New York Times: Concerns among Democrats about whether Obama is really one of them

[Better Believe It]

In budget deal, signs of Obama’s path to the middle
NYT: Centrist governing style raises concerns among some Democrats about whether he is really one of them
By JEFF ZELENY
April 9, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama opened the week by calling on Democrats to embrace his re-election campaign. He closed it by praising Republicans for forging a compromise to cut spending this year and avert a government shutdown.

The juxtaposition made clearer than ever the more centrist governing style Mr. Obama has adopted since his party’s big losses in November and his recapture-the-middle strategy for winning a second term.

But in agreeing Friday night to what he called the largest annual spending cut in the nation’s history, the president further decoupled himself from his party in Congress, exacerbating concerns among some Democrats about whether he is really one of them and is willing to spend political capital to defend their principles on bigger battles ahead.

The president may be viewed as liberal by some of his conservative critics, but to the traditional base of the Democratic Party he is often seen as not liberal enough. As details of the budget agreement came to light on Saturday, the first murmurs of criticism came from the left, with Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois, accusing the president of “keeping the government open on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42510146/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

[MoonRiver]

1. Yes, but,

he's better than the alternative.

[Snotcicles]

2. Yeah, but for how long. nt

[DesertFlower]

4. what do you suggest we do?

i haven't heard of any dems who are challenging obama.

[Better Believe It]

16. Follow the leader of the Democratic Party and surrender to Republicans

Or organize in opposition to this and future cuts?

[NCarolinawoman]

50. Agree. He is leading us over a cliff.

At the very least, an organized opposition might push him in the right (make that left) direction.

[Exilednight]

118. ORGANIZE! I'm trying, but I need help. n/t

[swilton]

122. I'm for the latter and

if Ron Paul and Jessee Ventura run, they would have my vote over the alternatives.

[LiberalFighter]

47. We don't need to challenge Obama by having him primaried.

The most effective challenge is to elect more good Democrats in Congress. It would be even more helpful to do the same at the state and local level.

Democrats that have a better grasp on the economics of life.

[KamaAina]

69. "Democrats that have a better grasp on the economics of life."

Not that easy to find when most members of Congress -- repukes and Dems alike -- are millionaires. Even those who aren't have that same sense of entitlement. Witness Linda Sanchez (and at least one repuke) bellyaching that she's living paycheck to paycheck on $174K a year. :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

72. Exactly. Forget about the presidency, it's clearly compromised

and no one who has the best interests of the people as their main concern, will ever get there. I firmly believe that to even have a chance, you must signal a willingness to keep the interests of the ruling class foremost in your mind. They will let you, if you are a Democrat, throw a few crumbs that don't matter much to them, to your supporters just to keep up the appearance of a two party system. But it's time to stop hoping for anything from any president, it just leads to disappointment.

Congress is where the people can gain some power. Rather than spend money and time on the presidential race since the rich will be paying for it anyhow, it's better to put all that effort into Congressional races.

In 2008 all the focus was on the presidential race and many good progressive Congressional candidates got little help from anyone.

I couldn't agree with you more, but the party will be pushing the presidential race, it is not going to be easy.

[sasha031]

106. I agree with you completely, our focus has to be Congress and the Senate

The Ryan budget proposal is a good start for waking up some Independents.

How I wish we had our own rendition of the tea party.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

62. Forever, because the alternative will keep getting worse at roughly the same pace.

OK, not really forever. Until everything comes crashing down.

[marew]

92. Exactly!!! n/t

[swilton]

121. Until the election of 2012 -

If he's re-elected he will be no better than the other major political party - We've been down this road before in 2008. We have seen how a certain candidate changed his stripes once elected.

[radhika]

125. Just a few more weeks remain ......ugh!

I used to say things like 'but would McCain/Palin do better?'. Or more recently, would Bachman/Pawlenty/Beck/Hucker-boy etc do better? You get it - the standard liberal compromise known as half-a-loaf. Pathetic.

Grudgingly, I admit I was willing to accept Obama as mediocre place holder, a door stop to keep the Baggers out of the Executive Branch in 2012. But now, Obama has gone so far downhill that frankly the Baggers don't NEED to have the Oval Office. With him as the chief, the Dems look like doucebags - and he looks more Manchurian every day. The Repug/Bagsters get everything they want through Obama. They can flit around on Fox railing and ranting as fascistic, demented, ignorant, greedy and inane as they want - they raise money that way. They attract more and more marginal candidates to run, and Kochsters fund it. Herman Cain, TRump anyone?

After each Obama sellout, the Baggies boast (accurately, I believe) that THEY are the ones that forced Obama/Reid's hands.

In a few weeks, hell knows what that man will hand over to Boehner. In the next two years - given the relentlessness of Bagger demands - we could well see the end of women's rights, public unions, the start of the SS/Medicare unwind, repeal of Medicaid and welfare and EPA. THEY have just begun, they've taken the measure of the man. Baggers don't need the Oval Office - better to let the Dem's black kid hold the hatred of the starving and rebelling masses.

