NYT editorial: Time for Obama 'to abandon his hopes of reaching a grand budget bargain' with GOP

[Newsjock]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/opinion/who-can-take-republicans-seriously-on-the-budget.html

It is time for President Obama to abandon his hopes of reaching a grand budget bargain with Republicans.

At every opportunity since they took over the House in 2011, Republicans have made it clear that they have no interest in reaching a compromise with the White House. For two years, they held sham negotiations with Democrats that only dragged down the economy with cuts; this year, they are refusing even to sit down at the table.

Mr. Obama hasn’t given up inviting the Republicans to join him in making the hard choices of governing, but he has been rebuffed each time. This year, in hopes of getting some support for modest tax increases on the rich, he even proposed a reduction in the cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients. The events of the last few weeks should make it clear to him why that offer should be pulled from the table immediately.

[rocktivity]

1. "Abandon all hope all ye who enter here..."

Allegedly written on the gates of hell...

(if you'll pardon the smiley)
rocktivity

[davidthegnome]

95. It needs to be added to the door...

of every government office in the Nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The paper of record joins the rest of us

In reality

[MattSh]

8. Agreed...

It seems the only one who has not yet given up hope of reaching a deal with Republicans is.... The President.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

57. It's a false narrative...

What's funny is when the Beltway claims Republicans had no problems negotiating with Clinton.

Then imply is that Obama is just too damn radically Liberal.

[JDPriestly]

60. Republicans shut down the government under Clinton.

They actually shut it down money-wise. It was at that desperate time in Clinton's administration that Monica Lewinsky became a problem.

The Republicans are just horrible. It's unbelievable how unpatriotic they are.

We did not like Bush. But we did not stop the government or take personal revenge. The most we did was demonstrate -- and then those of us who did were arrested forthwith.

Republicans used to be rational although wrong. But now they are wrong and irrational about it. It all started with Nixon. He was the bad seed, and he owed a lot to the atmosphere of absurd, inhumane conservatism of Ayn Rand and her followers.

[Iliyah]

64. Yep, Newtser did that along with the other

crazy GOPers. Read that 74% of Republicans think that Benghazi is worst than Watergate, and most thinks its located in a Latino country. If you have total misinformed angry people its so much easlier to get them to believe what you are spewing out.

Now the GOP are spewing that Pres O is just like or worst than Nixon. How in the hell can any sane person deal that illogical crap? GOP bases are swallowing anything that is against Pres O because they hate him. The so called Christians are hatemongers.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. "Republicans used to be rational although wrong."

Blame Newt.

Before he came along the goal of all of the Conservative "Think Tanks" was to craft language with spin to sell their unpopular ideas to get Liberals to go along with them.

Then along came the bombastic Newt who told everyone in DC that since Reagan the country had swung to the right. He introduced his "word list" which painted Liberals as the cause of all of the nation's problems and Conservatives as the nation's saviors. As a result he accomplished two things - He made those Think Tanks use all of their energy and focus on attacking the very people they were created to be their customers and he installed a bunch of assholes in Congress that didn't know how to govern but knew how to run a negative campaign.

Now those same assholes have been in long enough to ascend to seniority status as the old guard ages and retires.

What's really funny is the Republican Party has become a party that really ADMIRES a nasty campaign. The more insulting, the more they cheer.

Then they really blew it by abandoning Reagan's 11th Commandment - "Thou Salt Not Speak Ill Of A Fellow Republican".

The resulting free-for-all of assholes on assholes has been a riot.

In more ways than one.

[CreekDog]

17. does the rest of us, include one of us?

i think we all know who I'm talking about.

why oh why don't we know?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Obama won't let up on this.

He wants to be known as the President who took on Social Security, and who brought both parties together. He made these clearly known since before his first inauguration. These are his overarching goals, he'll work at them until 1/20/16.

[JoePhilly]

23. The Great Manny the mind reader sees all knows all ...

And he can see deep into President Obama's mind and see what he wants his legacy to be.

Its not ending Iraq. It's not keeping the Great Recession from becoming a 2nd Great Depression. Its not putting the ACA in place. Its not killing OBL. Its not the end of DADT.

No no no no no .... Its none of those things ...

Its being the President who "took on" Social Security. Just look into Manny's crystal ball. Its all so clear.

[villager]

30. or rather, Manny's seen a five-year Obama track record...

n/t

[JoePhilly]

32. Sorry ...

But Manny makes a very specific claim. Its a silly claim, but there it is.

