Obama Likely to Scale Back Legislative Plans

[Francesca9]

Source: Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama, facing at best narrower Democratic majorities in Congress next year, is likely to break up his remaining legislative priorities into smaller bites in hope of securing at least some piecemeal proposals on energy, climate change, immigration and terrorism policy, White House officials say.

In a series of recent campaign appearances, Mr. Obama has talked up the stakes in the November election as he seeks to energize supporters and retain Democratic control of Congress. At the same time, White House officials have begun revamping their legislative strategies.

They are talking about a new, more incremental approach, championed by former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, to fulfilling campaign promises on energy, immigration and on closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. The new White House chief of staff, Pete Rouse, is far more steeped than Mr. Emanuel in the culture of the Senate, where comprehensive approaches to some of these issues have fared poorly. White House officials hope Mr. Rouse's expertise will help navigate smaller measures through the chamber.

"We weren't able to do a lot of those other things even with this Congress. That obviously calls for a new approach," one White House official said.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703466104575530032491819348.html

---

The time for change has come and gone.

[villager]

1. "Scale them back?" From *what*?

:shrug:

[laconicsax]

3. That's what worries me about this. n/t

[AndyTiedye]

11. Every Time the Democrats Lose, The Party Moves Further to the Right. EVERY TIME

The rightward drift may stop for a while when we win,
but the pendulum only moves in one direction.

[defendandprotect]

84. When Democrats WIN .... then still move to the RIGHT ... !!!

[Zorra]

121. From anything that will threaten the plutarchal stranglehold on our country. nt

[Ken Burch]

2. How do you incrementally close a torture chamber?

:wtf:

[laconicsax]

4. I'm pretty sure "incrementally" is how most torture works. n/t

[Ken Burch]

5. So, the prez will be bragging that we slowly STOPPED torturing people?

:eyes:

[laconicsax]

9. Probably. n/t

[dave29]

12. folks, get over yourselves.

We have already stopped torturing people.

[jgraz]

22. And you know this ... how?

:

[dave29]

24. I have classified information

:eyes:

from Rollingstone:

Now, I am also the commander in chief of an armed forces that is in the midst of one war and wrapping up another one. So I don't think it's too much to ask, to say "Let's do this in an orderly way" — to ensure, by the way, that gays and lesbians who are serving honorably in our armed forces aren't subject to harassment and bullying and a whole bunch of other stuff once we implement the policy. I use that as an example because on each of these areas, even those where we did not get some grand legislative victory, we have made progress. We have moved in the right direction.

When people start being concerned about, "You haven't closed Guantánamo yet," I say, listen, that's something I wanted to get done by now, and I haven't gotten done because of recalcitrance from the other side. Frankly, it's an easy issue to demagogue. But what I have been able to do is to ban torture. I have been able to make sure that our intelligence agencies and our military operate under a core set of principles and rules that are true to our traditions of due process. People will say, "I don't know — you've got your Justice Department out there that's still using the state-secrets doctrine to defend against some of these previous actions." Well, I gave very specific instructions to the Department of Justice. What I've said is that we are not going to use a shroud of secrecy to excuse illegal behavior on our part. On the other hand, there are occasions where I've got to protect operatives in the field, their sources and their methods, because if those were revealed in open court, they could be subject to very great danger. There are going to be circumstances in which, yes, I can't have every operation that we're engaged in to deal with a very real terrorist threat published in Rolling Stone.

These things don't happen overnight. But we're moving in the right direction, and that's what people have to keep in mind.

[jgraz]

25. Ah, you know it because our government told you so.

And they never lie about embarrassing things like torture. :eyes:

[dave29]

28. Yeah, funny that

I trust Barack Obama means what he says. I enjoyed how you changed his quote to "our Govt" though, that was cute!

[jgraz]

29. .

dup

[Javaman]

120. So in otherwords...

He's going to suck up to the repukes a whooooooooooole lot more.

Gee, ain't that grand?

[jgraz]

30. Cuz that's worked so well in the past.

Don't worry, the military, Blackwater and the CIA told the president that everything was OK, and he told you. What could possibly go wrong?


Can you PM me? My Nigerian friend has a business proposition for you.

[dave29]

33. what, he wants have a baby grow up to be Pres and needs me to get him a birth cert?

cuz I can do that. The world is full of lies.