We are in deep, deep &*(^&&.

[DesertFlower]

3. i agree. nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cameron27]

27. If you only see one alternative.

The tea party doesn't have to be the only driving force in town. With every capitulation to the right, the number of us on the unwelcomed "fringe" left grows every day, all it needs is the right spark.

[cui bono]

38. The Coffee Party! n/t

[MadLinguist]

105. Nah, not a mirror image of the Tea Party. something completely different

like what -- Dirt Farmer-Skid Row Marchers or Edgy Angry Taxpayers or Dude, Where's My Levy or The Center Cannot Hold. But not an answer to the Tea Shits-- an answer to the horror being jammed down our throats with a skin-teeth smile and an explanation that wouldn't satisfy a kindergartner. Its irritates the hell out of me that the national narrative seems to be that the Tea Fuckers are the only ones capable of raising a platform out of an angry populace.

[tomp]

98. yawn...zzzzzzz......

or, alternatively, NO HE"S NOT! take your pick.

[Limelight]

107. Says who?

[MissDeeds]

133. Bull

He's one of 'the alternative'.

[FLAprogressive]

5. Will those 87 or whatever it is percent of liberals who approve of the job he's doing FINALLY wake

the fuck up?

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. Maybe they're not asleep. Perhaps they're onto something....

...nah, nope, not possible.

Someone/Anyone 2012!

[FLAprogressive]

20. No, they're Stockholm Democrats participating in blind alleigance.

[BzaDem]

30. Maybe the real issue is whether the 13% will finally wake up?

I doubt it, since there is always a tiny percentage of people in both parties who are never satisfied with their party and will never be satisfied with their party. One can always hope though that rationality will prevail in some.

[truedelphi]

31. The statistic that was flaunted for a day or two had it that

Eighty three percent of Democratic voters approved of Obama and would support him in 2012.

However, the Pew study of Summer 2008 established that only 34 or 35% of all American voters consider themselves to be actual Democratic loyalists.

And the Republicans can only count on 23% of all the American voters to consider them consistently. (We know that is very true - Obama had to drag some Republicans into the fold in order to secure his election in Nov 2008 by a mandate of 62% of all voting Americans.)

Now when you do the math of 83% times 34% Democratic supporters - you get a whopping 28% of the American voting public supporting Obama at this point in time.

[Davis_X_Machina]

36. Which is why he should...

...sedulously avoid doing things independents, real ones, and the by-'independents'-I-mean-idiots independents, like. Because 83% of 34% is a majority.

Oh, for instance, like compromising on the shutdown.

[former9thward]

56. By what math is 83% of 34% a majority?

[truedelphi]

151. Sadly many here cannot do simple math.

I never know whether to laugh or to cry when the cashier gives me correct change when his or her computer is down.

I could laugh, because I am finally meeting someone who can do math, or I can cry because it has become such an extremely rare event.

:shrug:

[Juche]

87. Define 'approve'

I 'approve' of Obama in the sense that I'd take his side over any tea partier any day of the week. But he is a disappointment in many ways.

But if someone asked me if I approved of him in a poll, I'd say yes. That doesn't mean I'm not disappointed though.

[tomp]

99. proud 13%-er here. nt

[Scuba]

6. Barak Obama - 2012 ... I'm not the Republican, sorta

[katnapped]

91. "Vote for me cuz things could be a whole lot worse!" n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. This charge...

"... but to the traditional base of the Democratic Party he is often seen as not liberal enough" has been leveled at every Democratic president in my lifetime, going back to JFK.

[DesertFlower]

10. i agree. nt

[Zax2me]

12. So true...

There is not one thing I see in him that makes me think he isn't part of the Democratic Party.

[Better Believe It]

19. I don't think that's accurate. I don't recall that charge against LBJ

Some liberals opposed the Vietnam war but didn't attack him on civil rights or economic issues.

[FLAprogressive]

22. One of these days, the tax cuts for the rich, the ongoing wars, the cuts for the poor will sink into

them. But for now they'll continue to make themselves believe that Obama is one of them.

[Davis_X_Machina]

32. Apart from that Vietnam thing, Mrs. Lincoln...

...how did you like the play?

Medicare was an unpopular, half-a-loaf compromise national health care substitute, the best that could be got with a Senate full of Dixiecrats and Dirksens, and he caught plenty of liberal flack for it from the left at the time.

[Better Believe It]

140. If we didn't have Medicare now do you think President Obama would fight for it?

But the real question for today is do you think Obama will fight to preserve it in its present form or extend it to people under 65.

Or do you think President Obama will support big cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs?

[Melinda]

119. That's incorrect. LBJ lost 48 House seats and 4 Senate seats in the 1966 midterm elections

1965 congressional majorities - with an advantage of 155 seats in the House and 36 in the Senate - were comparable to FDR's in 1933. But in the 1966 midterm elections, those majorities were carved back, by 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate.

