Like Robert Reich just said on Facebook

[SHRED]

I’m less worried Republicans will roll back the Affordable Care Act or reduce taxes on the wealthy over the next two years – the President’s veto pen will prevent that – than I am about Obama joining with Republicans to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Trans Pacific Partnership, and the “chained CPI” (that would reduce future Social Security payments). Obama has either sought these in the past or hinted he would, and he (and McConnell and Boehner) will be so eager to show they can work together that these will prove irresistible.
What other bad “agreements” between the White House and congressional Republicans might we expect?

Obama makes me very nervous regarding these three due to his past willingness to "make nice" with the jackalls.

[cali]

1. Yep. That's what I posted this morning.

[G_j]

2. K&R!

[djean111]

3. Me too. Me too.

[upaloopa]

4. Well we will see won't we.

I don't understand any willingness to work with those that hate you. I will base my opinion of Obama's presidency on what happens during the next two years. If he takes us further right none of that good stuff people have been talking about all week matters.
I heard he called the turtle and didn't get through.

[heaven05]

112. such total

reich wing disrespect of this POTUS for the last six years by a bunch of whiny white males and females with a few helpers from other races..... All these little snubs have not happened recently(since 1980,at least). This is shameful. Stupid ignorant, racist people won big time. They will be emboldened and all this nicey, nice by Democrats has to end. No matter we being in the minority in Congress now, start kicking some ass!!!!

[obxhead]

187. And it has next to nothing to do with race.

When you have a man by the balls you don't look at what color they are, you just squeeze until you get what you want.

Although, it won't take much of a squeeze. Obama is now free to pass all that he's been hinting at for 6 years.

[heaven05]

192. right

and a lot of the hate, disrespect and general white male whining had and has EVERYTHING to do with race. And per the testicle metaphor, they have tried to cut em off for the last six years. Squeezing didn't have a damn thing to do with it. I hope MY POTUS socks it to them to the point where those whiny pathetic excuses for amerikkkan politicians start squealing like the pigs they are. I hope he causes them all types of grief. Obama has nothing to lose. I wish I was in his shoes cause I would know where to leave a shoe each time I called one of those silly, racist dip....ts into the Oval Office.

[obxhead]

193. Keep hoping for that change.

We have 2 years where "America has spoken" and they want to offshore our jobs, pump oil regardless of ecological impact, and plunge taxes for the rich while the lower 80% pump money into the war machine.

He's down to 2 years with not a single person to work with. All he can do is internship for his next employer. That internship will fuck us and pay off huge for the .01%.

[heaven05]

221. well

it's damn sure a possibility........

[meadowlark5]

5. Yep nt

[LakeVermilion]

6. Who was the first to compromise?

Obama has already moved to the middle on every issue. They will get him to give more.

That was the knock on him before he was elected. He would go to his compromise position immediately. Obama apparently does like the negotiating process and seems to want to end it quickly.

Just more for the 1%.

[merrily]

73. "Compromise" on chained CPI, TPP and Keystone? With whom?

Please see Reply 64.

[JRLeft]

7. I heard on the radio there were 20 democratic senators willing to align themselves with

the GOP in order to pass the bill. It will pass overwhelmingly.

[Chuuku Davis]

25. UH

Which bill?

[JRLeft]

28. Keystone Pipeline my bad.

[Zen Democrat]

135. It's not a bill. It's a presidential decision.

[former9thward]

172. It can be put into a bill.

With 20 Dems it would be veto proof.

[merrily]

75. DC kabuki. All 20 may not ultimately vote with Republicans, but enough to pass it will.

Maybe with one or two extra, for good measure. And they will be Democratic Senators whose positions are very secure--would never be voted out--or who are retiring from the Senate for one reason or another anyway, maybe because they are already too unpopular with Democrats to win another primary.

[stillwaiting]

128. Or they will be Democratic Senators in Red States that HAVE to do it to keep their seats...

Or so we'll be told.

Then, they will probably lose their seat in their next election.

[merrily]

130. That, too.

Remember the Amash-Conyers amendment? Why would a newly-elected member of Congress from a very blue state and a very liberal family have voted against it? Maybe, because Massachusetts was not going to punish a Kennedy for that?

I studied those votes. It was interested.

[Yavin4]

8. Folks should worry more about Hillary on these issues than Obama

Where does she stand?

[cascadiance]

30. And where he does surrender SHOULD be made an issue for the 2016 campaign...

... on why we need a REAL progressive candidate win the 2016 nomination then, so we don't have ANY capitulation at this level when we really need them to stand up to the corporatist right wing crap that's probably going to push our country in to a near terminal stage of cancer the next two years.

I was just thinking that local party platform resolutions should start focusing on these issues, to send the party leadership a message from the grass roots that we will absolutely NOT put up with any such capitulation on his part, and that they need to put pressure on him to stand up to this crap if they don't want to see major populist splits within the party before 2016.

[merrily]

76. I agree about local matters, but surrender, capitulate to whom?

Please see Reply 64.

[cascadiance]

126. He's capitulating on that to other powers that be in Washington...

... not just the publicly seen Republicans in congress. There are the lobbyist types, etc. that are twisting his arm now to get things like TPP and other crap passed for them.

We just need to twist his arm harder as those that are the rank and file Democrats, to let him know that if he wants to have any kind of legacy and power in the Democratic party, he will change his tune and start reversing what he's doing on these issues.

We can tell him that he can make the case to these PTB that if they want his help, and basically screw his party by pushing Republicans in to majorities everywhere and getting other corporate Democrats voted out of office that were also doing their bidding, that Obama could arguably be better off making the case that the corporate lobbyists in effect declared war on the Democratic Party, and that from this day forward he and other Democrats on the hill will no longer accept corruption money and favors to do their will, when they are getting pushed out now.

Our basic challenge now is that we need to find some way to get the peoples' message out over the money flow people and corporate press and huge ad campaigns, so that we can put some clout behind him taking such a position.

That is why I think perhaps we could initiate here a campaign for nationwide an immediate call to action for all local county Democratic PCP and other like organizations to issue resolutions that we will not support the NAFTA, TPP, and other "free trade" deals, without some efforts to provide equal emphasis on protecting American jobs with things like tariffs, and also ensuring that any treaties we sign up for we look to ensure that employee's rights and welfare are looked at and respected globally, as well as the environment. And that anti-democratic process of "fast track authority" efforts should be immediately shut down and dismissed as undemocratic and not deserving to be used in our government.

If there are almost simultaneous massive releases of such resolutions, it will be hard for the media to ignore those and not be called out for the corporate partisans that many of them are.

It was amazing that the "top two" primary initiative (Measure 90) here in Oregon went down in greater numbers than the undocumented driver's license prop did, which everyone expected was doomed from the start. That shows to me the power of the people speaking out against the 1% that was putting tons of money in to that measure, and at times we can not be partisan based on party, but be rightfully partisan based on us being an oppressed economic class the way 99% of us are here.

[merrily]

133. Why would a President capitulate to lobbyists? Especially in his second term?

All they have to offer is money. He doesn't need it.

You have more faith in the inability of politicians to ignore the masses than I do, but I will go along with a campaign anyway.