You don't have to believe they are all lies though. It may be a requirement for sanity

[jgraz]

34. It's a requirement for sanity that we trust the CIA, the military and Blackwater?

OK, good to know.

[dave29]

47. wow you are all about putting your words in my mouth

I trust the Pres on this issue of torture. Everything else I did not endorse save my thoughts on where we are on LGBT issues. I strongly believe this is a priority, if I am unhappily proven wrong, so be it.

[jgraz]

50. You might consider actually saying what you mean instead of throwing out glib responses

Just a thought...

[dave29]

52. it hardly matters

you don't trust me anyways

[jgraz]

58. This from someone who just complained about having his views misrepresented.

Seriously, is consistency between two consecutive posts too much to ask?

[dave29]

62. Out of concerns raised by your fears for my mental health

I officially leave you to your cynicism, mistrust of this White House, and clear acceptance of Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate.

[jgraz]

67. You "officially leave" me? Is there some ceremony I need to attend?

Next time, you might want to show up with some actual facts instead of insults. It will make the slinking away a bit less embarrassing for you.

[JuniperLea]

69. This is rich coming from someone who believes in fairy tales...

News Corp written fairy tales at that.

Actual facts? Really? And you expect to find them out of News Corp? Amazing.

[jgraz]

73. Seriously, just a little evidence. Would that be so hard?

Otherwise, your paranoid belief in the big, bad Murdoch bogeyman certainly qualifies as a "fairy tale".

We all know that Murdoch is scum. But if you're honestly saying that every journalist and editor at the WSJ is engaged in a massive conspiracy to print false information, you really need to come back to this planet.

[JuniperLea]

80. How about four accounts of misqoutes from WSJ?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008270029

http://play.tm/news/31139/wall-street-journal-misquoted-starcraft-ii-budget/

http://www.examiner.com/technology-in-national/the-demise-of-laptops-is-grossly-exaggerated-by-best-buy-ceo-s-misquote

http://www.latestnewsonline.net/india/krishna-misquoted-no-change-in-afghan-policy-mea/45963.html

[jgraz]

93. I know I responded to this below, but Oh My God

You just Googled for "misquote" and "Wall Street Journal" and grabbed the first four articles that looked like they even remotely applied, didn't you?

What you're alleging is that journalists in the newsroom intentionally fabricated quotes. The closest you came was on the first story, but that's on the editorial page -- a known cesspool since well before King Rupert took over.

My guess is that this will follow the same course as the stories about the Public Option. Just today, we got more evidence to back up the "lies" told by the New York Times about Obama secretly dealing away the Public Option while he was advocating for it in public (again, a much more egregious betrayal of trust than anything the WSJ has ever pulled). I suspect we'll see the same thing here.

Six months or a year from now, former members of the Obama admin will put out books confirming this story. And when anyone points this out, they'll be accused of undermining the President's reelection bid.

[dave29]

101. Yeah it was pretty easy to find examples

feel free to try your own google search.

And nice change of subject, again.

[jgraz]

102. Yeah, it really isn't

As you have yet to provide one real piece of evidence to back up your rationalizations.

[dave29]

dupe

[dave29]

104. My evidence is Rupert Murdoch.

And media matters, you know, the progressive media criticism site that called out the WSJ for doctoring quotes. I apologize if it was not specific enough for you. It was for me.

And yeah, that was the very first google I tried. Sorry, it's my job, find things quickly. That was one of the easier searches.

[jgraz]

114. You need to understand the difference between the op-ed desk and the news desk

The op-ed page has been a disaster since I can remember. They're the newspaper equivalent of Fox News. However, the news desk of the WSJ has historically been pretty reliable (as reliable as a business-oriented paper gets).

The allegation that was raised was that the WSJ news desk was fabricating quotes from White House officials. It wasn't your allegation, but you jumped in to defend it. The "evidence" you provided was like using misstatements from Alan Grayson to prove that Obama can't be trusted.

This discussion is silly. We have plenty of evidence of Obama's timidity, and zero evidence of raw journalistic malfeasance from the WSJ. Rupert may push them to that point, but he hasn't done so yet. This is just another attempt to blame the messenger because certain people on this board can't handle the message.

[dave29]

115. it's fun talking down to each other, no?