I'll make a prediction ... we'll have about 3.5 more years of hair on fire screaming that Obama, at any second, will cut a deal to kill Social Security. The predicted cuts won't happen, but the screaming will.

And down the road, when people talk of Obama's Presidency, social security will rarely be mentioned, if at all.

Instead, the discussion will be about the items I listed, and just perhaps the end of DOMA, and immigration reform will be added.

[Android3.14]

43. Hope you are right, but the evidence indicates you aren't

But hey, at least we have hope.

[villager]

47. We certainly don't have "change" -- but right! Hope!

Good ol' "hope!"

[JoePhilly]

62. What evidence are you referring to?

Some on DU have been sure cuts were imminent for close to 3+ years. It still has not come close to happening.

How is that non-event evidence that Obama wants his legacy to be cutting SS versus all of the other items I listed ... all of which have actually happened?

[bornskeptic]

63. Sherlock Holmes you're not.

The evidence is that President Obama made an offer to adopt CCPI, which the Republicans don't even want, because it hits their base and includes across-the-board tax increases, and in addition he tied it to a demand for increased tax increases on the wealthy which only a suicidal Republican would vote for. That's not a very competent way to go about cutting Social Security.

[lark]

54. Respectfully disagree.

Social security affects every one of us that is not part of the 1% - so 99% affect. None of these other things affect nearly so many. Social security is the over-riding issue, and now that Obama put it on the table, Repugs can run against the Dems effectively by claiming they are out to cut social security, regardless of the facts that their party wants to cut it even further.

Affordable health care is a joke in those red states like mine that refuse to enhance Medicaid, so the working poor will NOT be helped at all, only empoverished more than ever. I'm really worried about my waitstaff son. He's barely making it, of course has no coverage from work, and the program our hateful legislature is pushing will not help him one bit, he can't afford it! Unless the government takes a hard line on these, and initial impressions are they won't do that at all, this is going to seriously hurt the working poor in FL and other red states.

[JoePhilly]

67. A few things.

1) Social Security has not been cut. And it won't be. And the GOP can't both demand larger cuts and also say they are defending against cuts. No one buys that. Dems will easily argue that Obama was willing to entertain the possibility of SS cuts and the GOP still would not come to the table. Those Dems can say that given that reality, they do not support any deal with cuts. The GOP opponent can either agree, or demand more cuts (which is what they really want).

2) The ACA will expand over time, much like programs such as SS and Medicare. The foolishness of the red states will become more and more apparent as time goes on. I suspect that your son will know which party is trying to kill him and vote accordingly.

In the end, Obama's legacy will not really be much about SS at all. It will be the other items I mentioned, including stopping the 2nd great Depression, which did effect everyone.

[A Simple Game]

86. You don't suppose all of that screaming

will be the reason why Social Security will survive, do you?

Nahh, now there's a silly claim.

[Marr]

87. You very confidently and haughtily predicted he'd never *offer* to cut SS.

So exactly where is your 'told you so' attitude coming from?

[Jakes Progress]

90. Shhh. Those people don't like you bringing up that kind of thing.

[Jakes Progress]

89. Yeah. Let's ignore the past.

For sure you couldn't make a prediction about how dick cheney would react ever. Or anyone. You just can't know what's going to happen. That's why no one ever knows what is going on. No one can plan or prepare for anything. We are all just incapable of seeing trends and figuring out what is going to happen.

Discussion of Obama's presidency will list his being the first black president. Then it will center on his inability to move legislation. The groups of biographers and historians will reference his slow acceptance of the reality that republicans weren't going to like him. No matter how hard he tried.

[duffyduff]

34. Exactly. It's all about his ego.

He's STILL trying to impress the historians he is a "transformative" president instead of the mediocrity he has turned out being.

[maddiemom]

46. And this would revere him to--just whom again?

Oh, right.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. When every time you reach across the aisle

you end up with a bloody stump, maybe it's time to give up and tell them to fuck themselves sideways.

[Dragonfli]

16. I think that when you reach across the aisle you're not supposed to pump so vigorously

up and down in such a repetitive fashion. For some reason it hasn't been working and the bargaining table is getting a little sticky in the process.

[KamaAina]

72. With a pineapple.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. When the NYT has to explain reality to you

you know you have failed epically in your assessment of the situation.

[mick063]

6. Picture this.....

Franklin D Roosevelt in Obama's position.


