

Putting them on the table, gives the Republicans the
right to carve them like a turkey.

He should have been specific with WAPO. SS is not
on the table.

In this instance the President put things out there
and as Democrats we have watched work in GOP territory
very comfortably. Obama tends to want a deal more than
he is concerned about the American People. I have supported
him and made excuses for him, but that time is over.

[ClarkUSA]

55. FACT: Pres. Obama in his SOTU said he'd cut costs and fraud but not benefits. Nothing has changed.

<< Why did he say they were on the table >>

Pres. Obama didn't say that. Some shit-stirring reporter from the right-wing Washington Post Business Section wrote that.

[stockholmer]

72. your 'facts' are simply wishful thinking - Exclusive: Obama may cut Social Security- Bernie Sanders

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/18/obama-weak-social-security-bernie-sanders-tells-raw/

Social Security may be on the White House chopping block, a US Senator recently told Raw Story, expressing deep uneasiness about President Barack Obama's noncommittal attitude toward staving off cuts to the cherished program.

"I have to tell you, I have been on the phone to the very, very, very highest levels of the Obama administration, and the responses that I am getting are not assuring," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said in an exclusive interview. "What I’m told is that no definitive decisions have been made on the issue of Social Security – I expect that is probably true."

Progressive activists, fearing that the holy grail of American liberalism could fall prey to a bipartisan deal on Capitol Hill, have launched a campaign to pressure the White House and Congress to oppose cuts. And Sanders has stepped up as their champion in the Senate, confirming their concerns based on knowledge drawn from his relative proximity to the president.

"What I’m hearing does not reassure me – that we have a president who is not prepared to defend the heart and soul of what the Democratic Party has been about since Franklin Delano Roosevelt," said Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

The independent from Vermont on Friday wrote to President Obama urging him stick by his campaign promise and oppose cuts in Social Security benefits, as Washington debates ways to cut the national debt.

Sanders cited as one cause for concern the president’s decision to appoint two longtime "foes" of Social Security, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, to co-chair his deficit commission, which proposed trimming the program's payouts by increasing the retirement age.


Obama "could have said that’s not on the table," Sanders said. "He didn’t say that."


snip

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


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/politics/07fiscal.html?_r=1

The president’s renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — programs that had been off the table.

The intensifying negotiations between the president and the speaker have Congressional Democrats growing anxious, worried they will be asked to accept a deal that is too heavily tilted toward Republican efforts and produces too little new revenue relative to the magnitude of the cuts.

Congressional Democrats said they were caught off guard by the weekend White House visit of Mr. Boehner — a meeting the administration still refused to acknowledge on Wednesday — and Senate Democrats raised concerns at a private party luncheon on Wednesday.

House Democrats have their own fears about the negotiations, which they expressed in an hourlong meeting Wednesday night with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.


snip

[ClarkUSA]

76. How does that "may" story contradict the facts that I just told you?

Nothing has changed.

The actual story is that the President will not slash SS benefits. Where are the appropriate headlines to this effect?

"There is no news here," Carney said. "The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

Let's not take the bait. Wait for actual information, before assuming the worst, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=702658&mesg_id=702658

FYI: the WH has already pushed back and denied Fred Hyatt's right-wing WaPo Business Section spin.

[CakeGrrl]

79. Simple: Bernie good, Obama bad.

Some would rather believe a speculative statement by Sanders against all else.

[libmom74]

85. I know I trust

a speculative statement by Sanders over and above anything and everything that comes out of Obama's mouth. Unfortunately Obama says one thing and then goes behind closed door with his "Republican friends" and screws the American people over on a regular basis (public option, Bush/Obama tax cuts, Bowles/Simpson Catfood Commission.

[ClarkUSA]

98. Do you know "The Progressive Caucus DEFENDS President Obama on his Social Security Stance"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=702936&mesg_id=702936

[wndycty]

102. Those corporatists

:sarcasm:

[eridani]

100. How do you get lower than 1% administrative costs?

The amount of "fraud" amounts to a rounding error in terms of total yearly payout.

[w4rma]

110. I've seen Obama play this shell game before.

He puts something similar, but palatable, to the very bad thing on the table and he starts refering to it as if it were the very bad thing and eventually it becomes the very bad thing and is included in the bill and passed very quickly.

[AndyTiedye]

63. The American People are Fuku'ed If There is No Deal

If there is no deal, the debt limit doesn't get raised, and all the programs near and dear to us get shut down.
We go into default, and our borrowing costs skyrocket. The economy tanks and Obama gets blamed for it.
The people get fuku'ed, the party gets fuku'ed, everybody gets fuku'ed except the Republicans, who
make a killing on their supershort investment fund and sweep the elections.

It is not that Obama is a "sell-out" or a weak negotiator, it is just that he is in an impossibly weak negotiating position.

[vaberella]

56. People here don't support the President...they want to prove he's a failure.

And they will use any measure to do so.

[VeryConfused]

82. Yes, better to be right than do right

[bemildred]

59. The problem is that many of us believe the mediocre about Obama.

We did not elect him to be a mediocre President, we need a GREAT President right now.