What happened to turn LBJ's 1964 triumph into the rejections of 1966 and subsequent years? Vietnam, most obviously - but also a backlash against the Great Society.

In its ugliest form, this domestic reaction took aim at the civil rights revolution, through George Wallace's 1968 candidacy and Nixon's Southern strategy. But it also included a more general protest against government expansion at home and war abroad...

more: http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20101116_Obama_foreshadowed__More_LBJ_than_FDR.html

[brandywine]

123. That's because the marketing doesn't match the functionality. We have corporate leaders.

On both sides, and our side's messaging is crafted to appeal to the people, but it's actions are geared towards big money.

It is confusing, but as you noted, consistent.

[labor4ever]

8. I think he has good intentions, but the people who surround him are highly suspect.

Not to mention the other senior people in elected office.

[FLAprogressive]

15. I find it hard to believe that he actually wants to do the right thing and that his confidants are

stopping him from doing so.

[Poll_Blind]

25. Same here.

PB

[Enthusiast]

76. Ah.....me too.

No one is THAT much of a whimp.

[RKP5637]

18. Yep, I often think similarly ... n/t

[MoonRiver]

34. He should have known better than to have picked those losers.

Or maybe he really was "too inexperienced."

[mazzarro]

46. An he keep picking and packing them in!

Every opportunity he has been given, he has avoided picking a true liberal/progressive, but has packed his inner circle with corporatist and DINOs/DCL'ers. Go figure.

[shanti]

71. not only that

he has failed to root out the old *ush appointees! yes, they are still there!

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. No. Nononono. They do what the boss says.

This is all him. He picked them because they reflect his values.

Fundamentally, his values are not mine.

[pacalo]

130. Bad advisors indeed.

The president’s advisers argued that the broad coalition of supporters who gave Mr. Obama 53 percent of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes in 2008 never completely matched up with the traditional Democratic base. Heading into his re-election campaign and big legislative battles centering on the 2012 budget and the need to raise the federal debt ceiling, he is now well positioned to appeal to the political center even as his allies make the case that the current Republican Party is so extreme that liberals will ultimately get behind him as the best alternative.

That's a pretty arrogant, smug attitude to take when the re-election campaign is about to begin.

[Lorien]

13. MIDDLE? Oh good grief; how far Right does he have to go before they call it?

He's a Reagan era Republican!

[amborin]

61. who praised Reagan during the campaign

Krugman and many progressives called him on this but were shouted down

[Enthusiast]

77. We fucked up "big time".

I will not deny it.

[Beacool]

147. Yep, Obama thought that Reagan was transformational.

He too wanted to be "transformatial". Well, he's getting his wish. He's a lot more like Reagan than he thinks.

"President Obama, in contrast to many Democrats, understands the nature of Reagan’s appeal. During the 2008 campaign he drew fire from the Clintons for calling Reagan a “transformative” president. In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” he wrote that Reagan’s appeal went beyond his skills as a communicator. “Reagan spoke to America’s longing for order,” Mr. Obama wrote, “our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism and faith.” And he seems to have channeled more than Reagan’s oratory — President Obama’s decision to pull the family-planning provision out of the stimulus package nicely mirrors Reagan’s decision to hold off on abortion and other social issues."

http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/obamas-reagan-transformation/

:-(

[kenny blankenship]

14. Spoiler Alert!

He isn't.

[Wounded Bear]

17. Except that now "centrist" is farther right than Nixon was.

:shrug:

I think my sig tells it all. We need a real move to the left in this country.

[amborin]

101. Nixon's

health care proposals were to the left of Obama's

[DeSwiss]

21. K&R

- http://www.kickthemallout.com/">Kick them all out.

[Enthusiast]

79. Mark Twain had it right.

He watched the greedy wealthy criminals and corporations do the same thing in his day that they are doing now. He watched it first hand. And he had a great mind.

[zalinda]

110. Your post is exactly what happened in the mid-terms.

People didn't see any progress, so they kicked them out.

zalinda

[JoePhilly]

23. Knowlingly or not, the effect of left wing attacks on Obama do nothing

to move him further to the left.

Their ACTUAL impact is to cause moderate democrats, particularly those who are also low information voters, to become discouraged. These are the Democrats who are not far left. But they seem themselves as Democrats.

We have a media that is very happy to tell, using right wing framing that "Obama sucks". They hear it and wonder. And so they look around for voices that take the opposite position. They turn to "liberal media". And what do they here there ... "Obama sucks".

Skip all the nuance. Skip the fact that the right wing calls him commie, socialist, maoist, fascist, racist, so on. What those moderate, low info Dems (you know them, regular democrats who don't spend any time on DU, and don't follow politics day to day and hour to hour), what they hear from both the right and the left wing media is .... "Obama sucks".