[randr]

31. They both rely on the Ivy League/frat boy/Wall Street crowd for support

Get over it, money is what decides elections. Anyone willing to spend the most to convince a third of the population to vote for them will win.
Do people here a DU really think we live in a Democracy?

[daleanime]

42. No, but we want to...

[merrily]

79. Yes. I got insulted for posting that our government was never set up as a democracy and is not one.

It's a republic. And then, from the other side, I got scolded for saying it's a republic because it's an oligarchy or a plutocracy--and I deserved the second scolding.

But the illusion of living in a democracy is important enough to some people that they take a statement of fact personally.

[whathehell]

92. Yes, because it's been a right wing meme for years..

a 'democratic republic' ?

[merrily]

96. If that means most adults get to vote, then it's a democratic republic. That's still not a democracy

[whathehell]

150. It's not a "pure" democracy, it's a representative democracy..

Who told you that a "republic" and a "representative democracy" were

a contradiction in terms, Fox News?

[merrily]

152. I leave Fox news to those who seem to need the comfort of delusions and illusions.

Last edited Wed Nov 5, 2014, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)

The very definition of democracy is that citizens do not have representatives, but vote themselves, directly, on matters like war and taxes as in Ancient Athens.

The very definition of "republic" is that citizens (however one defines that term) do choose "representatives" who then vote on matters like taxes and wars, while citizens do not. (Whether those called "representatives" actually represent their constituents' wishes or not is irrelevant in the model. ) That was the form of government in Ancient Rome for a time.

The Framers looked at those two models and chose that of Ancient Rome. They did not trust the rabble. That is why the Senate, which they conceived as a body elected by state legislatures, has more power than "the People's House."

Because people love to believe that they do live in a democracy, and politicians love to have them believe that, over time, they've invented truthy terms to make our system sound more democratic-ish, an illusion politicians nurture.

This is supposedly the definition of a "democratic republic."

A democratic republic is, strictly speaking, a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, and the government itself is run through elected officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Current_countries_self-described_as_democratic_republics

Problem is, there is zero, I repeat, zero, difference between that allegedly technical definition of a "democratic republic" and the definition of a "republic." It's truthy. Also, FWIW,, per that wiki, the USA is not among the nations that self-describes as a "democratic republic."

The above reply is not for you, but for whoever else may choose to read it.

This part is for you though. I never said anything about democracies and republics being a a contradiction in terms. I don't say apples and oranges are a contradiction in terms either. Makes no sense. I simply call apples apples and oranges oranges. Similarly, a democracy and a republic are simply two different things, so I call each what it is.. Has nothing to do with a contradiction in terms. Technically, however, the term that you prefer, "representative democracy," is an oxymoron. You either vote yourself on matters, no representatives involved, or you vote to choose representatives who then vote on matters (or gridlock them). In the USA and other modern nations, citizens choose representatives.

[whathehell]

157. Why is this important to you?

Who, on a day like today, is interested in splitting hairs over semantics,

especially since, as you've pointed out, the definition of "republic" IS "representative democracy"?

Of course it's not a "democracy" in the PURE sense -- That would be impossible in a country

of millions, it is, however, set up quite similarly to every other country in the western world

which we categorize as "western democracies".

As for the framers not trusting "the rabble" , no they didn't "trust" women, racial minorities

or even men who didn't own property either -- Many were snobs and racists. A wiser,

later America expanded upon their original vision, something the framers allowed for.

[merrily]

158. NO, I most definitely did not point out

that the definition of republic is "representative democracy."

And my prior post covered why love to call governments democracies when they are actually republics.

If I were you, I would read more and use things like rollingl eye emoticons and "duh" a lot less.

[whathehell]

160. Again, why IS this so important to you?

Try explaining that -- if possible -- instead of engaging in a preach-a-thon on semantics

and right wing talking points.


"and my prior post covered 'why love to call governments democracies' when they are actually

republics' If I were you I would read more and use things like rollingl eye emoticons and "duh" a lot

less".

If I were you, I would spell correctly and write grammatically instead of getting so huffy and worked

up that you write like a semi-literate.

[merrily]

164. Why do you keep posting about it if it's not important to you?

No one engaged you in this conversation You posted to me. And you keep posting to me. Somehow, your posting to me means it's not important to you while my replying to you means it's important to me? BTW, who made you king of what should be important to me?

Accidentally omitting a word from a sentence = semi-literate? Ok.

If I were you, I'd look up subjunctive.

[whathehell]

165. I like calling out fussy little nit picking small picture types like you..

and "if I were you", I'd stop using that silly, overworked phrase -- You're NOT me,

nor I you (Thank God) so find someone else on whom you can take out your pathetically misplaced

anger -- I'm no longer interested. Bye

[merrily]

166. It's so adorable that you think you called me out.

It's interesting that you believe that using important terms without knowing their history or understanding their meaning has something to do with big picture vs. small picture. You seem to cherish a number of self-comforting truthy illusions.

so find someone else on whom you can take out your pathetically misplaced anger.

Projection. You're the only one who seems angry; and, again, I am not the one who "found" you for any purpose, angry or not. You're the one engaged me combatively.

Finally, if you understood "subjunctive," you would have understood exactly why I wrote, "If I were you, I'd look up subjunctive."

Very best wishes on getting something right in the future!

[whathehell]

169. LOL

"projection" my ass -- Apparently others here "found" you obnoxious as well,

as your initial post complained about being "insulted" for stating that the US was

a republic instead of a democracy.

Find comfort in your own illusions, Sweetie..It seems you've been less

than successful with more than one here.

[merrily]

175. Back so soon? Not a poster of your word? tsk tsk.

Oh, dear. Years on a contentious political message board and two, count 'em, two, people got upset with me for giving a dictionary definition of a word that challenged a story that they tell themselves (one of them being you). And, instead of refuting on substance, both went ad hom immediately.

How incredibly unusual for a message board! I'm sure that nothing like that ever happened to any other DU poster and certainly not to a poster as needlessly confrontational (over a dictionary definition, no less) and wannabe insulting as you.

FYI, none of your attempts at condescension bother me. But, for future reference calling a female poster "Sweetie" might get you a hide for blatant sexism. I won't alert, but another poster might. So, you may want to consider that if you find yourself gratuitously insulting a woman you may not find you as amusing as I have. happen.

[whathehell]

182. Yes, well you do seem to enjoy the attention, lol,

especially since it's likely more than others gave you.

Alas, all good things must come to an end..Get comfy on my ignore list.

[merrily]

189. At last. Bye!

[heaven05]

115. yep

truth does hurt some here.

[merrily]

129. Yep. And some wouldn't recognize a fact if it stood up and gave them an ice cream cone.

They are so convinced their opinions are THE truth and not only their opinions.

But, we all have to do what we can to avoid the fact-free zones and encourage our fellow DUers to do the same.

[mdbl]

97. No we don't live in a Democracy

and if politicians keep F'ing everything up, it will be overthrown and turned into an Idiocracy. With the mentality of these voters, it wouldn't turn into anything else.

[deurbano]

111. Given last night, it's hard not to think that ship's already sailed:

the USS Idiocracy

[harun]

134. Poignant

[merrily]

66. Why more? He is President now. She may never be President.

[Yavin4]

82. She will have influence over his positions. n/t

[merrily]

84. Why? Besides, that's his call.

She can yammer until the cows come home, but only he can allow a former Secretary of State to influence his positions. Like when he referred Keystone to the Secretary of State. That was his call, too.

