You know something just occurred to me...

[Javaman]

It's the now tired reported statement of "why is it that the President is always puzzled as to why the repukes suddenly say no to things they first supported"

The question that should be asked, why is a Democratic president proposing republican ideas in the first place?

Is the Democratic party bereft of new ideas?

It just seems to me, time and time again, we hear that statement, "the president is puzzled over a no vote by the republicans over their own idea".

Honestly, WTF?

[originalpckelly]

1. Exactly. The health care plan that was passed was the Republican bill from the 90s.

It's basically Romneycare, but on a Federal level.

And now we've got this man buying into the lies about social security.

[rucky]

2. At least someone's around to say "no" to stupid Republican ideas.

Maybe that's how Obama's playing them? Getting them to say no to their own shit, because he knows they will.

I know I'll get flamed & framed as a cheerleader, but I'm just pointing out the level of doubt in Obama's motives. It's up to each of us to decide whether or not to give him the benefit of that doubt.

[EFerrari]

3. No reason to flame you. But the thing is, that whole strategy enshrines

the Republican viewpoint as the normative one. It's a loser for Democrats in the longer term whether Obama beats them this time or not.

[rucky]

7. He did offer a tip-off today...

that it would be easier for progressives to strengthen social programs once we get our house in order.

One thing I've learned about Obama is he doesn't pick battles he doesn't think he can win, but getting a reign in on the budget will put progressives in a better position in the long term, imho.

[EFerrari]

12. I have an instinctive distrust of any politician saying

they want to "strengthen" Medicare or Social Security. Who knows what that means -- that's a weasel word intended to create an attitude of agreement in the listener while not imparting any meaning at all.

His challenge is to get a grip on the budget without degrading the miserable little social programs we've managed to hang onto. If he agrees to degrade our programs with means testing or raising the age of eligibility, he's failed us, imo.

[rucky]

17. I don't blame you.

But I have read his proposal to up the quality and lower the cost of Medicare, and it's pretty non-controversial and easy to support - especially when you look at the fraud & abuse that exists from providers.

That ups the trust a bit for me on that avenue, at least. Social Security I'm not sure what he's proposing or why, and it does make me nervous.

[EFerrari]

25. Do you think a Republican House will do that?

Tweaking Medicare, which has been done over and over, may be a good idea but it's not clear to me that this is the time to do it. And just like DADT for President Clinton, there is a danger in the "we'll fix it later" posture.

If there is significant fraud and abuse from providers, I'd like to see what is being done about enforcement before anyone moves on to change the funding because as it is, pharmacies have to wait up to two years to be paid (which makes it hard for anyone but the big chains to deal with Medicare), and doctors have an awful time getting paid the little that they get and many won't even take it because they can't afford to.

[rucky]

20. and then I just saw this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1496411

FWIW

[EFerrari]

27. I have to get my mom on the phone today. LOL!

[Jackpine Radical]

30. A well-tested principle, first developed in Vietnam.

In its current formulation, "We had to destroy the program in order to strengthen it."

[EFerrari]

43. I hadn't recognized it but you're right.

The phrase leaped out at me when it came up during the tax cut extension discussion.

[jtown1123]

51. +1000. All we need to hear is "no cuts" that's all. We're still waiting and worried.

[JuniperLea]

6. That's exactly right...

I'm not sure what is so surprising. Obama has always been a pragmatist, and he's always wanted to be bipartisan. I can't imagine a government without input from more than one side... oh, wait... yes I can... that would be the BushCo Administration.

Getting the GOP to say no to their own ideas takes a lot of planning and maeuvering... it's more like those slide the numbers around games, or a Rubix Cube, than it is chess.

Now we have come full circle on many, many items... and the GOP are now forced to hold their one true course: the opposite of whatever Obama wants; NO to all things Obama. So when he comes back at them with their own plan, we have what we are seeing now.

Yeah, damn you (and me) for the ability to see patterns. Rah.

[EFerrari]

15. Right, and now the whole country is focused on whether our programs

will be cut as if that's the only solution, which is the bs default Republican position. Rah.

[Marrah_G]

34. You know that is nuts right?

That would be playing politics with real people's lives. That would be betting on people's lives for political gain.

Edit: I don't mean that you are nuts... I mean that if they are doing that it would be nuts.

[rucky]

35. It's only nuts if it backfires.

and there's still a chance of that happening

[Marrah_G]

40. yup

Although I personally don't think Obama is doing that. I think he is pushing a right wing agenda much in the same way he has in other areas. Just because someone says "I am a Democrat" doesn't mean they are liberals or progressives.

[Poll_Blind]

4. President Obama is Third Way/DLC material. It's not the Democratic Party in some bigger sense.

PB

[jaxx]

9. Tell it to the congress.

Where are the Democratic solutions?

[Poll_Blind]

14. Stifled by Democratic leadership because it gets in the way?

I mean, Pete Defazio's attempt to get new House leadership (and the subsequent 1/3 vote for the idea) shows that there is a sizable chunk of Democrats, at least in the house, who are trying to get a traditionally-Democratic agenda in play but they just don't have the numbers at the moment.

PB

[jaxx]

19. Then why all the third way/dlc stuff?

They just don't have the votes makes much better sense than automatically kicking them to the curb.

[Poll_Blind]

24. I was referring to 1/3 of ALL the Democrats in the House, not the full house.

PB

[jaxx]

28. Well since PBO isn't in the house his name doesn't belong there.

[Poll_Blind]

That's just silly.