The REASONS given to them are largely irrelevant. Take a look in the media. Is there a place one can go to get nothing but POSITIVE news about Obama? Absolutely not.

Fox is a network devoted to saying NOTHING but positive things about Republicans, and terrible things about Obama. Where is that balanced out. No where.

The average Democrat who isn't listening closely hears only one clear message. Obama Sucks.

And that message causes the "average Dem" to stay home. Why vote? Obama sucks.

The GOP's goal is to do 2 things. Get an increase of about 3-4% in turnout for Republicans, and get a 3-4% decline in democratic leaning voters. That's their goal. Obama beat McCain by about 6-7%. If they can get 3-4% movement in turn out in the two ways I mention, the GOP gets the WH and the Senate.

It is really that simple.

[EFerrari]

28. That may well be exactly right.

But the solution is not for Democrats to stop giving feedback to the party leadership when it fails to represent us and keeps slipping to the right.

The solution is for the party leadership to do something about themselves.

[JoePhilly]

37. There is a huge difference between "giving feedback" and ...

tying an anchor to some one's legs.

Its the difference between placing what we did not get as a GOAL that we have, or as something lost forever.

As an example. We on the left tend to spend all our focus on what we did not get, and very little focus on what we actually did get. Which the low info Dems hear, and they conclude, "well ... Obama sucks".

A smarter approach would go like this ... whenever we get ANY THING, we start by cheering it, but we don't just cheer blindly ... and we don't BITCH about what we did not get ... we take the thing we did not get and PLACE IT, as one of the next goals. We make it one of the next targets. We say "this was a great step forward, and we are happy about it, but we still have more work to do for the American people, and lets work to get it". That's a motivating approach.

And you do this because those low info Dems need some encouragement. Now, when presented with the right wing "Obama sucks" message, they have an alternative "Obama made progress and wants more" message. Now, you can start to talk to them about what we actually got this time, and also what we want to get NEXT time.

[Ed Suspicious]

45. I've been guilty of voicing my displeasure with

Obama, but I really like what you are saying and I think I'll try to abide by the principle of celebrate victories, even the smallest steps, and look for avenues of more success. It may even embolden Obama himself.

[JoePhilly]

89. Thanks for understanding my point.

Most of the Dems are know in real life are of the low information variety. They don't follow any of this very closely. I find that when I talk to them, they've heard bad things, and almost nothing good.

I know some on the left think this folks will demand that Obama move further to the left, but they won't. What they will do, is give up.

I believe that at times we play directly into the GOP's hands. I think there strategy has two key elements.

1) Try to get a 3-4% increase in right wing voters via racist, xenophobic, tea party style approaches. We know how they do this.

2) Do everything they can to discourage moderate Dems to get a decrease in voter turn out of 3-4% in that group (the Dems who are moderate or not really paying attention). To do this, they do everything they can to prevent Obama from getting anything done "cleanly". They filibustered everything. And at every chance they make sure that there is something in every bill that sucks, that will piss off the left.

Obama won in 2008 by 6-7%. If the GOP can achieve items 1 and 2 above, they have a shot in 2012.

[Enthusiast]

81. Obama is not a victim of his critics,

his critics are victims of him.

[JoePhilly]

90. Right.

The GOP strategy has 2 basic parts.

1) Increase turn out in the far right by about 3-4%. They do this by using racist, xenophobic, christo-fascist lines of rhetoric. And the far right responds.

2) Decrease the turn out of the moderate Dems (and the low info dems) by 3-4%. To do this, the filibuster everything. They ensure that every bill has something in it that they know the left won't like. They gum up the works and slow government down. They threaten to shut down the government. Basically, they make sure that Obama and the Dems can never do anything "cleanly". For every gain, there is a loss.

Obama won in 2008 by 6-7%. If they achieve items 1 and 2 above, they have a shot in 2012. That's their plan.

[EFerrari]

104. Barack Obama's well being is not my responsibility. It's his. n/t

[Cameron27]

132. Amen

[SolutionisSolidarity]

57. So eat that shit sandwhich and love it.

Damn whiners. Haven't they learned that democracy means shut your complaint hole and pretend that whatever our leader does is best. That's the path to Victory!

[Enthusiast]

80. Okay, I have an idea.

Obama should stop sucking.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

94. and the liberals and others who complains nonstop should start actually

celebrating the victories made rather then always go 'but we didn't get the last 12% of what we wanted. this is totally useless' when they get most of what they wanted.

Push the bloody senate and house to the left and you push the president along with you(no matter if the president at the time is a democrat or republican), and my definition of left does not consider the 'blue dogs' or their equivalents to be a part of it

[tomp]

100. i see. so we have to say obama is great....

....because fox news says he sucks. and that is going to move him to the left how....?

i think you simply don't see the game that's being played, that you in fact are being played. this is how the dems and the repubs work hand-in-hand against the majority and support their rich friends.

i'm not going to voice support for policies i oppose because fox news says obama sucks for all the wrong reasons. do you really expect me to believe that obama will move left if i support his rightist policies?