[joeybee12]

104. I'll worry when she runs, and if Obama has said no to all 3 and the Repukes

are still chomping at the bit to get them passed...however, there is real concern Obama will "play nice."

[hifiguy]

108. Exactly where her corporatist/Wall$treet BFFs

want her to stand, and nowhere else.

[Renew Deal]

170. She isn't president

And may not have to deal with them depending on what Obama does.

[NC_Nurse]

9. Exactly. We are truly fucked.

[nolabels]

10. Fortunately or vis-a-versa, i don't think Obama is that much of a trail blazer

That might be a just a good kind thing at this time. Just remember he has got six years under his belt to learn how things really work in that sometimes miserable office. If Bill Clinton did what Obama did so far he would be much more of a hero today. I don't think Obama will sell out, he seems more of the kind of guy that get tough when things start going that way.

[JRLeft]

16. I completely disagree he is a triangular.

[nolabels]

38. I can see why that might or might not be true, i guess we all will get to see in the long run

I think what he has done so far with what he has had to work with makes me expect more of the same which doesn't look that bad in retrospective, to me anyway. Mostly would you like to point out some big blunders he has made?

The only one I can see at present is getting in cozy with the bankers at the beginning of his first term

[mazzarro]

74. Selecting Rahm Emmanuel as CoS and not pushing for Single Payer in health care reform - n/t

[merrily]

86. Or even a strong public option, as was his campaign promise.

[Enthusiast]

131. If the discussion would have included single payer, a strong public option would have been a breeze.

[FiveGoodMen]

194. Another "Democrat" -- Max Baucus made sure that wasn't part of the discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Baucus#Health_care_reform

A D isn't NEARLY enough.

[Enthusiast]

219. +1!

[merrily]

120. Blunders of omission and commission.

I doubt anyone will make you a list, but you might bookmark this thread and read it next week. It will probably contain a sampling.

[merrily]

80. I diisagree, nolabels. Please see Reply 64.

[Autumn]

11. Oh there will be plenty of “agreements” between the White House and congressional Republicans

He will be more than happy to "make nice" .

[merrily]

83. Thanks for the quotation marks!

I cannot understand why, after 5 years, people have to give him the out that he is just being nice to Republicans in Congress or just caving into them. Or compromising. None of those things are relevant to chained CPI, TPP or Keystone.

There seems to be some obsessive compulsive need to pretend it's not simply what he wants to do.

[Autumn]

88. I don't know what the hell it is. They way they talk about him playing chess

being forced to work together because he has no choice but to compromise and he only offered it to show they wouldn't take it? That shit really diminishes him. I fear for their sanity in Jan 2017.

[merrily]

89. The chess crowd is not usually the crowd who fears what he might do, though.

I am talking about his critics, like the OP and many on this thread. They, too, seem to have a compulsion not to let him own his initiatives 100%. Somehow, it has to be about the Republicans every time, even when it isn't. I've been reading down the thread and, so far, yours is the only post that, via the quotation marks, expressed cynicism about the involvement of others.

[Autumn]

93. You don't get where Obama is by letting people lead you. He plays the game and he plays it well.

I well remember the first time I saw him, he moved me like no other ever has since Kennedy. In retrospect that was well played and deeply contrived and so fucking real. I stayed up all night with tears in my eyes on election night 2008 with a pride that I had never felt in my life.

Reality soon set in. Anyone in politics for over a month knows how the GOP is so the fact that he kept reaching out to them because it's what he had to do is bullshit. What can I say? It is what it is.

[merrily]

100. Me, too!

I feel asleep on election day, well after voting, because I hadn't slept the night before, having been so excited about voting for him. I woke up just in time to watch the family taking the stage in those black and red outfits and immediately starting crying with joy, relief and pride.

I've posted that several times, though who knows if I could find any of those posts now, given the glitch.

And then, he appointed Rahm. Then Geithner and Gates. Etc. Then, Warren was chosen to give the invocation. Yadda, yadda, "The public option's a sliver."

Thing is, in 2008, I had been posting on a board with posters of all political views. The owner was a rabid Clintonite and wanted Hillary to win the primary. Then there were Republicans and Libertarians. All attacked him incessantly and I and a few others defended him, equally incessantly. So, I learned very few new facts after he was elected. I just refused to believe them before the election. I had picked him in 2007, very pragmatically. I wanted a Democrat to win and I thought he was the one in the primary field likeliest to win. Then, though, I guess I wanted to believe that he was also great.

[Autumn]

101. I mourn for what might have been.

[merrily]

105. We're on that same page as well.

A couple of other DUers summed it up for me on a thread that sought a summation of Obama's administration. One posted simply, "Disappointing" Another posted, "Lost opportunity." But, there is also a part of me that is sometimes angry and sometimes just feels very foolish, like a mark in a con. (I donated a lot.)

[Autumn]

114. Ah well, we will see what 2016 brings. One thing for sure I'm not getting

fooled again. And I will vote my conscience, parties be damned.

[merrily]

116. I live in Boston. It rarely matters how I vote.

[rhett o rick]

195. Oh I bet you do "understand why". It's very important to some that he be seen as

the good guy that was forced to capitulate to the mean Republicans. Those people will not talk about the chained CPI, the TPP, the Keystone Pipeline, or fricking fracking.

Oops, I got so excited (figuratively) that I wrote the above before I read your last sentence.

"There seems to be some obsessive compulsive need to pretend it's not simply what he wants to do. " Absolutely.

[merrily]

197. Yes. One group that will excuse and rationalize away anything and

everything. I get that.

The ones I was referring to are the ones criticizing him for chained CPI, TPP, Keystone, etc. Even then, it still has to be caving or compromising or something that implies the Republicans are somehow involved, even in the things he or his White House initiated.

Always nice to see you, though! How's the food effort going?

[rhett o rick]

210. We are doing ok for food for the holidays. We buy turkeys and hams ahead and

usually get a good deal. But donations are down and need is up. We will have to do better next year with our fund raisers.

Thanks for asking.

[merrily]

211. My pleasure. I was interested. You do great work and you seem to have a passion for it.

[rhett o rick]

213. It's very rewarding to see how hard some people will work to help others.

About 75% of our work is done by volunteers, most of which are also clients.

[merrily]

215. People usually do work for, and/or donate to, some cause that has touched their lives

or that of someone near to them. It's good because they can empathize more, be it a needy person or a cancer patient or whatever. Mutual support. Thanks for filling me in. Have a good night.

[newfie11]

12. Yep

Agree, I'm afraid that's exactly what's going to happen.

[CrispyQ]

13. If the repubs can keep the rabid right in line,

as in not wasting time to impeach the Prez, the next Congress could be incredibly productive. Note I said they'd be productive, not make progress. We could see some incredible bipartisanship.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Agree 100%: Obama will give away a good part of the store

It's a sad flaw in his personality that he believes getting stuff done always involves compromise, and that he should take instruction from voters rather than lead. It has sometimes been useful, but after January 2015, it will be a horrendous trait that he will either learn to suppress, or hand over anything left of his legacy.