[vaberella]

62. What did he do that was mediocre? Whatever. n/t

[bemildred]

64. Indeed whatever. nt

[CakeGrrl]

66. What does that even MEAN?

Do you know what kind of opposition he's facing?

These damned Republicans are no better than any other terrorists willing to blow something if they don't get what they want. What they're willing to blow up is the US economy.

Obstruction like this is unprecedented.

How do you know what it takes to try to have to WORK with a segment of Congress that is not going to simply disappear?

This is not Hollywood, where people wilt in the face of some strong swaggering words penned by a writer. They KNOW how that will turn out.

The bottom line here is that no one on this forum knows what it will take to overcome the gridlock these nutjob Republicans are happy to create. And the MSM is complicit in enabling their behavior.

[bemildred]

69. I can assure you this is all SOP in US politics. Nothing exceptional about it.

There is nothing unprecedented except the size of the hole our "leaders" - and I use the term loosely - have dug for us.

[RandomKoolzip]

101. I have never seen any public figure being so fervently defended for being so ineffectual.

[Doctor_J]

65. The tendency of many partisans to live with abandonment of working people

just because Obama leads the charge is also a problem. As a long-time NEA member said recently, "This president is just as anti-education as Bush was, but now a lot of members are cheering just because a Dem is doing it."

[VeryConfused]

87. The anti labor Supreme Court was the result of ideologs abandoning workers

in favor of the smug satisfaction they get from saying they didn't compromise their principles. There is no suffering to great for a our nation that would possible cause them to consider trying to work with others.

[Sheepshank]

80. "...led by those who choose to always believe the worse "

I'm not thinking it's a choice to believe the worse. It's a deliberate process of continued misrepresentation by the same old group over and over.

[Skittles]

94. LOLOLOL

give it UP already

[VeryConfused]

114. Too bad replies can't be unrecced

because this one certainly more than deserves it

[eridani]

99. "Strengthen" Social Security? Is that like the Repuke "Clear Skies" act?

Strengthen by cutting it instead of "slashing" it? Fuck that. If he is in favor of raising the FICA cap, he should say that. Why hasn't he? It's simple enough.

[Dawgs]

108. +1. If he's NOT going to cut it, why doesn't he say it every chance he gets?

If he's in favor of strengthening it why doesn't he tell us how?

[Tx4obama]

103. + 1,000,000,000 K&R. n/t

[politicasista]

104. Kick

:kick:

[Palmer Eldritch]

105. They want a reason for how they feel about him. It's really shameless.

They want their negativity to be justified.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

115. The past is prologue

His past actions have been in line with the outrage/mistrust. 'My health care bill contains every republican idea'. Extending the problem (Bush tax cuts for the rich) for two more years, etc.

See the pattern? He makes shitty deals and gives away the farm for very little in return, hence the lack of trust in his judgement.

[LetTimmySmoke]

106. The lack of trust in Obama is well-earned.

Look at the way he has handled himself for the last 2 and a half years.

[mochajava666]

122. +1

[Palmer Eldritch]

129. Did you ever really give him your trust?

[graywarrior]

111. Highly recommended

[wndycty]

113. Thanks

:kick:

[Jim Lane]

116. We just can't know if this was a phony rumor or a White House trial balloon.

For better or worse, this is how Washington works. The administration uses back channels to put out a story about Social Security cuts. They wait to see the reaction. If the story sinks without a bubble, they feel free to go ahead with cuts. If there's a storm of protest, they've preserved their deniability, and they say, "Social Security cuts? Who, us? Oh, nononononono, you must be thinking of someone else."

Or, alternatively, the White House never had any intention of agreeing to cuts, but somebody misinterpreted someone else's garbled report of a half-overheard remark, and put out a rumor that had essentially no basis in fact.

We schlubs outside the Beltway have no real way of knowing for sure which it is. All we can do is scream about Social Security to try to push that option off the table.

[Number23]

119. Wndy, there is ALWAYS a thread (or 20) on the greatest page bashing Obama on this web site

And what's so supremely ridiculous is that the folks who do nothing but criticize, castigate and complain about how the president handles EVERY SINGLE ISSUE (from health care to Wall street to the Haiti earthquake to the Gulf Coast oil spill to the economy to gay rights to swine flu to the Iraq war etc. etc. etc) have the nerve to say that it's OTHER folks who aren't here in good faith!!!:rofl: :rofl:

You just have to LOL!!! I know I do! :rofl:

[ClassWarrior]

121. Yeah, maybe now he understands the consequences of undermining the trust of one's supporters.

NGU.

[uponit7771]

125. Liberal dems approve of him around 80 - 90% on avg

[wndycty]

130. I love it, especially because it upsets the petulant 10-20%

:kick:

[uponit7771]

124. I'm starting to think they're not progressives

[woo me with science]

126. Bwah!

:rofl:

Yeah. that's it. That's EXACTLY the root of the problem. :wow: