This president was elected to correct for thirty years of conservative failures.

[Hannah Bell]

The White House defends the (tax) deal as “strategery.” In their calculation, it is better for the president to be “reasonable” and get things done, than to fight and draw lines.

The President claimed higher ground:

Sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do,” he said. “The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/us/politics/07assess.html?hp)

Really? Then why freeze federal pay for two years, an utterly symbolic gesture, meant to sound the call to retreat? (The message is that austerity starts now, which is inane with unemployment at mass levels, that federal employees are overpaid, which is simply wrong, and that workers must sacrifice, when in fact workers have been losing ground for decades.)

The question is what comes next?

With people suffering across the country, the president convened a deficit commission, not a jobs commission.

After bowing to Republican demands for lucre for the richest 2% of Americans, in a package that costs about $700 billion over the next decade (not counting extending the Bush tax cuts for the bottom 98%), will the president now tell Americans in his State of the Union address that Social Security benefits must be cut, the retirement age hiked, Medicare cut, core investments in education and environment slashed in order to address deficits run up by foolish wars abroad and irresponsible tax cuts at home?

The president is right – this isn’t about symbolic victories or symbolic fights. It is about the direction of the country.

This president was elected to correct for thirty years of conservative failures. His job is to begin to challenge unsustainable inequality, and create the conditions for broadly shared prosperity...

He must correct the unsustainable excesses of finance capturing 40% of corporate profits, the wealthiest 1% capturing 40% of the benefits of economic growth, the nation borrowing $2 billion a day to pay for its corporate trade follies.

If his compromises end up reinforcing the current extremes rather than correcting them, then he is doing more than offending liberals aching for some sign of backbone.

He is failing the mandate that history has given him.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010124907/bad-deal-wrong-direction

[LARED]

1. 'This president was elected to correct for thirty years of conservative failures'

You may have elected him for that reason but for the majority of those that back or backed him he was elected because he was not G. Bush.

[DrDan]

3. there's a difference?

junior's failures set us back a MINIMUM of 30 years
- education
- the environment
- peace around the world
- the economy

[bobbolink]

22. Could you please include poverty? The BIG thing that got set back?

Or do the votes of poor folk really not matter to any of you?

[DrDan]

23. there are few areas that this cretin did not touch

[bobbolink]

24. Again, it would be nice if you remembered us, OK?

Its the DEAFENING SILENCE that allows us to be set back further.

It wouldn't be that hard, would it?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. Yet he just validated Bush's main domestic policy issue.

You know, the one that created so many jobs the last 11 years by giving tax cuts to the Investor/Capital Gains set....

I remember being sickened in 2007 when he talked about wanting to be a 'transformative' President "like Reagan". Little did I know it meant trickle-down/supply-side on steroids with a smattering of the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare* thrown in.

*No Administration has cut FICA taxes in this history of the program since FDR set up the system. Obama's proposal is precedent-setting...

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. Yet he just validated Bush's main domestic policy issue.

You know, the one that created so many jobs the last 11 years by giving tax cuts to the Investor/Capital Gains set....

I remember being sickened in 2007 when he talked about wanting to be a 'transformative' President "like Reagan". Little did I know it meant trickle-down/supply-side on steroids with a smattering of the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare* thrown in.

*No Administration has cut FICA taxes in this history of the program since FDR set up the system. Obama's proposal is precedent-setting...

[mstinamotorcity]

2. Everybody wanted a fight!!!!!

Now that our President has said Okay tax cuts for the wealthy is a go!!! Look at the fighting!!!!!This is fun. Even repugs who are middle to low wage earners are calling their Congressmen mad as hell. The Democratic Party in the Congress is fired up!!!The Black Caucus is pissed off!!!! The country is Mad!!!Those who were not paying attention to the Tax debate have now started enlisting themselves to go against it. They say he caved in, I say he passed the first hit!!!!! Let the Battle begin.

[nofurylike]

7. very good point, mstinamotorcity! thanks for the sense of it! nt

[mstinamotorcity]

11. nt let's see

have you called or sent your e-mails to voice your disdain??? Did our President giving tax cuts to the wealthy make you:mad: :mad: :mad: as hell ready to fight. Then my point is proven. If not then stick to the keyboard warrior status.nt

[nofurylike]

46. always have and will. nt

[dana_b]

4. powerful and true. k&r

[nofurylike]

5. they weren't "failures" in their eyes. they were the consolidation

of incomprehensible power.

hey, d'ya think we should motivate 'em to take all the wealth elsewhere? collpase things completely and utterly, leaving the most vulnerable to be immediately crushed?


'cause nobody on the privileged white radical left is going to do a thing to stop that from happening.

[readmoreoften]

20. The "privileged white radical left" give me a fucking break, Glenn Beck.

Yes, all the black and latino folks are just CONSERVATIVE mainstays. Sea of white folk at the ONE NATION RALLY. That "privileged white" Cynthia McKinney who headed the Green Party ticket this year.

Fuck your rightwing talking points. Most people in this country are white. Most of ANY major demographic group will be white--Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Green, gay, straight, student, worker--will be white unless it is the result of the oppression of people of color (prisons, military, etc.)

[nofurylike]

47. they are not the "privileged white radical left." nt

[bobbolink]

31. This "privileged" white radical leftist lives in her car. You wanna apologize for that now?

[nofurylike]

48. apparently you are not the "privileged white radical left" either. nt

[RKP5637]

6. Agree!!! "He is failing the mandate that history has given him." Learn to

write and speak Chinese to get ahead of the curve.

[xchrom]

8. The answer for Reagan, not Reagan. Nt

[BeyondGeography]

9. All true, but there has to be an audience for "great"

And Obama's historical timing, if he was looking for a "historical" presidency, couldn't have been worse.