I'd also warn Dems not to trust too much in this sacred "veto pen" for the same reason. Obama is not a veto-ing kind, by character. He will have to develop a veto instinct, and I don't really think there's time for him to do that. Once you're past 40, you're pretty much who you are, character-wise.

The Obama Presidency is set to go downhill very quickly now. The Republicans have won. It's time to deal with that and figure out options.

[ballyhoo]

32. I agree 100 per cent with what you wrote. We are

screwed in more ways than just losing an election. The difference between us is that I think it was all scripted ahead of time.

[dotymed]

52. Sadly, I agree ballyhoo.

PNAC seems to be the blueprint for America's government. and 1984 the blueprint for controlling those of us who demand a fair Democracy.

[ballyhoo]

63. And Obama was one of its followers. Do you remember him saying

Reagan was one of his heroes? Trouble is you cannot get people here to understand what is really happening. I wrote last night when North Carolina went red that: "Today will be remembered as the first day of neo-serfdom". I'll be turning 69 in a few months, and I thank God that my wife and I decided after the Reagan presidency that we would have no more children than the one we had. This will be no place for children, even here in the US, in the next 10-20 years with the Fascists in full command. And, basically, there is nothing we can do about it now except enjoy what life is left a day at a time. Nice talking to you again. Sorry to be so depressing. Just the way I feel today.

[merrily]

106. In 2008, both Hillary and Obama put Reagan on their respective lists of 10 best Presidents in

US history.

[ballyhoo]

140. i hic requiem meam

[merrily]

141. Numquam illegitimi non carborundum!

[ballyhoo]

144. They won't grind me down.......

[merrily]

146. Glad to hear it!

[ballyhoo]

149. Long as there are threads like this where a bunch of folks understand

what happened, what is happening, and what will happen. There were clues all along the road...Later: have to go hit my punching bag for a few.

[Enthusiast]

132. I believe it was scripted. And well executed.

[ballyhoo]

143. When one is doing something that, if known,

would not be well-received, one must leave their self an out. The out got exercised by the people, as was planned. I thought this would happen long ago. The next two years will be extremely dangerous.

[Enthusiast]

153. I see it as a major risk to the nation and possibly the world.

They let stuff slip. They let things slip especially when Dubya was at the helm, lol. Dubya suggested we might need to use tactical nuclear weapons in battle. The media acted like he didn't say it. Or pretended they didn't hear it. I imagine he heard Darth Cheney suggest it first in private. Sounds right considering, "It's a crusade." and similar.

[ballyhoo]

191. Sorry for the delay. Was hitting punching bag. Yes,

are we going to put boots on the ground with Congress's and Obama's approval as an act of capitulation, then later a sign off on a tactical nuke hit on Russia to further show "all our ducks-in-a-row" with the Republicans? Shit.

[merrily]

90. As to TPP, chained CPI and Keystone, though, who is other party to the "compromise?"

Please see Reply 64.

[myrna minx]

15. That's my fear too. I'm not conddent about his veto pen though.

He seems too concerned with making nice with repubs.

[JEB]

17. More war, tax cuts?

[fadedrose]

18. He has no reason to "make nice" now

He has a strong conscience, hates to send ground troups, etc., and the pipeline is not guaranteed to never cause a problem. Maybe he'll come thru, but what will they do to coerce him?

These people are so greedy nothing is beneath them.

Even if the pipe works smoothy and never has a leak, the oil is going overseas, I understand, and it's the dirtiest type of oil. China is already filthy with pollution because of the money they get from our corporations paying them 10 cents an hour...

Thus we will contribute to pollution wherever this oil is sold...

[jimlup]

19. Obama can't fall for the "I'll be the one playing nice"

routine again. I think he learned his lesson in his first term but I'm not sure if he actually learned it.

Rhetoric for media quotation is one thing but when it comes down to real public policy he has got to hold the line.

[logosoco]

20. Forgive my accidental illiteration, but this came to me first..

Obama needs to make peace with the people who put him in the presidency and not to please the present powers that be.
He has got nothing to lose right now. He could make his place in history even better if he sticks to his principles.

[merrily]

94. He might be sticking to his principles, but they may be different from yours.

Who forced him to suggest chained CPI, or to negotiate a TPP treaty with foreign nations and ask the Senate to fast track it or to consider Keystone?

[joshcryer]

21. CCPI needs poverty exception, and tax loopholes closed.

Obama vetoes it otherwise.

[BlueCaliDem]

60. Exactly! President Obama was never serious about CCPI because he knew that Republicans

would never consider closing tax loopholes or raising taxes on corporations - and are certainly NOT interested in putting a poverty exemption clause.

[merrily]

107. It originated from his White House. And what it "needs" is for no Democratic President to

have done that. Ever. And for Nancy Pelosi to admit chained CPI really is a cut to OASDI.


Once you make any part of Social Security needs based, you are well on your way to turning it into welfare; i.e., to eliminating it. The wet dream of Republicans and Libertarians.

[joshcryer]

161. With those caveats, yes.

Which this Congress won't pass

[merrily]

163. Fuck caveats. No Democratic President should have opened that door.

As if Republicans give a crap about his caveats anyway. I had to laugh when a member of his team expressed SHOCK that the Republicans didn't accept his (the team member's) terms exactly as he offered them. When does that ever happen in politics anyway?

But, as to Social Security, that is beside the point. No Democratic President should have opened that door.

[joshcryer]

217. Obama "put everything on the table" before winning the primaries.

Much less being elected. That is an objective fact, that's who you voted for.

[merrily]

218. Link, please.

Wait, before the primaries, he mentioned he'd cut entitlements if President? Not during the primary campaign or the general campaign? Not in January 2009, after his election, but before his inauguration. A monumentally important issue to Democrats like cuts to Social Security--and he revealed that only before the primaries (and, of course, after his election)?

It must hurt your heart to have to post stuff like that and, not only act as if it's okay, but also claim that it's an "objective fact" that I voted for cuts to Social Security. I couldn't do that for all the money in Goldman Sachs, or the best job in the world.

Still, I'd love to see whatever appropriately dated links you have, with direct quotes from Obama. Among other things, I'd love to know whether memory or your other sources are serving you faithfully on this and, if so, just how clear and unequivocal his actual language was "before the primary" about cutting Social Security.

I have to break away, but I'll bookmark this so I definitely remember to check for your links. Thanks

[joshcryer]

220. Yes, link:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Retirement_age_politics.html

Hillary Clinton, in stark contrast, refused to put "everything on the table."

It is not "OK" for the duly elected President to want these things, I am merely saying he is keeping his promises kept.

You spend far too much time questioning my "memory or other sources are serving me faithfully" when, again, I state this as objective fact, and would not do so if I could not back it up.

Enjoy seeing your President, before elected the primary candidate, calling for SS cuts.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?
OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?
OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and Medicare.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Partial privatization?
OBAMA: Privatization is not something that I would consider, and the reason is this: Social Security, I think, is -- that's the floor. That's the baseline. Social Security is that safety net that can't be frayed, and we shouldn't put at risk.

[Samantha]

22. I believe this is right on target

The Keystone pipeline was already mentioned last night by a Republican as a negotiating tool for getting things done. That project would net the Koch Brothers 100 million dollars. Considering their investment in these elections, it truly brings home the trite but true old saying, "To the victor belongs the spoils."

I think the Social Security and Medicare programs are endangered (think the Ryan budget). Privatization of Social Security and Medicare reform have been long-term goals of Republicans and now they are looking at this moment as ripe for the picking on those programs.

I think the threat of impeachment is a mirage because conviction in the Senate would require a two-thirds vote. Mitch cannot get get two-thirds in the Senate with only half of it Republican. I guess I better go double-check the Constitution on that ....

Sam

[merrily]

113. Please see Reply 64.

Obama was the one who appointed Ryan to the Grand Bargain Commission. No one had heard of Ryan before then. And Bubba forgot to turn off his mike when he told Ryan to call him if he needed any help getting cuts through.

[polichick]

23. The Prez has the perfect excuse now.

[okieinpain]

24. ive been saying for a while the pipeline is a done deal.

that oil is already being shipped by road, the pipeline just makes it more convenient.

[ballyhoo]

26. This is EXACTLY what am worried about. I view it

as a fait accompli. And if Obama signs off on the "chained CPI", it will put a Republican in the White House--maybe permanently. Probably the same to a lesser degree with the other two.

[taught_me_patience]

27. Of course Obama is going to tack to the right

He's an inner corporatist himself, and this was just the excuse that he needed. The people have spoken the direction they want the country to head.

[merrily]

122. I agree with all but the last sentence.

The people wanted change and the ballot gives them only two realistic options. They also voted for an increase in the minimum wage in every state in which it was on the ballot, even as they voted for Republican candidates. That does not indicate that they wanted to go right.

[Maedhros]

198. I don't think elections are indicative of what the people want.

Political strategy in this country is to tell the people what they want, using mass media and psychology.

The public has proven to be very manipulable in this way. Consider that in 2003 on the eve of the Iraq invasion, 92% of Americans polled believed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 - a fallacy easily disproved by only a modicum of effort. Similarly, Americans have been repeatedly told that they are "a Conservative nation" even though when polled they support traditional Liberal issues by wide margins.

Add to that the toxic hyper-partisan atmosphere in the nation at this time. If this election indicates anything, it's that Republican propaganda masters are better at whipping up their base than are Democratic propaganda masters.

[Arugula Latte]

29. Oh shit.

So depressing.

Hope it ain't so.

[stupidicus]

33. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http

eom

[donco]

34. We spend too much time scrutinizing

our candidates on purity.

[2banon]

37. LOL!!!! "PURITY"

[merrily]

54. Obama is not a candidate (nor will he ever be one again). He is the POTUS.

[villager]

35. All his caving-in instincts will come rushing to the fore...

Especially on these issues where the cave-in was already underway...

[merrily]

64. To whom is he caving?

Chained CPI:

Early in 2009, before Obama was inaugurated, he gave an interview to WAPO in which he pledged to cut "entitlements." This was something the DLC had been pushing, in the form of a body that would reviewing entitlements to see if their time had ended. (Maybe this was supposed to be a commission. I am not sure I can look things up on the DLC website any longer.) To whom was he caving when he gave that interview?

Right around the time that Obamacare became law, maybe shortly before, he appointed the Cat Food Commission, with a Republican Chair. To whom was he caving when he did that?

The first budget his WH sent to Congress cut fuel subsidies to the poor; and he's signed a number of cuts to SNAP. Chained CPI, according to Nancy Pelosi, is not even a cut to Social Security. To whom were they caving?

Conyers said that, during negotiations with Boehner and Cantor, it was the President and neither Boehner nor Cantor who put cuts to Social Security on the table To whom was he caviing? Peterson?

TPP:

A treaty matter. The President can, but has no obligation to, enter into treaties. If he chooses to negotiate a treaty, the Senate gets to say yea or nay, but it can't force him to negotiate one in the first instance--let alone to ask the Senate to fast track it. To whom was he caving? The Koch brothers?

Keystone:

I am not 100% sure, but, given it involves Canada, some or all of Keystone must be a treaty matter as well.

[villager]

67. You do know that he's pushing *for* TPP right?

As for the rest, well, we're about to find out, as push-comes-to-shove, que no?

[merrily]

68. Yes, exactly the point of my post: he is the one pushing on all three items, not the one caving.

Unless one believes in a shadow government that pulls his strings and I am not there yet.

[villager]

69. Ah, I see now. Well, "caving" from the standpoint of what/who we thought we were voting for...

...during that brief, fleeting moment for actual change...

[merrily]

71. On that, seems to me that we're the ones who caved.

[GoneFishin]

36. Now that the Republicans control all three branches of government there is no telling what hell will

rain down on the country.

[ballyhoo]

39. Well said.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. hell is comin'.

[area51]

40. Well, Obama is a moderate republican.

Why wouldn't he work with the republican party?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/

[merrily]

119. Watch out. Someone will quote you his exact words, as though there is some huge

and significant difference between the words you posted and the words he said on national television.

[jalan48]

41. Exactly

Obama was so eager to work with Republicans as soon as he was elected in 2008 he immediately said there would be no investigation of the Bush/Cheney torture era. Obama had an opportunity at the time to ask for anything he wanted, the people had sent the message they were sick and tired of Republican policies and ideas. What did he do? He basically did a Rodney King and said, "Why can't we all just get along and work together?" He squandered two years of a Democratic majority on what? Obama may be a good man and believe in the right things but given the opportunity he had in 2009 he blew it. Here we sit today, even further to the right than we were under Bush/Cheney, and to top it off the Republicans will be able to ride "it's Obama's fault" for a long time.

[mazzarro]

81. Ding! Ding! Ding!

You got it! Lost the opportunity to make the change he campaigned on initially. Now we wonder why supporters have been uninspired by the Democrats who have abandoned their promises and principles.

BTW - welcome.

[merrily]

118. Also, the first Democratic President to pledge cuts to "entitlements" (as well as the first

Democratic President to refer to social programs as "entitlements." And, that bell can never be unrung.

Now, when Republicans hack at the programs, they can say "Even a Democratic President acknowledged that they needed to be cut. It's a simple fact."

Obama also talked as though Social Security was related to the deficit.

So many things.

[bucolic_frolic]

43. He will cooperate so as not to be impeached

The best thing for real Democrats would be if they do impeach him,
not because he would be removed from office, and Lord knows he
doesn't deserve it, but it would soak up GOP energy and run time on the
clock.

I think GOP Senators are smart enough not to go there when they have the
majority. Their attempts at benevolence and generosity will be comical.
Obamacare will be tweaked to juice corporate profits, raise costs, and blame
Obama, while the Tea Party faction steamrolls repeal outright, under the knife
like a cancer. Mitch has his hands full, hope his preservative can take the stress.

Seems not much euphoria on Wall Street today. Heady stuff a sweep. What
must be driving the Reds crazy is they have no idea how to govern or compromise.
It's all about dominance, power, and righteousness.

Heaven help us.

[merrily]

121. No one is going to impeach him.

[grahamhgreen]

168. You don't impeach your scapegoat/enabler.

[merrily]

173. AFAIK, Obama has not committed any crime, high or otherwise.

The Constitution requires a crime, not a political disagreement over Obamacare, which Congress duly passed.