[sasha031]

24. thank you so much for posting, surprisingly the repubs want more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x649208

[madrchsod]

26. he ain`t till he needs our vote

[RC]

29. Centrist governing style of Mr. Obama??

Central compared to the extreme Right of the Republicans?

The real political center is nowhere in sight.

I used to have such high hopes for Obama. Now, he needs to be Primaried.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

82. Here is your center.

[libmom74]

108. We just need

a party to represent us, ours was stolen.

[Scuba]

33. It's pretty clear that he's doing things that go against everything...

...he campaigned on. The question is "why?".

Did the global corporate masters explain that they would starve the American People if he didn't go along?

Did Cheney threaten to eat his children?

Was he always a false flag?



I've no clue, but he's not the guy I voted for.

[Enthusiast]

83. I see it the same way.

I think we have to seriously consider the possibility that he is under a threat on his life and the lives of his children and spouse. If that doesn't explain it there are few alternatives, none satisfactory.

[neoralme]

120. That is a consideration. Something is not right. No one could be this

wimply. I have seen Republicans less Right than Obama.

[bvar22]

35. My "concern" ended on Day One.

This is ALL it took for me to KNOW which side Obama plays for,
and if you're an American who Works for a Living,
its NOT your side.


The DLC New Team
Chamber of Commerce APPROVED!

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85

[theaocp]

41. Indeed. You are who you surround yourself with.

Where the fuck is the "Gang of Rivals"? You lay down with dogs, expect to wake up with fleas.

[ctwayne]

129. Obama Will Do Just Fine

When Obama leaves the White House, he and his family will do very well indeed. All the industry groups he enriched-health insurance companies, drug companies, war contractors,etc-will reward him handsomely. And if this country goes completely down the drain, he and his wealthy buddies will simply move elsewhere-perhaps the mountains of Switzerland or the islands of the South Pacific.

[SidDithers]

39. ROFL...

Funny stuff.

Sid

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. No, it's more like he has one of Bill Clinton's personality flaws, namely,

wanting the Big Boys to like him.

That's why he won't fight. Like Clinton, he's an outsider who wants to remain an insider and thinks the way to do that is to suck up to the rich and powerful.

He fears the wrath of the Big Boys more than he fears disillusioning his supporters.

There are no central convictions that he refuses to compromise on.

He either doesn't know or doesn't care that compromising with a bully or a sociopath (like the ones who run the present-day Republican Party) is like pasting a Kick Me sign to your butt.

What a wasted opportunity. He could have been one of the great ones, the one who would fight for ordinary people and lead us out of this mess. Instead, he acts as if he is in league with the ones who are bringing us down.

[MadHound]

43. No concerns from this quarter, just certainty,

When the man is governing from a position to the right of Eisenhower, it is time to call him out for what he is, a 'Pug in Dem's clothing.

[Enthusiast]

84. Far to the right of Eisenhower.

There, fixed that fer ya.

[girl gone mad]

48. He's not. n/t

[Renew Deal]

49. Obama is playing a shrewd game.

He can deflect criticism about spending by claiming "the largest annual spending cut in the nation’s history."

I'm sure many people here remember that Clinton gets credit for the surpluses, not the republican congress. Same sort of game is being played here.

[Better Believe It]

53. And who is being hurt in this "shrewd game"? Working people or the rich?

Some game.

[Renew Deal]

58. Depends on who "wins"

If Obama wins, then the poor benefit. If he loses, then the poor get hurt.

[Better Believe It]

59. In the first two rounds of this fight the rich and Wall Street have won.

The first round saw the Republicans win tax cuts for big business and the rich for two years and a big cut in the FICA tax rather than raising the FICA Tax CAP to make Social Security solvent way beyond 2037.

We get one year of unemployment compensation.

[northernlights]

54. um, the budget surpluses came when unemployment was low

and home values were rising. Most people were doing well.

Getting credit for the largest annual spending cut in the nation's history when large numbers of people depend on food stamps to eat, are unemployed, lack access to health care, are losing their homes and in the streets. And Obama can get the credit for the largest spending cut in history by cutting the social services that are keeping many people hanging by a thread from falling off a cliff. Well, why not? I guess he deserves the credit than, and certainly he wants it.

[girl gone mad]

116. Right, and after giving trillions to the banks...

expanding 2 wars and starting a 3rd.

It's bullshit.

[NoodleyAppendage]

114. Oh, Bullship. He's also chess playing right? Give me a break.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

J

[upi402]

51. one of who? the blue dogs worried? hell no

they're all Republicans supplanting real Dems

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. He's a Centrist. As in "middle". As in "mediocrity".

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine

[bobbolink]

112. Given that he's to the right of Nixon, I hardly think he qualifies as a "centrist".

[Honeycombe8]

115. Depends on how you define principle, vice, and virtue.

If compromising, seeing another person's point of view, agreeing that things are gray rather than black or white...if one views those things as vices, as most extremists do, then there you go.