He wouldn't take shit from those clowns, would expose the Tea Party with great precision, and rally American support to get government functional again.

Obama is a law school prepper that is in over his head. The debate champion can't govern his way out of a paper bag.

The Tea Party hates him, has lied about him, and has done everything in their power to make him fail. Yet.....he seeks a grand bargain.

You have to believe that the Robber Barons are directing his every move.

What a failed Presidency.

[JoePhilly]

24. "Obama is a law school prepper that is in over his head."

If you are going to attack President Obama ... at least try to not co-opt a Tea Party talking point.

[flamingdem]

50. +1

[sadbear]

7. Isn't he doing what the "majority" of Americans say they want him to do.

Of course, that assumes that the "majority" of Americans know shit about politics. Aren't they supposedly tire of the parties not working together for the common good? Don't they want a President who will reach out to the other side to compromise?

(Hey, I'm not saying I agree at all, but isn't President Obama doing what he thinks most Americans want him to do?)

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Where did you get an idea like that? Got any support for your assertion?

Sounds like push poll results to me.

[xtraxritical]

42. Do you live on earth? Where's your push poll? rotflmao!

[sadbear]

73. The "majority" of Americans don't want the two parties to work together?

I think they're getting what they're asking for, not necessarily what they want.

[lark]

55. You REALLY think Americans want SS cut?

You have been listening too much to the "serious people". They and their paid shills, the media and congress, are telling you this is best, but actual people who are not part of the 1% are strongly opposed to cutting social security.

[sadbear]

74. They want Democrats to work with republicans.

Having SS cut is an unintended consequence of that.

[lark]

112. They want progress to be made on the things they care about.

They don't like the stupid pettiness between the parties, true enough. However, and this is big, they totally don't want social security or Medicare benefits to be reduced, and this is by a huge margin. Putting social security on the table was a totally stupid thing for Obama to do.

[sadbear]

113. He put the ball back in our court.

"What do you people want, me to work with republicans, or me to protect Social Security and Medicare? Because I can't do both." -- my imagined quote from President Obama.

[FiveGoodMen]

81. If the majority of Americans just wanted the two parties to funtion as one...

...what would be the point of ANYONE voting? Ever?

When republicans vote for republicans, you can be sure they're not hoping their elected leaders will do whatever the Democrats want.

And when I vote for Democrats, it certainly is not in the hope that the dems will give the GOP what they want!

[sadbear]

84. I know this.

That's what's so batshit crazy about what voters supposedly want.

Perhaps it's not all voters that want this, but the so-called "independent" voters, who, last time I checked, made up the largest bloc of voters.

[FiveGoodMen]

93. Wasn't sure if you were being ironic or not

Either way, I took the opportunity to put my two cents in.

[BlueStreak]

9. This is a BS article. It only tells HALF of the story

Yes, obviously there is no point in pursuing a "grand bargain".

it never had a great chance. The only real justification for making the effort was to call out the Republicans for their intransigence.

it is not enough to simply stop trying to get this grand bargain. We are still waiting for Obama to make the GOP pay a price for their intransigence. That is the half of the equation that is completely missing, and the NYT misses entirely.

What it is time for is for Obama to run actively against the teabaggers and work his ass off to win the House in 2014. That is the ONLY job worth doing at this point. Unless he is willing and able to do that, he should just admit he is a lame duck, sit down, shut up, and pick out his furniture for his gig at the Carlyle Group when his term is done.

[Recursion]

13. Of all people, Matt Yglesias made that argument best

After the sequester was put into place there was no point of a grand bargain anymore. There's no problem that it solves. It would be getting Congress to agree to some package that increases the deficit.

The simple fact is we will not have a budget again until we have a Republican White House and/or a Democratic House.

[BlueStreak]

26. Well, there are certainly some things that need to be fixed

Before Reagan took office, business taxes represented about 30% of the total Federal income taxation. Not businesses pay under 10% of the total. There can be no argument that these tax cuts were for competitive reasons because if all businesses face the same taxation, then there is no competitive advantage or disadvantage.

Of course, like everything else, this change was not done on a fair, equitable basis. It is overwhelmingly the gigantic, multi-national corporations that are evading their fair share. Small businesses have seen tax cuts, but not a cut of 2/3 of their obligations.

If businesses paid even 20% income tax (including taxing the money that is being kept offshore, Enron-style, there would be no deficit today -- actually a big surplus. So this needs to be fixed, but there isn't any possible scenario -- no bargain grand enough -- that would ever make that happen with these teabaggers. Likewise on climate change progress and just about every other major issues out there.

That's why I say the only thing worth doing at this point is running hard to capture the House in 2014. And I see absolutely zero evidence that Obama has even the slightest interest in that. He is, in fact, a lame duck already. The only thing of significance he is likely to do in the next 3 years is name a center-right replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

[grahamhgreen]

10. K&R!

[Safetykitten]

11. Golf. Moar golf.

[pa28]

96. Seriously. In my opinion a successful second term would be all golf.

Instead of cutting Social Security, expanding "public-private partnerships" and making every day christmas day for major corporations with the Trans Pacific Partnership he should have played golf.

Lots and lots of golf.

[Recursion]

12. Ha. It's like they're kicking Pete Peterson in the balls

God, I wish I could see his reaction on reading that...

[Dragonfli]

15. Obama's peeps will be heartbroken, they have invested so much propaganda pimping for him

http://www.thirdway.org/publications/613

Last summer, President Obama and Speaker Boehner nearly reached a historic budget agreement. But the deal, as we know, broke down. In this report, we propose a series of grand bargains modeled on what the President and Speaker sought to achieve. We also provide a roadmap for these seven bipartisan grand bargains...
Taken together, these grand bargains would modernize our economy for a new and fierce era of global economic competition. Without them, America’s sixty-year span of automatic, robust economic growth will draw to a close.

The NYT editorial staff are revealed now as a bunch of haters; firebagging losers that never loved the sensible Obama and Peterson approaches. They must be a bunch of libertarians - opposing the hard decisions that need to be made to force feed the nutritious peas that the elderly, disabled, and veterans need so desperately! How are we gonna balance all the pain the 1% have been feeling since all those record profits began?


They never really loved the third way
They never really loved Obama
They never really loved austerity

Breitbart! Breitbart! Breitbart!

[raouldukelives]

21. +1 nt

[Myrina]

38. +2

[L0oniX]

58. Hopeychangealicous ...can you taste it now n/t

[cantbeserious]

92. +3

eom

[randome]

19. So what's the alternative? If you can't negotiate, then what?

He also can't ramrod Democratic legislation through by himself.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BlueStreak]

29. There are good options

#1, he can work actively to win back the House. He can make it a priority to make Republicans pay a price for their intransigence. For 5 years he has been giving them a free ride. Look at this little flare-up about the IRS checking into the teabaggers -- AS THEY SHOULD because most of those teabagger groups are frauds. Instead of saying, "Hey, we're just doing our duty." his administration is pissing their pants to beg the forgiveness of those teabaggers he offended. That's crap. Play some hardball.

#2, last time I checked, the president had a power called the veto. Reagan did it 78 times. Bush I did it 44 times. Clinton did it 37 times. Bush II did it 12 times -- but raised "signing statements" to a whole new level. Obama has done it TWO TIMES in his entire presidency. What does it accomplish for Obama to complain when Congress fixed the sequester when they are inconvenienced by the FAA impact, but addressed none of the remaining sequester impact? He should have vetoed that damn bill and said, "I'm not signing anything until you give me the same ability to transfer funds within ALL agencies."

It is time to stop apologizing for this clown. He is doing is exactly the way he likes it. He is not the victim of the Republicans. He is their full co-conspirator.

[NoMoreWarNow]

66. verily indeed

I WISH he would do this but I won't hold my breath... the fact that he almost certainly will do little to insure that Dems take over the House in 2014 shows what his real game is.

[BlueStreak]

80. His "real game" is not evil. It just isn't what we thought we were voting for.

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

His real game is to have a successful Presidency with no major controversies, leaving the country a little better than he found it, and being positioned so that no historian can seriously criticize his time. He won't be known as the President who brought modern health care to the country. He won't be known as the President who reversed the vast concentration of wealth. He certainly won't be known as a "trust buster" or even standing up to any corporate interest in any significant way. He won't be seen as the President who faced up to the climate change crisis in any major way. In some liberal universities, some historians will remember that he was the guy who averted what many people believed could become the second Great Depression, but that won't be the mainstream assessment.

What he will be known for is being the first black President -- and by golly, he did a good job -- wasn't overly uppity or anything.

And the sad thing is that is exactly what he has been working toward this entire time. Anybody who believed otherwise (myself included) is a sucker.

[NoMoreWarNow]

110. who the fuck wants to become president just to do that?

seriously. If you are president do something bold, for god's sake.

[BlueStreak]

111. This guy

I agree is isn't what most people expected, but the facts speak for themselves.

[hobbit709]

35. Negotiating assumes the other side is willing to actually negotiate.

[kentuck]

20. Some of us have been saying that for years...

But nobody listens.

[Overseas]

22. Sad +1.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

88. thank you for saying this. I want some extra credit. haha It is a totally

non-productive pursuit. Take what we got - health care and military budget cuts and call it a day. Although there are thousands of worthwhile things we could do and make better - nothing is going to happen unless the congress switches.

[JoePhilly]

25. So President Obama should do nothing.

The GOP won't join him in governing, so he should stop trying to govern.

Good plan.

The GOP doesn't want to govern. And they certainly don't want Obama to govern.

Its a win / win.

For the GOP.

[kentuck]

27. He can't get anything positive done until he has a Democratic Congress.

Anything he compromises with the Republicans is a net negative. It would be better to do nothing. His time would be better spent educating the American people and trying to get a Democratic Congress for his last two years.

[JoePhilly]

28. The GOP will be thrilled when he makes that announcement.

Obama does nothing for his next 18 months in office.

And then if we don't get control of the House and 60+ votes in the Senate, Obama (I guess) can do nothing for his next 2 years in office too.

So the obstructionists in the GOP get to take a pass and say "Obama won't work with us ... He's the obstructionist" ... and the government does nothing at all, which is EXACTLY what they want.

Like I said ... win / win for the GOP.

[kentuck]

31. Defeatist.

I disagree.

[JoePhilly]

33. No, a defeatist is what the article wants Obama to become ...

They are recommending that he accept defeat and do nothing ... because the GOP won't work with him.

That's a defeatist attitude.

[kentuck]

37. And forget everything he has tried to do for the last 4 years to cooperate with the Repubs?

Most Americans now know that it is the Republicans that refuse to work with the President. So why continue the charade? I think most people would appreciate it if he came right out and said that Republicans refuse to work on anything except blocking whatever he proposes. Just be honest.

[blackspade]

99. Actually, if he worked to get a Democratic Congress....

He could have a fantastic last 2 years.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. He should go LBJ on us

Or FDR. Or even Clinton once or twice.

Go to war with them, not ask them politely if there's anything else he can possibly compromise on.

[maddiemom]

48. Be interesting to see how LBJ or FDR would have handled this bunch. Clinton not so much, but maybe

This is not my parents' or grandparents' Republican party , however. Not even Nixon's party (I despised him, but miss him in retrospect, even though 1968 was my first voting year and I was devastated). The rabid tea party Republicans in Congress defy any previous description. Until the last couple of decades, I would never have called any Republican "evil," but the oily and felonious Darryl Issa, seen on this weeks' Sunday shows is the last straw. The ultimate of those frighteningly in charge of the Republicans these days. Above: meant to say maybe Truman.

[JoePhilly]

70. "Go to war with them"

Does he use drone strikes?

Come on ... be specific ... what does he do, what does he say ... we just had almost 90% of all Americans with him on background checks, and the GOP still blocked it.

So please ... be specific on how he " goes LBJ" on us.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Do you see any difference in LBJ's and Obama's approaches?

Or are they pretty similar?

[JoePhilly]

105. So you can't answer the question.

You are the LBJ expert.

Certainly you can can explain the specific technique that LBJ would use with this GOP House to get them to participate in governing.

So please, enlighten us.

[MannyGoldstein]

107. Sigh.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/15/david-frum-on-obama-lessons-in-robert-caro-s-lyndon-johnson.html

Johnson led the nation in its mourning for Kennedy, opening his first speech to Congress: “All I have I would have gladly given not to be standing here today.” Then he picked one out the late president’s many fitfully advanced causes and seized on that cause as the one and only fitting memorial. Johnson chose civil rights—his passion much more than it had ever been Kennedy’s. “[No] eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil-rights bill for which he fought so long.” Unsaid: Kennedy had to fight so long for that bill because he did not fight anywhere near so effectively as the man who followed him.

...

Having chosen his cause, Johnson started to assert his authority. The conservative Democrats who dominated Congress in the early 1960s had perceived Kennedy as weak. They pushed against him—and usually won. Within days of taking office, Johnson went looking for a way to push back. He found his opportunity in a battle over grain exports to the Soviet Union. Conservatives in Congress had introduced an amendment limiting presidential authority to permit such sales.