Much as some Democrats love to insist that Clinton was impeached for getting a blow job, Clinton indisputably perjured himself on national television. Perjury is a crime. I don't know if it's a high crime or misdemeanor, within the meaning of the Constitution, but it's definitely a crime. So, he got hounded for being a Democratic President with a vicious Republican House, but he got impeached for a crime.

Not only did the House impeach him for it, but the bar authorities of the state that he had governed for 8 years disbarred him for it. (He later applied for reinstatement and got it, but he did get disbarred.) I believe that takes a decision by the bar authorities and by a court.

As an aside, I just read a post of an article saying Obama should welcome impeachment. A Democratic Senate acquitted Clinton, but the Senate is Republican now. So, I don't know how wise that is. Besides, does no one recall how disruptive and distracting impeachment was to Congress, the President and the Executive Branch and therefore the nation? I know Clinton claimed that he compartmentalized perfectly, but he didn't.

[grahamhgreen]

180. Their problem is that the crimes he's committed (summary execution, rendition), are supported by the

[merrily]

181. Ah, but there is precedent for committing those deeds without impeachment or prosecution--

and even with US intervention when a judge in Spain thought someone should prosecute. And since no one else in the world was doing it, he should.

Besides, we're at war with "terror", doncha know. Always. "Enemy combatants" yadda yadda. Casualties of war. Blah. Collateral damage. mumble mumble




What have we come to?

[treestar]

44. Why would he

Although I suppose they will hold up the budget. They aren't in any better a position though. They obstruct as usual.

Obama let them close down the government before. So they'll have to do it again.

[Teamster Jeff]

45. The attack on Public Education and teachers unions will accelerate

Now that Obama has a Congress friendly to his education policies.

Fast track/Keystone/Grand bargain, he wasn't very upset last night

[SoapBox]

46. We are so screwed...

Welcome to a new world, non-voting Dems.

[kelliekat44]

47. Yes. And even he agrees with them or compromises, he won't get any credit with the voters. But

he will be blamed when the "s" hits the fan.

[ProSense]

48. It was inevitable

I’m less worried Republicans will roll back the Affordable Care Act or reduce taxes on the wealthy over the next two years – the President’s veto pen will prevent that – than I am about Obama joining with Republicans to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Trans Pacific Partnership, and the “chained CPI” (that would reduce future Social Security payments). Obama has either sought these in the past or hinted he would, and he (and McConnell and Boehner) will be so eager to show they can work together that these will prove irresistible.

Will Boehner save us again? Republicans have won. Still, President Obama would make a terrible mistake interpreting that win as the mood of the entire country. There is an election to win in 2016 when a completely different crop of voters will show up.

[mylye2222]

58. Hi! So glad you are back among us.

[Cha]

49. Well, I just went to his FB page and posted this..

I give the President more credit than that... and I appreciate that he's the last line of defense between us and fascism. Thank you President Obama for all you do. I do appreciate you and there are a lot of other people out here who do too.

I did not appreciate Robert Reich's little nasty insinuation.. and, yeah, he's wagging his finger, too.

[Fred Sanders]

50. Last line of defence....we better have his fucking back now, but instead we want to start with the

"What ifs"? Who needs enemies with liberal friends like that?

[Cha]

59. Thank you, Fred.. instead they want to join in with the rest of the Vultures. Pick on his bones.

[heaven05]

117. I'll have to agree

most wholeheartedly!!!! It's going to be a tough 2 year haul. We lost a major battle, not the war.

[Cha]

123. Mahalo heaven!

[rhett o rick]

196. Does that mean you are ok with fracking, the TPP, the XL Pipeline, chained CPI?

Pres Obama says fracking is the bridge to a new energy future. Do you agree?

[marlakay]

51. I wrote to Obama last night

And begged him not to touch SS, Medicare and Obamacare. I said please don't let them manipulate you!

[kentuck]

57. You shouldn't have to do that?

Why?

[marlakay]

61. For the past 6 years

For the sake of trying to please both sides he has moved further and further to the right.

I like Obama but my trust that he won't be manipulated isn't there.

He started as a community organizer which helped pull him into politics...does that mean he will do volunteer or charity work when he gets out...or will he take money from the corps somewhere....

I used to think he would be like Clinton going all over the world...now I am not sure.

[workinclasszero]

53. Oh no....

Here it comes like a fucking freight train...

Obama joining with Republicans to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Trans Pacific Partnership, and the “chained CPI” (that would reduce future Social Security payments)

[Depaysement]

56. Not exactly

I doubt he will compromise just to say he "achieved" something. If he cuts a deal on Keystone, TPP or chained CPI, it's because he really wants the bill, not the deal.

[ellennelle]

62. PERSPECTIVE, PEOPLE

no doubt, obama will make a ton of compromises. this is the very definition of a democratic republic, ok? the alternative is for him to behave like the republicans, who behaved like a spoilt infant, and throw a tilliturnblue tantrum.

but here is what is at stake, and weigh this very very carefully.

in addition to the loathsome legislation we are facing, and he will likely find on his desk, there are also tons and tons of federal judge nominees that need senate approval.

so remember this, if you remember nothing else:

LAWS CAN BE REPEALED OR WALKED BACK; JUDGES ARE APPOINTED FOR LIFE AND THEY HAVE THE FINAL SAY.


i have no doubt he will talk with them about various bills, and when they get close to a compromise, he'll say something like, well, this is not ideal, but i can live without vetoing it, IF you approve this or that or those judicial nominees.

DO NOT EVER FORGET THIS, PEOPLE.

and do not forget the power of organized bodies, either; republicans watch the polls on the issues, and they will tread carefully when it comes to those things with >70% approval nationwide, including minimum wage and especially the internet (this latter sadly serving their purposes as much as it does ours).

don't whine; organize!! adversity can be our best friend.

[Doctor_J]

155. Really? What concessions have we gotten from Republicans?

[sammy750]

65. I agree with Reich

I sometimes wonder where Pres. Obama brain is when it come to getting along with the GOP. They have blocked every move he has made, so why should he now join them. I would veto all bills that the GOP passes. It may bring down the nation, but the GOP is going to do that anyway. I worry about the EPA and FDA. the Republicans wants to get rid of these 2 agencies real bad. Our can see our nation going back 100 years on pollutions as big corporations and the Koch brothers want. The make ten of billions annually on coal and oil, so they have purchased the GOP to get rid of these agencies. GOD help this nation under the Republicans. Look what Bush left this nation in. Now we are going back to that, because of the radicals and extremes now in control.

[sabrina 1]

70. Robert Reich and the rest of us, definitely has something to worry about there.

[vkkv]

72. I fully blame the ignorant SOUTH for voting for these GOPers year after year.

I'm still waiting for TX, MO, OK, KS, AZ and the ENTIRE South to secede so we can get going on that BORDER FENCE.

The IGNORANT SOUTH must secede! They just might have the votes and enough IGNORANCE to do just that!

[KamaAina]

85. Yup. Damn Iowa crackers.

[still_one]

77. I agreee

[Voice for Peace]

78. I'd be surprised if this were true.

and sad.

I'm more concerned that Congress is going to declare war
on somebody.

[merrily]

87. As opposed to military operations without a Congressional vote?

[Voice for Peace]

95. All out war, Lindsay Graham and McCain's dream baby.

Boots on the Ground, Planes in the Air, whatever gets
them, and all the neocons, off... and rich.