I am well aware of the history of the WSJ. Including it's sale in 2006 to News Corp. Yes, their news desk has had a fairly solid reputation, but it has not been all clean throughout history just like any other publication, and now we are in the Fox era of ownership. The chances of malfeasance at any desk of a Rupert Murdoch corporate production should be viewed with exponentially more potential than a non Fox rag. That is all I am saying. The discussion is silly, we are agreed there.

As to the actual subject matter -- duh. That the info came out just before the election and would most certainly rile up certain segments of the liberal population... well, that is what makes me view this with even more skepticism.

I have no problem with the message, but the messenger, and it's proponents, hell yes I have a problem. We simply do not agree, as I stated before.

I have watched you defend the Murdoch owned "news desk" of the Wall Street journal, tell me that our commander in chief cannot be trusted at all, but News Corp should, and just for fun, pretty much trash a good piece in the David Brock run Media Matters regarding the Wall Street Journal. And you did it under the unabashed banner of "prove to me News Corp lied".

We are not on the same page at all.

You make statements of fact that simply are not so (Obama=Timid=Opinion). It is a meme "certain people on this board" have been all over since they realized they could get away with it.

I will continue to enjoy countering this nonsense.

[jgraz]

116. I especially like the part where you want to argue about the argument.

If you'd like discussions like this to go better, you could start by refraining from claims that I'm "defending" the WSJ news desk or that I "trash" Media Matters. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand why both of those allegations are untrue.

Obama's timidity may be an opinion, but it's far from an "I like puppies" opinion. There's ample support for this, including Daschle's recent statements. You can call it "nonsense" all you want, but I guarantee we'll see an even more right-of-center agenda from this White House after the elections.

[dave29]

119. well

I really was just trying to tell folks to settle down about torture, but I'm glad we had this chat.

[dave29]

105. and by the way I allege nothing

and recommend only a healthy skepticism of the WSJ

[laconicsax]

31. So when the President says that he's a "fierce advocate" for LGBTQ equality, you just accept it?

:shrug:

[dave29]

32. No I don't just accept it

I believe it. You may not agree, but he's doing more here than he gets credit for. And I don't buy for a second that he is not focused on this. Especially when you look at the plate. He's walking, chewing gum, and signing missile treaties. Not easy work, if you can get it.

I'm not happy where we are at, at all, this issue should have been resolved about 300 years ago, but I see where the lines are drawn in the sand legislatively and I understand the roadblocks we must overcome. I understand there are those that want the President to use the bully pulpit more on this. I agree, to an extent: I think being deliberate is not a slap in the face, but a requirement of good governance.

[jgraz]

35. Faith-based politics at its ... um ... finest.

You do understand what the words "fierce" and "advocate" mean, don't you?

fierce:: extremely intense or ardent.

advocate: One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender.


Try as I might, I couldn't find a definition of "fierce" that included "unless you have a lot on your plate." And I couldn't find a definition of "advocate" that included "unless it's really hard."

[dave29]

37. Well you are mixing his words with mine.

It's not shocking, but give me a second to detangle your thought process.

Sometimes, in this big giant Universe of ours, things happen, and you have to deal with them as best you can. For example, you could be working on something really really important, and then you find out this stupid meteor is going to hit the planet, and you have to, for the sake of well, basically everyone, focus on that meteor for a bit. It may be frustrating that you aren't getting to work on those things to the degree you hoped, but you know if you get this meteor thing under control, maybe you can focus once again on moving forward with your plans.

Maybe, just maybe, things like this happen in between the time you got yourself elected President of the United States. And there you are, working on this meteor issue when suddenly all your pals who were waiting on your other project start to grumble that you are not doing what you said what you would do.

And you are all, "have you looked at the sky"
And they are all, "not so much, but screw you anyways"
and you are all "ok, but I still care about this anyways and will continue to be a fierce advocate moving forward"
and they are all "I don't believe a word that comes out of your mouth anymore"
and he's all "ok then"
and they are all "That's not change I can believe in"
and you are all "why are you quoting John McCain?"

and so on

[jgraz]

41. Yes, I'm associating your reply with the post you replied to

Sorry if that was too complicated for you to follow. Here's the replay:

laconicsax: So when the President says that he's a "fierce advocate" for LGBTQ equality, you just accept it?

dave29: No I don't just accept it. I believe it.


Gee, how could anyone have possibly thought that you believed the President was a "fierce advocate" for LGBTQ equality?? :eyes:

[dave29]

44. yes and I was responding to your response

so very complicated our dance

[laconicsax]

36. And yet it's considered impolite to call your level of support a religion... n/t

[dave29]

40. my level of support?