"If a man won't compromise, he can't govern." Government is the art of compromise.

Keeping the government humming along, slanted toward your views, is a principle in and of itself.

Anyone who stands hard on one side or the other doesn't get anything done, if he's in a leadership position. That's a luxury for the little guys, who are full of opinions and short on action.

Reich is critical. Let's see....when did Reich ever run a government? Never. What a luxury to be so sure of oneself, when there's nothing to lose, and no one to have to agree with, or have a meeting with, or try to resolve an issue with. What a luxury.

[villager]

55. Why do we keep calling rightwing policies "centrist?"

I guess for the same reason we confusedly imagine centrists are "liberals?" :shrug:

[Robeson]

64. Thank you.

[amborin]

60. K&R

[Imagevision]

63. Well we now know what Obama means when he stated; "Change We Can Believe In"...

[PurityOfEssence]

73. New motto: insert "what" between first and second word.

He's good because he's good because he's good because he's good. You have to really really believe in him, because some day he's really really going to change what he's very consistently been.

It's so very old. He's been so confoundingly timid with anything he's proposed, hidden behind Congress as they tried to get things going, given endless ground in all negotiations, and then been there to claim some kind of victory. Yay! New Politics. It's not the same old soft-soaping, evasive favor-currying in the interest of getting re-elected. We should be proud.

The personality was evident well before election, and the sweep of a glorious group delusion was a marvel to behold, but it's all like watching a car wreck at a distance: you see it about to happen, you see it as it happens, you see that it's happened, THEN you hear it.

Dee-pressing.

[BuelahWitch]

88. Yeah, too bad we didn't figure out the "we" was rich folks n/t

[Ramulux]

65. The New York Times is just figuring this out?

Amazing isn't it that people within the democratic party might get upset at a democratic president praising massive cuts that directly screw over poor people. Funny how that works.

[Better Believe It]

67. Some here haven't figured this out yet! They are a shrinking minority.

[Enthusiast]

85. They pretend to not figure it out.

I think they are part of the ruse.

[blue neen]

66. Same message, different hour.

.

[Incitatus]

68. We keep on moving to the right

When the Republicans are in power they hit the gas, when the Democrats are in power they just tap the brakes a little.

[ProSense]

70. An entire premise based on

a single partial quote from Jackson. Then there is this:

<...>

Mr. Obama not only helped avoid the first government shutdown in 15 years, but also pressured Republicans to remove provisions intended to restrict financing for Planned Parenthood and to limit environmental regulations. In doing so, he assumed the role of a level-headed referee, rising above the squabbling to take ownership of a solution rather than a problem.

“He’s the undisputed grownup in the group,” said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist who has managed Senate and presidential campaigns across the country. “Presidents almost always compare well against Congress.”

The president is not, however, the only figure who survived a test from within his own party last week and emerged stronger.

Mr. Boehner, who faced an even bigger challenge than Mr. Obama, held his fractious Republican contingent together as an intense feud raged among social conservatives, the Tea Party movement and other elements of the party. But a fresh air of discipline coursed through the Republican conference, with few members speaking out against their speaker.

<...>

That's hilarious! Enough Republicans bailed on the CR.

He needs Democratic support to pass the larger deal.

[slay]

74. He is most certainly not my idea of a Democrat

cutting social programs while giving tax cuts to billionaires, has us in THREE WARS, indefinite detention in Gitmo, cover-up of the Bush admins war crimes, pro-corporate on everything, no REAL health care reform - no single payer, hell no public option, GE and other mega-corporate insiders as part of his admin, continuation of warrentless wiretapping, much of the patriot act continued, and on and on and on and on.

No, not my idea of a Democrat at all.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[democracy1st]

78. these people are letting this guy play them for fools! Look at his advisors,how can anyone defend

these Wall St insiders.

[Enthusiast]

86. Exactly........nt

[ProSense]

97. "the bad health care reform act"

Yeah, horrible!

[somone]

95. The best DINO president ever

[WillyT]

96. K & R !!!

:kick:

[femrap]

102. Part of the article....

“The easy thing to do is to go in your corner and throw political spitballs,” Mr. Plouffe said in an interview Saturday. “There are going to be plenty of times when you won’t be able to reach common ground and you have to be in pugilistic mode, but you can’t view any kind of agreement with the other side as weakness.”

WTF? "You can't view any kind of agreement with the other side as weakness?????????????" So giving in to the 'other side' is a 'good' thing? Mr. Plouffe deserves a spitball in the middle of his forehead.


"Polls regularly suggest that the independent and moderate voters — particularly women — who abandoned Democrats in 2010 prefer compromise to partisan feuding, and in that sense Mr. Obama has an opportunity to win back an important segment of the coalition that sent him to the White House."