As Caro writes: “‘I hope that [bill] gets murdered,’ Johnson snarled, and, sitting in the Oval Office, he kept telephoning senator after senator, cajoling, bullying, threatening, charming, long after he had the majority, to make the vote overwhelming.” Why? To teach Congress the lesson that Johnson could not be rolled.

The lesson was learned.

etc.

[Cosmocat]

102. How does that change anything?

Seriously.

How does his "going to war" with them change anything?

The republicans work with 100 percent unity against him.

How does his "going to war" change that?

All it does is provide them with some actual evidence of how they try to paint him as being difficult, and chip away at the bare minimum of public support he has.

45% of the country is pretty much going to hate him regardless.

Feckle democrats will come and go on things.

The mushy 10 percent in the middle sees the MASSIVE disconnect between what he does and says and how the republicans scream about him and generally side with him.

The moment he goes to the mattresses with the Rs it allows them to discard him as "being the same as the rest of them .."

All this going to war with republicans will do is provide US with some cathartic relief.

[progressoid]

68. They didn't say he should do nothing

Rather...

Under the circumstances, Mr. Obama would be best advised to stop making peace offerings.

[JoePhilly]

69. And do what instead?

[progressoid]

71. Take it to the American people.

Take a lesson from the gun control debacle. Yes, I know, we lost that fight. But at least he fought for it and America knows who caused it to fail.

If the GOP is going to be intractable and do anything to block progress, then make sure the public sees it BEFORE the midterm elections. Right now it IS a win/win for the GOP. They are blocking everything and the President/Democrats are taking the blame.

Time to stop giving the GOP a reach-around.

[nenagh]

36. I thought this was the point that House Republicans just want the Obama Budget to go away...

Take away the Obama Budget now, ( much as I dislike some of it) and the House Republicans are relieved of their problem of refusing to appear to deal with the budget in good faith

[perdita9]

39. The NYT states the obvious

[on point]

41. Well Duh!!! Never should've even started. State the dem position

Let them move back toward the center

Instead of chasing ever further off the wacko right cliff

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. The SS "compromise" is to be found in Obama's new book. "The Audacity of Surrender".

[L0oniX]

59. To be followed up with "The Catastrophy of Surrender" co-written by elderly street people. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

82. It's really the audacity of playing "Good Cop"

Surrender implies that he was ever fighting for us to begin with.

Doesn't look like he ever was.

[watoos]

45. There's one big problem with Obama going to war with the GOP

like FDR. The MSM is now totally controlled by multi-national corporations, not as much under FDR. If Obama goes to war with the GOP, the media will eat him up alive. Change has to come from the people when they hit rock bottom.
Howard Dean - 2016

[flamingdem]

52. +1

[FiveGoodMen]

83. When we hit rock bottom we will be unrepresented slaves with no civil rights

We will be able to do nothing whatsoever to help ourselves at that point.

You don't lose the war in order to win the war.

[woo me with science]

49. Remember when we only had to fight one party? nt

[rhett o rick]

53. The Class War isnt between the two parties. Both Parties are controlled by the Elite Class.

And the Elite Class wont give up power without a fight.

The Revolution is waiting the spark.

[woo me with science]

56. Yup. nt

[blackspade]

100. +1000

[d_b]

51. A great editorial for 2009

[quinnox]

61. Obama is passionate about reaching out to the GOP

while at the same time, not giving liberals/progressives the time of day. Hell, when has Obama ever said or pushed for something liberal or progressive? What else is new. Let's just hope we don't make the same mistake next time, but instead nominate someone less eager to reach out to tea party types and ultra conservative right wing republicans.

[DallasNE]

75. The Problem Lies With The American Voter

In 2012 the voters went in with eyes wide open with the knowledge that House Republicans were totally obstructionist and that Boehner couldn't even control his own caucus yet they voted for a repeat performance. I do agree with the NYT that it is futile at this point to attempt any negotiations with House Republicans. Republicans harbor the false notion that the voters aren't paying attention just as they weren't in 2012 and with their Gerrymandered districts they are immune from defeat. It is in the hands of the American voter how much longer they are willing to support such unreasonable behavior. Right now not enough Americans are feeling sufficient pain to throw the bums out but we have another 18 months before the election and things can change. Normally 6 years in is really tough but we are not looking at normal -- but it will be a headwind.