What am I a bra?

I support this President's policy positions. I am fighting for them. I think he's a remarkably intelligent fellow (sue me). A few other folks agree. But I'm not walking the bataan death march for the man, nor am I giving him any slack the second he majorly fucks up. In my opinion he has not come anywhere near me having to make that call. Others are for more sensitive than I. But I appreciate you deciding I am part of some fan club or group... that sort of thing tends to happen around here.

[dave29]

42. for the record, and since I've been steered well clear of the subject at hand

to discuss what is really pissing you off,

I just wanted it noted for the record I find this whole conversation to be torture. Not because of the subject matter but because of the tortured logic.

[laconicsax]

71. You may be fighting more than he is. n/t

[dave29]

75. I'm pretty sure he's working harder than me

and is more effective. Just being intellectually honest, not taking a cheap shot at my own awesome prowess.

[laconicsax]

92. I didn't say working, I said fighting.

He's done jack shit on repealing DOMA, and made deals that prevented repealing DADT. I wouldn't say he's fighting for them particularly hard.

It doesn't matter of course since you've already stated that it doesn't matter what he does, just what he says.

[dave29]

94. wow.

Why is it so blindingly hard for some people to see that this is not easy. That "fierce advocacy" does not mean street to street combat against the millions of homophobes in this country, many of whom are stupid enough to kill our LGBT brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers, and have proven it countless times.

What was so awful about the Mathew Shepard Act?... is it because it did not target DOMA or DADT? Are those the only two fronts that equal progress? What about the expanding of rights for gays and lesbians serving in the Government? Describe for me in detail how that is a net loss for the LGBT community, and proof that Obama truly, and finally hates you completely to death? And what about the work our Congress has done. What about the SNDA or do you even know what that is? I posted about what Senator Franken was doing in a thread about bullying the other night in which people were screaming about the Government not doing anything... people literally ignored the facts I posted, but were happy to engage in bashing inaction. You want to be mad at something, and the guy in the hot seat is the easy target. I posted in this very thread the requested evidence that the wall street journal is doctoring quotes, as one might expect if one weren't so blindingly glued to the idea that the President has a crazed secret homophobic agenda and is working to kill off the LGBT community. I got zero responses. Look at every other snarky discussion I had in just this thread... every single comment had a response to continue the fight. But the meat I posted about the Wall Street Journal doctoring quotes? Not interested. Or as is often said around these parts: "crickets"

How about recognizing some progress so you give yourself even a shred of credit with me about what we are going to do moving forward. It's not all pretty speeches.

Nor does my surliness magically transform me into a Presidential cheerleader. When you start boxing people in and ascribing motives to them, you are really just boxing yourself in.

I get angry when I see intellectual dishonesty, that is my problem and I'm dealing with it as best I can.

[laconicsax]

97. You have an interesting idea of what a "fierce advocate" is.

Suppose it were 1918 and a hypothetical POTUS declined to push state legislatures to pass the 19th amendment, declined to push Congress to pass it, publicly stated their opposition to it, and fought those who challenged existing women's rights laws. Would you call them a "fierce advocate" for women's rights?

Suppose it were 1964 and a hypothetical POTUS declined to push Congress to enact civil rights legislation that would abolish segregation, publicly stated their opposition to it, and fought legal challenges to existing discriminatory laws. Would you call them a "fierce advocate" for civil rights?

I assume you would in both cases because it's 2010 and we have a real POTUS who has declined to push Congress to repeal DOMA and DADT, has publicly stated his opposition to marriage equality, and has fought legal challenges to existing discriminatory laws, and you believe him to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT equality.

[dave29]

100. Suppose you acknowledged

that the variables are different, the Justice Dept is tasked with defending the laws on the books, the house and Senate have already both moved on this (DADT), and failed, and the President has vocally and repeatedly said DADT should be repealed. Also, was the opposition in lock step during those times?

The President has been candid on his feelings about marriage equality. I do not agree with him, but that does not detract from his efforts all around. I also note you fail to acknowledge any of those efforts.

You are not being intellectually honest. You are cherry picking those bits that make you angry, and I get it. But it's not honest.

Hypotheticals are fun, but rarely mesh with the reality we live in.

[laconicsax]

103. You're not a "fierce advocate" for something if you speak out against it.

You can dodge this point all you like, but it doesn't make the President any more of an advocate for LGBT equality.