We're also seeing some limitations of the man himself which we could only learn about the hard way. I expected him to be better at mobilizing opinion, which he definitely has the gift for. Hasn't happened. This tax battle had to be fought from the outside in, campaign-style. Hasn't happened.

I'm looking at a good President, considering the alternatives. Getting DADT repealed, START and the Dream Act, in addition to HCR (which is a better bill than the antis give it credit for), plus the many other things he has been able to accomplish in two years, would be a very good result.

But, getting to the point of your OP, the country did need more. Conservative ideology needs to be destroyed in the manner that the Republicans took out liberalism in the 80s. By extending these tax cuts, how exactly does that happen? I hope Obama gets a do-over in two years, but because he didn't fight this time around, it will be even harder, if he even gets the chance.

[Vinca]

10. Extending Bush economic policies to fix the situation is lunacy.

[Octafish]

12. Reverse Robin Hood still doesn't work.

One would think after 30 years, Democrats, of all people, would point that out.

[quaker bill]

13. and it was never going to happen

in one term. No one walks on water anymore. We left too many Bushies behind, and now elected a new batch who think Bush was wrong for not being conservative enough. It took a whole government to enact 30 years of bad conservative policy. We need to elect a whole government that intends to undo conservative policy. We haven't done that yet. History may have given President Obama a mandate, but we, the voters, didn't.

To the extent he tried to use the bits of mandate we gave him, we took it away by not showing at the polls this November.

The President is correct, this is a "long game". Unfortunately we are a country afflicted with a very short attention span, and possessed of no apparent ability to delay gratification.

[Hannah Bell]

14. the rich got their aid double-plus quick. that kind of thing is apparently very easy.

everything that benefits the other 95% of the population takes sooooooooo much time.

look at what's happening, would you?

things are moving very quickly, & in the exact opposite direction than you indicate. it's not slow at all. it's very rapid, & it's toward the right. what used to be the far right, in fact.

and this administration is complicit, wittingly or not.

[quaker bill]

33. The administration is not moving right

at any where near the speed the voting public is. Look at what's happening, would you? We just lost, what, something like 70 to 80 congressional seats to RW wackaloons? Do you think this might mean something?

The place we are taking ourselves is well to the right of far right. A President can only slow this down so much.

The Administration cannot be other than complicit, when the country moves, it is kind of drug along by default.

[Erose999]

25. How exactly did he try to "use the mandate we gave him"? Because while we were mandating him to

un-do the awful mess Bush and the Goop created, he was just digging the hole deeper by defending DOMA and DADT in the courts, doubling down on the wars, and giving the bankers and elites corporate welfare hand over fist.

I really doubt he will suddenly metamorphose into a FDR style reformer here in the 11th hour.

But at least he speaks articulately. It just added insult to injury during the Bush years to be oppressed by someone who could barely form a sentence.

[quaker bill]

34. What mandate?

Winning one race by a large margin is not a mandate. Taking over government is. We did not win enough seats in congress to do that, particularly if you don't count the blue dogs who were on our side only on sunny days. A mandate is an invincible margin throughout government, the kind FDR enjoyed between '33 and '36. Republicans could barely offer ammendments then, not because of rules, but because there were not enough of them to get proposals out of committees. There were only 16 repubicans in the Senate. Given we have more states now, that would egual about 20 republican senators today. If we had 80 dems in the senate, not even the blue dogs would have been a problem. This is a mandate, and something we never provided.

[donco6]

37. Everyone I know showed at the polls.

I take no blame for that whatsoever.

[ProudDad]

39. It could have if a REAL Progressive had been elected...

But not when a corporate tool designed to be charming while picking our pockets takes office again -- just like in 1992

[ProudDad]

40. And I'll save you the time...

Yes, it's probably true that a REAL Progressive can't get (S)elected pResident in the Corporate States of Amerika...

So just grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye 'cause your grandchildren (if any) are going to cook...

[Starry Messenger]

15. k&r

[Poboy]

16. recommend.

[glitch]

17. That's why we elected him, that is not why Goldman Sachs backed him

and it is becoming obvious that is not why he ran.

We need to move past Obama's "failures" (failures only for us, he and his money backers are fine) and onto supporting people who will reverse the reaganomics doctrine.

[EFerrari]

21. Maybe at the state level. DC is toxic.

I don't see that changing in my lifetime.

[glitch]

45. Superfund toxic.

I really don't either.

[somone]

18. He could've been a contender to greatness

What a colossal waste.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

41. Educating Obama...

I wish you could have heard Grayson tonight on The Last Word. He spoke of how
Obama can still redeem himself and be that shining white knight we all elected.

I'm not fooled any longer, but I'm leaving a door open. We'll see if he's able to walk
away from this having learned some important lessons. His historic relevance is in
his hands.

[MichiganVote]

19. K&R

[amborin]

28. K&R

[leftstreet]

29. K&R

[laughingliberal]

35. K & R nt

[donco6]

36. He's just flat-out wrong for the job.

Can't we just keep him from doing any more damage for two years?

[StarsInHerHair]

42. there's a good question

nt

[Angry Dragon]

38. k&r

[me b zola]

43. K&R

[ProSense]

44. "This president was elected to correct for thirty years of conservative failures."

Really?

He was elected to serve the country and fix the problems (the results of failures across the political spectrum) working with Congress.

[kenny blankenship]

49. Yes, that was what he was elected to do.

Small problem: he himself is a Reagan Kool-Aid swiller. Is he "failing"? Or is he succeeding brilliantly in the defense of elite privilege, at its most vulnerable and perilous moment in 70 years?