[graham4anything]

76. The republican office holders are draconian. However, they only represent the 20. 80% don't agree

best to get zero agreement now and 100 million votes in 2016
than to stoop to their level and lose in 2016

[GaYellowDawg]

77. IT WAS TIME FIVE GODDAMN YEARS AGO

We'd just had 6 years of Republicans OWNING the government - all 3 branches - followed by 2 years of a Democratic Congress trying to put the brakes on the Bush administration. The country voted for CHANGE. Change from complete and utter failure. I still remember all the talk about the death of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party, its policies, and its philosophies had been rejected as an utter failure. The President had a major, major opportunity to get up in front of the nation and say that. And when any whining about bipartisanship came down the pike, all he had to do was to say, "you know what you get when you compromise with failure? Failure." He had the ability and the pull to run roughshod over the Republican Party and the ever-damnable Blue Dogs, and passed on it. The country was so sick of Republicans, conservatives, everything about the right, that it opened up a window of opportunity like none other in our lifetimes. And the President flat out pissed it away in the name of bipartisanship. Cooperation. Healing. What a load of fucking bullshit. You don't compromise with someone who's out to hurt you at any cost. You don't compromise with failure, especially if you're reaching out to snapping jaws.

And what's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By that measure, when it comes to the Republicans, our President is a flat-out fucking lunatic. Each time he's tried, he's gotten a massive "Fuck you" from the Republicans and then they've gone to Fox and giggled with glee over it. Over and over and over. He wants so desperately to be seen as the Great Uniter leading a purple country that he's frittered away any chance he had to be an effective leader. God almighty, I can only imagine what Jimmy Carter, his beliefs, and his policies could have done for this country if he'd had the same kind of mandate President Obama had.

We'll never see the same kind of window of opportunity in our lifetimes. America awoke from its Fox-induced stupor briefly, and the President passively let it go back to sleep.

[Blue Owl]

79. No. Fucking. Shit.

n/t

[Vietnameravet]

85. Advice to Obama

Be like Roosevelt..take them head on and bash them ceaselessly,,...Come out of your delusional cocoon ..forget this bullshit about "working together" and recognize that it's either us or them.. WE WON the election, NOT them.. so stop acting like a looser!!

[Jakes Progress]

91. Some people are just slow to learn.

Sometimes it is because they don't want to see the reality. Sometimes it is because they refuse to give up on dreams. Obama dreamed of being the great uniter. I dreamed of his being a force for progress. I've given up my dream. He needs to do the same. We can both still get something done if we move on to something the might really happen.

[grahamhgreen]

94. Like, 4 years ago.

[ailsagirl]

97. God, how I despise those SOBs

Really, words fail me

[davidthegnome]

98. What other options does he have?

I'm not terribly pleased with Obama in regards to many of his policies... but I understand the urge, even the necessity to reach across the aisle to create progress. The fact of the matter is that, within this government, as things presently stand, one party alone cannot do it, however willing or capable they may be - and let's be honest, our own party is not quite as willing or as capable as we would like, at least in regards to those "representing" us.

It's almost as if we took two different Nations of people who absolutely despised each other, had completely different principles, ideals... and sort of shoved them all into the same company and said - "Here, make it work." I'm not sure it can. Corporate money is, perhaps, the primary issue (along with campaign finance reform) that needs to be addressed. Secondly though, there's the fact that we're split very nearly down the middle in regards to those of us who vote, or even bother with what most consider the illusion of politics.

Something has to give. Either a political majority needs to shift left or right, or the existing majority (which I firmly believe is among the left) needs to start coming out and voting. I think that a big part of the problem during the Bush years was that the events of 9/11 and what happened after created a passionate anger that DID move our Country and it's politics significantly more to the right. Problem is... the republican policies of deregulation, free market, right to work, trickle down, and so on... they do not work. Republicans have spent decades proving that these policies do not work, yet, somehow, people continue to vote for them anyway.

Perhaps because the democrats need to offer something better, to fight tooth and nail for it. I don't know... single payer health insurance, campaign finance reform, holding white collar criminals accountable for their actions... punishing politicians, corporations, and wealthy individuals who break the law and do truly despicable things...

I like Obama well enough, but I see him as much more of a diplomat than a leader or a fighter. Diplomats are great, but they do not necessarily make for the best leaders of Nations.