Your blind faith in the President isn't allowing you to recognize simple facts. Facts such as Democratic majorities in both houses. Facts such as Obama's ability to tell the Democratic Congressional leadership that failure is not an option. Facts such as the requirement that the Government defend laws on the books only extends to showing up in court. Facts such as the President's ability as CIC of the military to order a freeze on DADT dismissals.

The list goes on of simple things that a "fierce advocate" could easily do, but Obama hasn't.

[dave29]

106. and you continue to ignore progress

nothing new here, I guess were done

[laconicsax]

110. Yes, you do continue to ignore reality.

I suppose we are done here. Good day.

[JuniperLea]

38. Understandably some would rather believe The Wall Street Urinal...

Because we just can't get enough love from Rupert Murdoch.

[jgraz]

43. Wait.. you're saying the choice is between believing the government or believing the WSJ?

That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.

[JuniperLea]

45. Believing the WSJ makes no sense...

I never said to believe the government.

[jgraz]

48. Sure it does.

Not everything the WSJ prints is categorically false. I don't take anything they say at face value, but when they put up a quote -- even an anonymous one -- I have to assume they didn't make it up.

If you have evidence that the WSJ actually fabricates quotes of government officials, I'd love to see it.

[dave29]

51. you just repeated an argument to me almost verbatim that you slammed

except in your case you were defending the Wall Street Journal's honesty, in my case I was saying it's OK to believe the Pres every once and a while.

WSJ +1
Obama -1

Awesomely played!

[jgraz]

54. I'm sorry you're having such trouble understanding things today.

The idea that a reputable newspaper -- even the Wall Street Journal -- would fabricate quotes from government officials is quite a different allegation from the idea that a President would not be completely honest about embarrassing and illegal activities on his watch.

We've seen examples of our government lying about torture. We've seen examples of this government lying about other issues (drug reimportation, etc).


If you've seen evidence of the Wall Street Journal fabricating quotes, please provide it.

[dave29]

56. would you call this fierce advocacy

of a News Corp rag?

"Mr. Murdoch told the Bancrofts that 'any interference -- or even hint of interference -- would break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers, something I am unwilling to countenance.' ... Mr. Murdoch and the Bancrofts agreed on standards modeled on the longstanding Dow Jones Code of Conduct."

should we trust Rupert?

[jgraz]

60. No, I would call it asking you to back up what you say.

I know, you have a lot on your plate.

[dave29]

61. you forget, I did not say anything

which you have repeatedly said.

You misread one of my posts as a response to the quotes. It was a response to a reference to the WSJ. I apologize if my response seemed visceral. I choose to not trust Rupert Murdoch.

[jgraz]

63. Oops. There I go again, expecting your posts to relate to the context of the thread.

Sooner or later, I'll learn not to make that mistake. :blush:

[dave29]

64. remember that time

you steered us towards LGBT issues when we were talking about torture...

good times

[jgraz]

66. You know, the posts are right up there ^^^

Go read them again. See if you can spot where you went wrong. (hint: the page lists the authors of each post. Might want to check that)

[dave29]

70. "Hey dave29, you are a delusional idiot"

you can say it, I won't alert. I like you, you take care of helpless animals (serious) and seemed interested in understanding that gas line explosion. These sarcasm fests are just us telling each other we disagree. I agree to disagree, if you do.

If not, I've got enough misery in my life to continue making you worry about my mental health for thousands of threads to come.

[jgraz]

72. Yeah, I said nothing of the sort. Didn't even imply it.

What I implied is that you're wrong about who steered what thread where.

[JuniperLea]

57. Are you willing to bet they didn't omit part of any give quote?

Because this is something they love to do.

I refuse to defend Rupert Murdoch in any of his forms... that you are willing to do that is frightful at the very least.

[jgraz]

65. Yes, I am.

If this were Faux News, I'd have a different response. They actually have a record of deliberately taking quotes out of context.

The WSJ? Not so much. I'm willing to change my mind in response to actual evidence, but so far I haven't seen any.

[JuniperLea]

68. Oh, but it is Faux Gnus...

In print form. Have you not seen the change in WSJ since News Corp bought it? Really? And you defend New Corp? Wow...

[jgraz]

74. One fabricated quote. Just one.

I can point to the fabrications on Faux. Hannity just had one last week. So did "Fox and Friends". It's easy to find evidence to back up my claims.