[merrily]

102. That's so 2003. Now, it's "air cover," "advisors," drones, etc.

And no bothering with pesky war votes.

[Le Taz Hot]

91. Dead. On.

[certainot]

98. all compromises the rw will try to force will be much easier if the left

will continue to allow them to blast the country with 1200 coordinated unchallenged radio stations. that is why half the country believe the keystone lies as is. their think tanks are already coordinating the timing on these and other turd sandwiches and their formal efforts will be preceded by talk radio campaigns the left allows without challenge.

it's time to go on the offensive- take away their overwhelming radio advantage and dems can get supermajorities in 2016.

[merrily]

125. Read the entire article, including the section entitled "Formal Revocation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Until then, the Executive Branch had the power to revive the doctrine. Now, it will take a vote of both houses of Congress and that will never happen.

[certainot]

136. republicon radio made a new FD impossible like it did single payer

there are no two words that get more bile and screaming of FREE SPEECH! from those 1200 raido stations than when a prominent dem even just mentions 'fairness doctrine'

and even idiots on this blog and other blogs believe the BS about a right wing radio monopoly is an expression of free speech

it was stupid not to give it priority, but when 99% of your constituents think republican radio is irrelevant....

[merrily]

142. No one had to mention it, just simply not put the final nail in its coffin.

[TheKentuckian]

190. How many billions or even trillions do you have to fix that?

None but you do get to use a talking point to attack the left when it was the precious corporate "centrists" that deregulated the air waves.

[certainot]

227. reagan killed the fairness doctrine and they used the subsequent

ability to coordinate their messaging to push the center to the right. we got more corporate dems and rw loons. republican moderates were weeded out and lost power. they used their massive messaging advantage to hamstring clinton, take both houses of congress, and push media monopolization. they already had most of these stations doing rw talk by then anyway, giving away shows like limbaughs. the left ignored it then when it did to anita hill what it did to sandra fluke and got clarence thomas on the supreme counrt. the left ignored it when it was swiftboating clintos as they were trying to pass the closest thing to single payer. the left ignored it when it stopped public option too.

the left/liberal/dems continue the biggest political mistake in history by ignoring talk radio

[TheKentuckian]

235. Still wondering what actions you want to see so you can say it isn't being ignored

I also think hate talk radio has a fairly niche audience and the real killer is Fox newz blaring everywhere in the world, offices, waiting rooms, hospitals, the mechanic, millions of living rooms.

[certainot]

236. fox is mostly visual reinforcement for talk radio- it can't do the repetition and has to

tone down the approach. fox is more 'visible' and gets a lot more attention from liberals and media critics, but often by the time it shows up on fox it might have had days or in some cases months or years of repetition. it also has plenty of competition (within 'acceptable' limits) in the political genre- it's easy to find alternatives for politics- just switch the station.

not so with talk radio.

the last elections should make it clear how important talk radio is. dem talk about messaging content and technique is idiotic - talk radio decides what the buzz is and can yell over anyone as long as it takes.

as far as fixing/destroying it :
-the stoprush actions need to be expanded to all rw stations and their local and national talkers
-no publicly funded school has any excuse for broadcasting sports on rw radio. 25 - 35% of rw stations depend on those schools for community standing and ad dollars. rw radio is losing money and it couldnt survive if those schools started honoring their mission statements and started looking for apolitical alternatives.
-it needs to be monitored and responded to in real time. the top 100 or so need to published/readable/searchable
-their stations need to be considered as places to protest.
-their gods need to be recognized as the true leaders of the republican base and should discredited and
exposed for their years of lies hypocrisy racism and sexism. they need to get the credit they deserve.

see republicon radio for more.

[EEO]

99. Well, maybe Obama should be impeached and Uncle Joe can tell them what's what.

[yurbud]

103. why would Republicans now be eager to show they can "work together"?

[ballyhoo]

145. To move their agenda and blame it on the Democrats. That was

always the plan. They couldn't do it right after Bush because of the abject hatred.

[B Calm]

109. Obama will be on TV here in a little bit to tell the republicans he's willing

to compromise.

[crazylikafox]

138. Yep, exactly what he said.

[yurbud]

205. Which is how we got to this point. He could have driven a stake in that vampire and

Instead he opened a vein and nursed it back to health--OUR vein at that.

[Skittles]

110. CHILL: I GOT THIS

alas, he does

[Marr]

124. Why would anyone expect him to veto things he's promoted?

His maneuvering up to this point suggests a very savvy politician, moving those pieces into place for passage-- not a man trying to stop them. The fact is that these Republican congressional victories are going to make it much easier for Obama to achieve some of his key policy goals.

[deutsey]

139. So maybe he's been playing multi-dimensional chess after all

[Marr]

148. Oh, I've no doubt at all.

Obama's most ardent defenders seem to vacillate between claiming he's a fool or just a completely ineffectual politician, but neither is true, imho. Obama is a talented politician and a very intelligent man. He just isn't on our side on a range of issues. If you actually look at what he does and ignore the rhetoric, it's pretty clear.

[deutsey]

151. Sad to say, I agree

I voted for him twice and really wanted to climb aboard the bandwagon in '08 like so many of my friends and family members were doing.

When I learned that Geithner and Summers were in his inner circle (among others), I just couldn't. As I watched the first inauguration, however, with all those throngs of people gathered in DC, I had hoped it would overpower the influence from Rahm and the gang, but didn't really believe it would.

[daleanime]

127. K&R....

[Hotler]

137. Kicking....n/t

[gregcrawford]

147. Kill the TPP

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a corporate coup d'etat masquerading as a "trade deal." It is so secret that even Congressional committees that normally craft such legislation have not been allowed access to minutes of the negotiations. What little that has been leaked leads one to conclude that the TPP is treason on the grandest scale ever conceived by the minds of evil men. It will completely abrogate ANY governmental control over the depredations of rapacious corporations, and the TPP will expand on provisions in NAFTA that already allow corporations to sue sovereign nations if they pass laws that MIGHT adversely affect future profits. Now such cases will be adjudicated in corporate courts by corporate lawyers, and the decisions cannot be appealed.
You okay with that? I'm sure as hell not.

[TrollBuster9090]

154. If Obama has brains (and I'm not sure that he does in this particular area) he will do the following

McConnell and Boehner will pressure him to approve the pipeline, the trade agreement and the chained CPI (and possibly replacing Medicare with vouchers).

Obama will reject all four of those things, but eventually "compromise" on the pipeline and the trade agreement provided that Republicans keep their hands off of Medicare and the CPI.

That way, he'll make it clear that Democrats are willing to compromise on some issues, but NEVER on Medicare and Social Security. Then, if more jobs are shipped to slave-labor countries, and more oil spills ruin the environment, that will be on the GOP's head; but Democrats will have made it clear that they will NOT compromise on Medicare and SS.

Take a look at the ages of the electorate last night, and you'll see why that's a good strategy.

[bucolic_frolic]

156. The Hope for America and Democrats

rests with the Tea Party. If they can live up to their billing - obstruct, impeach, denigrate, radicalize - then the backlash will give Democrats a window. But McConnell and Boehner have it all under control.


It has taken the scoundrels 35 years to get to this point of strangling the democracy for their own interests. There must be a flaw somewhere in their strategy ...............


THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!!

[kentuck]

159. As I recall...

in the previous election of 2012, the President won by a large margin, Democrats gained seats in the Senate and the House, although they thought that the Republicans might take over the Senate.
Republicans controlled the House and the Democrats controlled the Senate and the White House.

But, when the Democrats wanted to pass something, Mitch McConnell slapped it down with a 60-vote requirement to continue debate. Why would it be different now if Harry Reid were to ask for a 60-vote requirement for everything that the Republicans propose? What is the difference? Can someone enlighten me?

Of course, I suppose Harry might find it easier to just send it to the President rather than going thru the motions of a filibuster? How is last night's election any more of a mandate than the Democrats election of 2012??

[blackspade]

200. Very good questions.

[pa28]

162. Obama sides with Republicans on a wide range of issues.

There's nothing to stop TPP fast track now.

[Babel_17]

167. Regarding the chained CPI

It will be a game of cat and mouse, with neither POTUS or the Republicans firmly grasping, and thus owning, the idea. If President Obama negotiates with the Republicans and then they are stupid enough to wave the chained CPI in the air like its a symbol of victory, the Republicans will have locked in their defeat in 2016.

The Republicans would take chained CPI if it was part of a bipartisan bill. They'd then take heat for it but the damage to the Democratic party brand would balance that.

The Republicans have proven they can sell a persons own hat to them. But selling the chained CPI without getting burned would be a tough job. They'd need help. The demographics of the voters they can't spare can't be ignored.

[KittyKat13]

171. I believe in Obama.

Barrack would never betray us.

Name one time he has ever done anything like that. This is just silly.

[Progressive dog]

174. The President wants the government to actually govern.

In a democracy, that requires compromise with the views of people who just beat your party. It may suck, but those jackals have the same right to vote that we do.

[blackspade]

201. And the last couple of years have seen what compromise from the GOP?

Your theoretical model is flawed based on historical realities.

[Progressive dog]

230. Historical realities say that no democracy can survive without

compromise. If it is all the way of one side, then it is an authoritarian government. That's pretty easy to understand and it is a fact, not a theory.

[blackspade]

231. So we go all the way with the GOP then....

because there will be no GOP compromise with the us.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying your position.

[Progressive dog]

232. That may be what you want,

but it hasn't happened yet. They already held the House so bills needed to go through them.

[blackspade]

233. Any why would I want that?

Your posts make no sense.

[Progressive dog]

234. Our system of government does

not work, if compromises are not made. That is pretty simple to understand.

[lumberjack_jeff]

176. If I had to compromise on one of the three, it would be Keystone.

It at least has the merit of creating jobs.

[djean111]

178. About 50 permanent jobs, I believe.

Of course, if it should break or leak, there will be lots of clean-up jobs!

[A Simple Game]

177. I think in a few months, one way or another, a walk through the bog would be very enlightening. n/t

[IronLionZion]

179. We're going to miss those centrist red state dems

and blame Obama for all the tea party bullshit that gets sent to his desk. One can only veto so much.

These assholes better not shut down the government and cut funding for everything...again.

[Hugin]

183. The sequestration, privatization of Federal land and services, and breaking of unions will continue.

Unabated.

That much is a given... It's what they ALL want.

[TBF]

184. If I were Obama

I'd work on my presidential library and veto everything that comes across the desk from Congress. Lord knows he's earned it after the way they've treated him.

[JDPriestly]

185. K&R.

[obxhead]

186. Yep, We're fucked now.

The Obama doctrine will charge ahead now "because the voters have spoken".

Enjoy your job now and save, it's about to be outsourced. It wouldn't hurt to bottle some of that clean water either, if you still have it that is.

[Gore1FL]

188. We have more than 40 Senators. n/t

[davekriss]

204. Won't matter when McConnell nukes the filibuster

[Gore1FL]

209. He's gotta suspect this is a two-year deal. n/t

[YOHABLO]

199. This is the problem with Obama .. he wants to leave this legacy of cooperation with these criminals.

We need fighters in the Democratic Party .. not lemmings.

[Doctor_J]

202. I don't think Obama will sign those disasters to "show he can work with the jackals"

He'll sign XL, TPP, and CCPI (and expand school vouchers) because he's a corporatist.

[customerserviceguy]

203. The President

has asked Congress to appropriate a large amount of money to fight Ebola in West Africa today. Clearly, the last month of news coverage has been supportive of the idea that we need to fight it over there instead of over here. Repukes will indeed come up with money, but what about the conditions they will attach to it? Ban on travel visas is an obvious one, and perhaps some sort of quarantining of US health workers coming back from West Africa would be part of it.

Will the President whip out his veto pen on such legislation, or would he sign it to speed relief to West Africa?

[frylock]

207. nailed it

[Pakid]

208. We can speculate all we want

But the answer as to who is right and who is wrong will be coming in the next few months. I hope Obama hang tough when it comes to SS and Medicare. As for Keystone I don't like it but I can live with it TPP is as bad as it gets if it passes the giant sucking sound will be our jobs and money going out the door thanks to greed of big business and the stupidity of some of our fellow citizen's. Time will tell until then fight like hell to make sure we don't get the shaft!

[zentrum]

212. New Thought....

I just had is that the Republicans really will let themselves work with Obama on some issues in addition to the horrors mentioned by Reich.

First of all, they'll want the credit--for instance by passing some kind of immigration reform or even allowing minimum wage to go up by ---oh, 2020. The reason they'll do this is that Obama has now "been put in his place". There's nothing more elaborately magnanimous than a Confederacy type who's gotten the Black man to say "Yes, sir."

They wouldn't work with him before, because he was practicing legislation while being Black. But now that he's humiliated and disempowered, they'll find it in themselves to "donate" some smiley "post-racial" cooperation.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

214. So it's just better for the Democrats to stay home and (as always) put Republicans in office??? nt

[hopemountain]

216. we are right to be wary and nervous

msm, the kochs, teaheads, & gop made sure these issues were not brought to the forefront of their campaigns by slinging everything else to cloud and muddy up and deflect their ulterior motives ~ and of course, captializing on hate.

[Marthe48]

222. Workers PAID for SS

leave it the hell alone.

[INdemo]

223. National right to work law

He forgot to mention about the hijacking of union bargaining power.10-1 says Rrpublicabs will pass a law weaking unions and I don't trust OBama when it comes to playing his little bipartisan game and giving in to Repukes more often than using the veto pen.

[ReRe]

224. I totally agree.

We live in perilous times, indeed. I'm definitely not looking forward to the next two years.

[Orsino]

225. Reich is wrong. The veto pen won't prevent those things.

I think the GOP can figure out how to tie those items to a few must-pass things.

[raouldukelives]

226. Well, corporate money works. Sure as hell drowns out our meager voices.

The biggest voice any of us have is our money and our lives and how we choose to spend them.
I have a hunch that a lot of people are getting exactly what they worked and paid for and now have the audacity to stand there going "What happened?"

[Turbineguy]

228. If Mr. Obama did something that was reversable later

it might actually help the democrats in 2016. The reason the republicans got in is because people were protected from their policies and never saw their effect.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

229. He has done nothing yet and what have we here?

Wonder why we got our asses kicked on Tuesday? This is why.