[mick063]

101. There is no common ground. There is no room for compromise.

One side is for providing equal opportunity for all Americans
The other side is for creating opportunity for "traditional" Americans.

One side believes money in the wallet of the common man creates jobs.
The other side believes that unregulated, unmitigated growth of big business creates jobs.

One side believes that the influence of an unrepresentative, small group of people upon our government is the source of most our problems.
The other side believes that government itself is the source of most our problems.

One side believes that people should feel free to pursue religion, or not, as they see fit.
The other side believes that government should play a role to impose specific religious ideals on the general population, specifically to our children in school, and anything less is an "attack" on their faith.

One side believes that unmitigated gun ownership often leads to unnecessary, needless tragedy.
The other side believes that unmitigated gun ownership is a primary means of personal safety.

One side believes that people that require assistance are people that need uplifted to become a functional contributor to society.
The other side believes that people that require assistance are lazy and a burden on society.

One side defines patriotism as helping their fellow citizen in need, regardless of religion, race, or creed.
The other side defines patriotism as waving old glory, sending care packages to troops abroad, and attending the Independence Day parade.

One side believes that restricting voting rights is a dangerous step back in time and disenfranchises our most vulnerable.
The other side believes that restricting voting rights is a means to mitigate fraud.



I could go on and on. I have had it with reaching out to folks that live in a different universe than me. I cannot yield, even an inch, to such narrow minded people. Their sole political purpose is to impose their version of America upon me. I will not compromise with them.

Fortunately, the changing demographics will eventually phase them out. They understand this. Their version of utopia is slowly slipping away and the are fighting with all of their might to keep it from happening. Their single greatest political asset, corporate money, is what will make them formidable until they eventually fade away. As they become more and more desperate, they will allow corporate money to dictate more and more of their agenda. Much damage will be done before they go. It will take decades, perhaps centuries, perhaps eventual violent upheaval against corporatism, to undo the great damage done.


I will not yield, even if it means stagnation. It is far better than allowing the damage to become greater than it is destined to become.

[davidthegnome]

104. Do we have centuries?

Setting politics aside for a moment, the greatest issue facing not just our Country, but the whole world... is that of climate change. This is something that everyone should agree... we need to do something about. Yet we have so many conservatives in positions of authority who don't even believe it exists - some of the same people who think that humans and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time... oh, a few thousand years ago.

It is my hope that that sort is in the minority. There are some more reasonable, rational republicans who might get on board to combat climate change, to come up with policies that do more to protect our environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They would be even more likely to get on board for this if they weren't so wealthy, with their campaign funding often depending upon the worst of the polluters.

We have to reach across the aisle at least in regards to that issue. The conservative ideology may be fading, but it is not fading quickly enough to save our struggling world. However much we wish it were otherwise, the right has significant power and influence in this Country.

This is why, for me, it can't be all or nothing politics. We can't stubbornly refuse to try to work with the other side. We can't afford to. We can't afford to stand on principle in the hopes that, in time, perhaps over hundreds of years, conservative ideology might go the way of the dinosaur (pun intended).

Republicans are not stupid, as a whole. Frequently, they are ignorant, angry, selfish, even violently opposed to progress... unfortunately though, we have to work with them, nonetheless. We have to use the tools we have, not those we wish we had. In this regard, the President is generally thinking clearly.

It the old saying that, "United we we stand, divided we fall..." is true, then we must find some means of uniting our political parties and our people overall. If we don't, we get terrible policies, worsened conditions socially and economically, greater ignorance, disappointment, cynicism, hatred, ignorance... I too, could go on and on..

I'm with you in spirit, but logically, rationally, we can't afford to keep playing the political game as if we were the only player. I don't think part of the solution should be to give in to conservative policies, but I do think we have to acknowledge that they are going to have a say in most legislation that has any hope of passing.

[Bradj5]

103. Obama is not one of us! Never has been.

From the moment he appointed Tim Geitner & Larry Summers to oversee our economy before he even took office in 2008. Obama is a corporatist not a progressive. Simple as that. Please point out Obama policies that prove me wrong! I wanted to believe!

[hatrack]

106. Duh nt

.

[L0oniX]

108. Obama (R) will be his next attempt to reach across the aisle and even that will fail...

because ...ya know ...he's b****

[Bobbie Jo]

109. Because he's what?

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Don't be coy, spell it out.


eta: yeah, that's what I thought. What a jerkish post. I sincerely hope you didn't think that was clever.

Says all I need to know about you.