If the WSJ really is as bad as you say, you should have no problem producing evidence to back that up.



And, for the record, this is not me defending the WSJ. This is me pointing out how you're making unsubstantiated claims when you don't like the narrative about Obama.

[dave29]

77. Why must you force the hand

http://tinyurl.com/28c99x9

I tried to be nice

[JuniperLea]

78. Interesting, because from my POV this is about you swearing by News Corp

Because you like their narrative about Obama.

Have you not seen the multiple threads about how unreliable the News Corp/WSJ is? Really?


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008270029

http://play.tm/news/31139/wall-street-journal-misquoted-starcraft-ii-budget/

http://www.examiner.com/technology-in-national/the-demise-of-laptops-is-grossly-exaggerated-by-best-buy-ceo-s-misquote

http://www.latestnewsonline.net/india/krishna-misquoted-no-change-in-afghan-policy-mea/45963.html

[jgraz]

91. And we've seen how reliable your POV is.

Even after all your claims, you only managed to come up with one intentional misquote, and it's on the editorial page and not on any real news story. My guess is that the difference is lost on you.

Of course, even the one misquote is not nearly as egregious as your mischaracterization of my opinion. We're discussing the Wall Street Journal, not the entirety of NewsCorp. And I never said I "swear by" anything, just that I doubt their journalists would intentionally fabricate a quote (something you have yet to demonstrate, by the way).

If you're going to whine about accuracy, maybe you should start practicing it yourself.

[dave29]

107. so you do not trust media matters?

you have a strange set of reference points for a progressive. We can parse the newsroom and editorial board all you want. Fact is, owned by Murdoch. Period. Everything the man does is corporatist slime.

[jgraz]

117. Reading is fundamental

Point to where I said I don't trust them. If you're going to complain about being condescended to, you should probably avoid forcing me to explain things to you as if you were a child.

Editorial vs news desk is not "parsing", any more than Congress vs White House is "parsing". The dichotomy between those two desks is well-understood by anyone who's ever worked in or around a newspaper. And while Media Matters *has* caught the WSJ op-ed page playing fast-and-loose with one quote, they have never made those allegations about the news desk.

Or don't you trust Media Matters? Do you think there are fabricated quotes that they're NOT reporting on? (Maybe they're in on it!! :scared:)

[dave29]

46. nor does anything in the WSJ

which is a fortuitous coincidence

[jgraz]

49. So it is your position that they fabricated the quotes in that story?

If so, I'd love to see your evidence.

[dave29]

53. hell I don't even know what the story was

I was just enjoying watching someone defend the WSJ. Once again you are trying to affix me to a position that is more suited to your disdain

[jgraz]

55. It's only the story linked to by the OP

But hell, why bother reading the thread you're responding to? It's much more fun to just toss around irrelevant posts. :eyes:

[dave29]

59. moreso responding to them?

I hope you've enjoyed your stay.

[Francesca9]

98. There are only these two choices in our universe

[Hardrada]

6. More from the Lowering Expectations to Zero Department

[defendandprotect]

88. We need a liberal/progressive challenger to Obama in 2012 ... PLEASE!!!

[countmyvote4real]

7. Oh right, the landslide "piecemeal" we voted for in 2008.

Consider the source. This is more psyops propaganda designed to dampen our votes. And if it is true, that will be settled in the 2012 primaries; not by more obstructionists in the midterm.

I fear that the corporate conservatives are manufacturing these memes in order to once again steal the vote tabulations. And even if your ONLY Democratic vote is a blue dog, it still helps us keep our majority chairmanships.

[depakid]

8. "new" "incremental" as opposed to settling for the old "incremental"

Looks to be "pragmatic."

[Francesca9]

10. You can't pass anything without the votes in Congress

The 60 Senate votes ended. Anything that passes now must be bipartisan. This changes everything.

[depakid]

17. The only way anything changes at all is if Republicans control the house

and that's only a probability at this point (my guess is a bit more optimistic than Nate's 67% -I'd peg it as a pick 'em).

Even if we win the pick 'em, there won't be much if anything looking differently when the policies come out of the other side.

[Francesca9]

18. When the 60th Senate seat was lost - the era ended

The ability to pass ANYTHING at all, to have the GOP without any power to stop ANYTHING is a very rare privilege that we were given by the voters. The only people who stopped anything THEN were Democrats.