I don't know what polls they're reading....but LOTS OF DEM WOMEN STAYED HOME BECAUSE THE PREZ WAS A COMPLETE DISAPPOINTMENT. This is the same message that Kerry followed in 2004 and look where it got him. He played nice....no spine. I'm so tired of cowardly, appeasing Dems. As a woman, I want to see SOME DAMN LEADERSHIP! I want to see him stand up for DEMOCRATIC IDEALS.

What crap. WASF.

[Beacool]

124. There was someone with leadership skills,

but alas, a man won the nomination.

:-(

[femrap]

131. There are so many times I

think, 'Gee, if HRC were Prez, this wouldn't happen.' Of course I don't know. But she certainly wouldn't throw poor women under the bus like Obama did Friday to the poor women of DC....no more local funds to poor women who want an abortion. Just cruel.

All the money he slashed for poor and working poor people. Disgusting.

We'll probably be deleted.

[Beacool]

146. I don't even know what to say anymore.

Both parties are making me ill. They play games with people's lives. You said it, disgusting!!!

x(

[silver10]

103. I am so upset by the president I e-mailed him

"You are a weak, weak president. What we need now is a strong president like FDR who will stand strong against the pressures of the rich who want tax cuts for themselves and wars to protect their overseas interests. They use our labor and infrastructure to amass their fortunes without paying their fair share.

Shame, shame shame on you for allowing us to be in 3 wars while keeping tax cuts for the ultra rich and also cutting education, health care and other social programs. Those repukes are big bullies and you are a coward. You misrepresented yourself to the American people, and I am absolutely disgusted."

He will not read it, and will count on liberal republicans or conservative democrats to vote for him in 2012. But Obama doesn't understand if he had been more inspiring before last November, more steadfast and less wishy-washy compromise-speak with these thugs, I believe more dems what have come out and voted.

Can dems ever be as resolute and strong as our counterparts? I am sick.

[ProgressIn2008]

109. Amusing. Obama was from the start whatever suited his interests in the moment.

Same as it ever was among the aristocracy.

[glinda]

111. Would help if he appointed libs in positions instead of so many Repubs..

[Vincardog]

113. His and the party's leadership recapture-the-middle strategy is the reason for big losses in Novembe

When you stand only for compromise your stand for NOTHING

[eowyn_of_rohan]

117. No shit, Sherlock -nt

[Arlene McCarthy]

126. Mr Obama was always GOP lite

Goldman - Sachs was his largest campaign contributer in 2008.

[Harmony Blue]

139. Some could say that the Trojan Horse

has been happily let into Troy (Democratic Party), and chaos is ensuing currently. I am willing to give Mr. President Obama a chance to turn around his presidency, but time is running out.

[Mason Dixon]

127. Racist!

Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist RacistRacist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist Racist

[motorcityliberal]

128. Funny

Those same Democrats who are questioning Obama leadership are the ones who perfected the dunk in your shell like an scared turtle maneuverer anytime a Republican raised their voice during the Bush years. If the Representative didn't want the government being balance on the backs of ordinary people maybe he should called out people in the progressive media that demobilized the Democratic base and help the right wing media piss on what's been accomplished.

[TheKentuckian]

134. No it is the same "sensible centrists" and "pragmatic progressives" that stood silent and supported

Bush, especially the assaults on civil liberties running scared from the terror issue and complicit in the fiscal tomfoolery going back much further.

Don't play that deflection.

[motorcityliberal]

135. Firebaggers: It's always someone else fault when we screw up.

Deflection? Let's recap a few things back in 2000 I was one of those people who told people like you don't believe the bullshit about there's no difference between Al Gore and George W.Bush but what did folks you do? You either stayed home or voted for king douche Ralph Nader. Leap(or go back) ahead to 2010 here me again telling folks like you gotta keep the house Democratic because if the Repugs get power back they're going to do two things 1. bullshit and 2. go after things people care about. And surprise, surprise I'm right. Don't try to blame folks like me when you guys fuck up.

[TheKentuckian]

137. I voted for the guy who generally agreed with Bush but differed in a few areas

that tripped over his feet to concede twice.

2010 Obama wave voters stayed home as expected and TeaPubliKlans mobbed the polls.

I was working to elect my rep and Senate candidate.

You fuckheads screwed up and are spinning so we can continue to do the same failed shit with the same result maintaining the Reagan Revulsion that you cream over.

You haven't a clue.

[motorcityliberal]

141. More FB bullshit

So it was President Obama that pissed on his own accomplishments? I thought it was the false prophets of Cenk Uygur, Jane Hamster and uber douche Glenn Greenwald did that. And I guess it was President Obama that went on his national show and told people to stay home but I thought that was Ed Schultz who did that. Again the things that are happening now fall on the backs of those who chose to stayed home. But hey if that excuse make you feel better about enabling what's going on feel free to use that.

