Obama's first term vs a second term

[JPK]

Do you think Obama is playing Mr Bi-partisan now, playing both ends against the middle and if he gets the presidency for second term will become aggressively more progressive due to presidential term limits and not having to worry about re-election? In other words laying low now and keeping his powder dry until he can really make significant changes in a second term?

[NC_Nurse]

1. I sure hope so. I am pretty discouraged right now.

[katandmoon]

2. Nope, but dream on.

[NYC_SKP]

3. This has been my assumption from the beginning.

And, logically, his actions are also crafted in ways sensitive to the timing of mid-term elections.

I look especially to his last two years in office for significant actions, though not so shocking to the electorate that a Republican would beat his successor.

:patriot:

[Richardo]

4. No.

He's governing pretty much in the pragmatic style he said he would.

And starting next year it's going to be more difficult to get 'progressive' initiatives through even if he wants to, because the Dems will lose seats in both houses of Congress. I don't think they'll lose the majority, though.

I expect that we'll see some good things from him in a second term, but for anything progressive to pass he's going to need at least the congressional majorities he has today, if not more, especially in the Senate. Unless they change the filibuster rules.

[patrice]

15. Too bad the frakking Greens can't seem to organize their way out of a wet paper bag!

[patrice]

18. I think pragmatics, i.e. the overall Process, is his highest priority, so, as mentioned upthread,

the element of Shock to the process is a very high concern. He doesn't want to set off any more shock waves than "necessary" and in status quo systems in which there is a preponderance of corporate and dog-eat-dog economic growth*, the highest potential for shock is in on the Right, so "because of the way things are" the Right gets most of the Grease, since the Left isn't shocked by being ignored, because that's our status quo.

*(artificially stimulated by tax cuts and very selective subsidies)

[Wabbajack_]

5. If he's not progressive now he probably won't get a second term

[Radical Activist]

6. He's being aggressive with his legislation right now.

Health care reform, banking regulation, climate change. This isn't middle of the road easy stuff. You can fault Congress for watering down his proposals but Obama hasn't backed away from advocating for progressive legislation.

Yes, Obama is taking a bi-partisan tone in his speeches. But isn't that proving to be an effective way to get progressive legislation passed? You have to distinguish between tactics and the substance of his agenda. The tactics sound bi-partisan but the agenda is progressive.

Obama has always sold progressive ideas packaged in a way that has broader appeal. He has been doing it since he first started running in the primary, and I don't know why some people still haven't caught on.

I'm not convinced that we'll have to wait for a second term. If we can get rid of a few blue-dogs and put more pressure on Congress then Obama will have some very progressive accomplishments under his belt in his first term.

[patrice]

7. I think there is a slightly better than even probability that he is a closet Authoritarian who is

also (somewhat less closeted) slightly right of "center".

[Marr]

8. lol... "dry powder".

No, I can almost guarantee you that this is not the case.

[lib2DaBone]

9. Unfortunately.. I don't think Mr. Obama will get more progressive.

Although he has done a few good things, I think he has learned that all he needs to do is make a few good speeches, and that he really doesn't need to change anything. The voters will give him a free pass.

I was very disappointed with his Kagan appointment.. he had a chance to to nominate a genuine Progressive Liberal to balance the court.. and he didn't.

Afghanistan, his new Drug Policy (same as the old) and now the oil spill (which looks like it is out of control)... I'm very concerned.

[salguine]

10. If this is his "bi-partisan" period, God help us when he doesn't have reelection to worry about. If

anything, we've seen nothing but evidence that Mr. Obama is nothing but a very smooth-talking corporate Trojan Horse.

[Vincardog]

12. Bingo: Mr. Obama is nothing but a very smooth-talking corporate Trojan Horse.

[HappyCynic]

11. Congress

I believe the main problem with progressive legislation is Congress. Obama can try to set the tone and lay out what he wants done but it's Congress that will write and pass new legislation. Party control within the Democratic Party is nowhere near the lock-step of the Republican Party. So, what's needed for progressive legislation to pass is to have a large Democratic majority in both houses with a strong progressive core in each house. That way, even if some Blue Dogs vote against, a filibuster-proof margin can still be achieved.

[Vincardog]

13. Having Mr. Obama working behind the scenes against progressive legislation does NOT help

[HappyCynic]

16. But is he...

Is he doing that because he's dead set against it regardless of what Congress wants or is it, at least in part, because he doesn't think it'll pass Congress? Either way, Congress is a major stumbling point that's independent of who lives in the White House.

[Vincardog]

19. Either way he is not working in my interests. How would it help if he were working to hinder

progressive legislation (Like single payer) because HE decided it could not pass the Senate?
I think you make a poor argument.

[HappyCynic]

20. It doesn't help...

I'm not saying it would help. All I'm saying is he's not the entire problem and may not be the largest part of the problem. Focusing on just Obama isn't enough. Don't let up on Obama but don't ignore the other two branches. If he's deciding it can't pass and fighting it for that reason, a progressive Senate and House will bring him on board.

[Vincardog]

22. Which explains why he is working to elect regressive "Democrats" instead of Progressive ones.

[Individualist]

14. DLC/NDC members are anti-progressive

Obama has admitted he's a New Democrat.

[frebrd]

17. In a word, no.

If he gets a second term, he won't even have to pretend to be "progressive".

[Coyote_Bandit]

21. What second term?

I'm not so sure there will be one.

Some progressive voters have been alientated and frustrated. A number of progressive concerns have been virtually ignored by this administration. Gay rights. The so-called wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Environmental protection. Lest we forget, this president was for off-shore drilling before the BP catastrophe and he has failed to proactively intervene since it occurred.

A lot of folks have experienced prolonged financial challenges and unemployment. Some of these folks are not going to rush out and vote for the guy who was the captain of thier sinking ship to retain his post.

There were folks who voted for Obama because they thought he would bring change and hope. A good number of them were folks who don't normally vote. And most of them can't point to any kind of positive change that has brought them hope. Most of them just see and hear more of the same old sh*t.

I also happen to think that Dems are far more concerned about Obama being re-elected than the man himself.