Now things have returned to normal, deals and compromise are again necessary.

[dave29]

82. a bit more optimistic?

k.

also, bookmarked.

[Doctor_J]

79. Since Bush managed to get everything he wanted with 51 Senators,

your post is bullshit

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

89. Bush and the Repugs could .... they had 51 Senators ... !!! Worked miracles!!

[jgraz]

99. He's going to try a decremental approach.

[aquart]

13. I said we only had two years.

And we let the Republicans run out the clock.

[Kringle]

14. coming soon .... the 'Foreign Policy President' .nt

[avaistheone1]

15. Bingo

[Safetykitten]

16. Yes, you are the winner of the night. Correct answer.

[truthisfreedom]

19. It's becoming incrementally excremental.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. My, my. Such happy news.

Please spin this so I can understand how it is really a good thing.

[onehandle]

21. .........

[jgraz]

23. Step 4 in Democratic Excuse-Making for Dummies

Step 1: We can't do anything. We just took over Congress and the White House!

Step 2: We can't do anything. It's only been X months!

Step 3: We can't do anything. The mid-terms are coming up!

Step 4: We can't do anything. The Republicans gained seats in the mid-terms!

Step 5: We can't do anything. The presidential election is coming up!

Step 6: We can't do anything. We just lost Congress and the White House!

Step 7: Relax.

[crim son]

76. Thank you jgraz!

You couldn't have made it any clearer, to me or anybody in this thread, and you speak the truth. If one doesn't consider DADT and the latest healthcare "reform" reason to question Obama's intent - not his intelligence, his intent - then no wonder they're having trouble following you.

[dave29]

81. Yes, it's very clear, question Obama, read WSJ

message received

[treestar]

113. No, the first part is we can't do EVERYTHING

and we don't get support when we get less than that.

If we have fewer seats or gods forbid the Rs take over, you'll have even less of what you want, but having worked so hard against the Dems, will have only yourselves to blame.

[jgraz]

118. And then you equate EVERYTHING with ANYTHING

Thanks, I forgot that important step.

[bluestateguy]

26. This should surprise no one. I could have predicted this in 2008

It was all on 2009 and 2010 to get bills passed anyway. 2011 and 2012 are for positioning for the next election, foreign policy, vetoing bad bills coming out of Congress and otherwise doing what can be done without Congress.

[TomCADem]

27. Wall Street Journal pushing a corporatist narrative...

The question is whether liberals accept this narrative and once again blame their own, but give the GOP a free pass?

[JuniperLea]

39. That's what it looks like to me...

Judging by this putrid thread and OP. The Wall Street Urinal and Rupert Murdoch strike again, and "some" DUers lap it up.

Gross on so many levels.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

108. My first thought as well. n/t

[defendandprotect]

83. Obama sure "scaled back" Universal Health Care .... !!!! Wow!!!

[harun]

85. That's sure to motivate people even LESS.

[defendandprotect]

87. Obama thinks this is the time to scale back on Global Warming actions???? Wow!!!

Btw, the switch from Global Warming to the euphemism "Climate Change"

was made at the suggestion of right wing propagandist Frank Luntz -- to Bush in 2002!!!

Stick with Global Warming -- it's much more descriptive of what's happening and a term

used since discovered in 1950's!

[defendandprotect]

90. Announing this BEFORE the election is intended to increase Democratic turnout ....???

Or another action to drive Democratic turnout off????

[Unvanguard]

95. "The sun is planning to rise tomorrow"

:eyes:

[inna]

96. morbidly fascinating.

[Zorra]

122. LOL.

Almost chummed my keyboard on that one.

[Zax2me]

109. I would think by 'scale back' he wants to be more effective.

Not necessarily scale back to decrease a progressive agenda - but maybe be more concise. Not try to do too many things at once. It's easier to debate and move an agenda forward when you do it piece by piece rather than trying to finish the pie all at once.
An optimistic view I know, I know. But the admin is aware of what it is capable of accomplishing, and at what pace.

[ProudDad]

111. DUH! Old News.

He did this in January of 2009...

[treestar]

112. the progressives can be happy then

That is, if they are really numerous enough to be behind the "lack of enthusiasm" meme enough to cause a loss of seats.

[Evasporque]

123. News Corp Prognosticating again....

This is not news. This is a public opinion manipulation piece.