[TheKentuckian]

148. I've never stayed home and liberals didn't stay home either.

You scrambled to to the nonexistent center after being elected in a landslide (looking to pick up who, we will never know) and Lo and Behold lost the swing voters the whole exercise was supposedly target to and the "wave" voters stayed home. The black vote was down, the youth vote cratered, the Obamacans went home.

That is reality. That is what happened and your twisting in the wind finger pointing will not change reality any more than crying about Nader will reverse the MILLIONS of Democratic "centrists" that voted for Shrub or the millions and millions that voted for fucking Reagan.

You can bluster, blame, and bully all you like but many of us remember before 2000 and have been working and sacrificing for this party for years and have seen a mid-term before.

I didn't stay home and neither did most liberal critics of this boneheaded and complicit administration. The same people that stayed home every mid-term forever stayed home, except for the ones that ran to vote TeaPubliKlan as they often do.

The tactics you espouse and claim critical fell on their fucking face and rather than reevaluate you and your friends decided to just push a lie like your ideological brothers and sisters, the TeaPubliKlans.

You not only failed to hold "the middle", you ran them away screaming. The centerpiece to the entire post-election strategy was a failure. Then you do nothing to maintain energy in those that traditionally sit out mid-terms. Then you piss off the ideological base and give activists nothing they can pitch because they don't really believe in. I can't sell the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act because I believe it is a boondoggle of a booby trap. I can't tell people we passed a Financial Reform package that will prevent another meltdown like we just had because it doesn't. I cannot talk about what we are doing to protect civil liberties because we are eroding them.

All I got is what you have-tired ass and half true talking points that address surface issues and sell benefits while avoiding structural flaws.

No one is responsible for being a part of a mindless propaganda corps. We oppose bad legislation and counter productive policies. If you want people to stop telling the truth about you then act differently.

[motorcityliberal]

150. Still more firebag bullshit

After the 2010 election all I heard from the firebag wing is that it's President Obama's fault of not doing anything to rally the Democratic base, even tho he did go across the country to attend and speak at the various Democratic rallies. When you firebag freaks joined the right wing chorus of this president hasn't done a damn thing that pollutes the political discussion for those who don't follow politics day in and day out. Hell if I didn't follow politics and all I hear is how this president is a screw up by freaks on the right and faux progressives why in the world would I vote for his party.

All you folks have done is whine and push this faulty notion that if you people were president you would bring forth a progressive utopia with little to no resistance, tell me more ole liberal than thou how would you usher in your policies with people within your own fucking party threating to join with the other side to thwart you? Tell me ole great liberal than thou your base let you down and at the end of the lame duck session you were given a choice give the Repugs want they want in tax cuts but they extend unemployment benefits or hold firm to principle let the tax cuts go away but the people you claim to be about would see their taxes go up in their time of need and they're going to be at the mercy of a Republican House.

It's easy to be Captain progressive on the internet or on talk radio where your choices have no means of actually impacting people or have political blow back for standing for "principles" that would ultimately hurt those you claim to be fighting for. Lastly you whine about these things that were passed guess what the President only signs bill into law you got a problem with the legislation maybe you should tried to elect more progressive Democrats in the senate. But hey whining and complaining is hard work.

[Better Believe It]

138. Why don't Democratic politicians function as partisans rather than Republican Party enablers.

Please provide more lame excuses on why the Democrats with overwhelming majorities in the House, Senate and control of the White House proved unable to challenge the economic and political power of Wall Street and corporate lobbyists and in fact seemed to do their bidding.

No amount of lipstick or political smokescreen can cover up that fact.

You're not going to claim that the Senate leadership and White House represent and fight for working folks and not Wall Street and big business, are you?

[motorcityliberal]

142. Wow you folks don't know how government works

Democratic House passed legislation and when that bill goes to the senate things can get muddy up even with a majority vote Republicans mixed with enough conservative Democrats can prevent 60 votes for passage. Now if you "progressives" wanted things passed the key was elect enough Democrats that could clear Democrats of Republican filibusters and having to deal with so call moderate Republicans and blue dog dems. The Democrats really had 58 Dems(Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are not Democrats but people include them) and when you take account the conservative Democrats that reduce that number.

Now thanks to the great left wing cry out of 2010 the things we're experiencing now could have been avoided by making sure at least the House Dems had a slim majority. But hey you folks couldn't grandstand if you did that.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

136. It's funny you post this since you're not even a Democrat. How would you know what we think?

[treestar]

143. Exactly, I'm a Democrat and don't have such a "concern."

those who do are a little crazy, to my mind.

[motorcityliberal]

144. Dem Underground has strange logic

Defending a Democratic President and advocating keeping the House of Representatives in Democrats hands doesn't make me a Democratic? Boy the thing that passes for logic on Democratic Underground is truly amazing. But reading enough firebag rants I know how you guys "think"

[Peacetrain]

145. Bingo...

[Motown_Johnny]

149. no mention of that poll with an 80% approval among Democrats?

funny how that is missing