PB

[jaxx]

41. Why? Because it eliminates the labels?

[Poll_Blind]

47. Pretending that the President, who is the Leader of the Democratic Party, should....

...be magically excised from debates about the leadership of same is silly. President LookingForward and House Minority Leader OffTheTable are the reason we lost our shirt in the 2010 elections. You can cut the pie any way you want to but the reality is that you're attempting to hide some pieces and call the thing a whole.

As I said, it's silly.

PB

[jaxx]

49. Yes, he is superman, isn't he?

[Poll_Blind]

54. Again, you're having to resort to hyperbole because your argument doesn't hold water.

I mean, you're welcome to present (whatever) as an argument you like but that doesn't make it persuasive to me or the dozens of people who, through the course of the day, will skim over our exchange. The President is a big sloshing buck of weak, ideologically. Peolsi is less so, but only by comparison. You've got Democratic House and Senate members who follow and promote real, classical, Democratic Ideals. As you go up from there, it bends farther and farther to the right.

Even Pelosi was taken by surprise at how far President Obama was willing to go, and go behind her back, in regards to offering up Social Security to modification/cuts per Republican request. You can't change those things, can't wish them away. If you have to start pulling out logical fallacies, hyperbole or flat-out non-sequiturs, where is the discussion at all?

Put some meat on the table- explain why the Leader of the Democratic Party is not in part culpable for the failings of Democratic Leadership to promote classic Democratic Ideals. You're welcome in the attempt but President Obama used the same groups for election that he's abandoning in his re-election campaign for 2012. Ride the Left into the Presidency, play the Center and Center-Right for re-election. This time around, all that Hope and Change has become, out of necessity, "Well, who else are you going to vote for?"

In his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama is critical of the style and the politics of the 60s, when the psyches of most of his potential rivals for the White House were formed. He writes that the politics of that era were highly personal, burrowing into every interaction between youth and authority and among peers. The battles moved to Washington in the 1990s and endure today, he says.

“In the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004,” he writes, “I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage.”

PB

[jaxx]

59. Whoever reads this will either be pro or anti Obama.

It doesn't matter squat what either of us say.

Read it and weep.

[Poll_Blind]

61. Maybe there's a little more shades to it than pro or anti Obama?

Just...something to think about. Not as easy as shoveling people into one of two different camps, but a hell of a lot more realistic.

:shrug:

PB

[ChiciB1]

46. Nor Do I Fear Do They Have The POTUS Helping Them Push Forward

with their agenda. If he would get behind them and "stand with" them I think many of us would clap long and loudly.

The Democrats of today aren't anything like the fighting Democrats just 25 years ago. It's hard for me to take and it make me want to bolt. But where to go??

[Fire1]

5. It just further proves that their opposition IS , indeed, personal. n/t

[elleng]

10. Indeed.

[elleng]

8. Those who suggest the President is puzzled are the confused ones, imo.

He knows how the game is played, and he's informing the public that repugs vote no over their own ideas do injure him.

[Fire1]

11. I think increasingly people are beginning to see that the

republicans really don't care about them and would throw this country under the bus before betraying the wealthy.

[elleng]

13. 'Wealthy,' yes, but more and more I think its about repugs own power,

and less about 'wealth.'

[Fire1]

21. I can certainly see that. n/t

[EFerrari]

18. But at what cost? What people will remember from this circus

is that Obama was willing to cut our two most popular social programs. He erodes trust in his own party and he convinces two Republicans that their party is venal. Not much of a victory, imo.

[Fire1]

22. Not if they actually "think" about what he said. n/t

[EFerrari]

32. Not very many people pour over the transcripts of his speeches

as some do here.

[Fire1]

37. Many don't pour over them here, either. n/t

[EFerrari]

44. So, how are people going to "think" about what he said

if they don't know what he said except via the media? You're undercutting your own point.

[Fire1]

45. What other resources do we have other than the media?

Our own speculation, which is usually a disaster and most often woefully inaccurate? If people would think about what they actually SAW AND HEARD for themselves by pouring over some transcripts, they may reach a more accurate conclusion.

[EFerrari]

48. But that was my point, people don't do that.

And what will be remembered is that he was willing to cut the two most popular social programs we have, not that he won some obscure victory against the Republicans.

[Fire1]

50. I gotcha the first time. My point is there is a remedy. I think

those who refuse to educate themselves CHOOSE to rely on their own stupidity or speculation.

[EFerrari]

56. Beside the point. They also choose at the ballot box. n/t

[elleng]

36. Thanks, Fire, you said it for me.

[ecstatic]

57. Speak for yourself. Republicans have been exposed fully

They don't care one bit about the debt. Their only mission is to keep the wealthy from being taxed more. Thinking Americans will take that lesson away; they won't have hurt feelings over cuts that never occurred (and never would have occurred).

[EFerrari]

60. I did speak for myself, gentle reader.

And you should wait to whistle before you're out o the woods on cuts.

[JuniperLea]

23. Those who suggest the President is asking for Republican shopping items...

Yet don't for whatever reason see the end game of forcing Republicans to say no to their own requests are the ones that puzzle me.

It's like global warming deniers sitting hip deep in flood water but still denying.

Thinking people are no doubt having a light bulb moment; other agendas will be transparent.

Obama had to show what following the Republican double down on Bush policies would yeild... an end to social programs of all kinds. That is the ultimate Republican anti socialist goal. He didn't put those on the table, the Republicans did... Obama left them there to rot for all to see.

There will be some for whom this lesson seems almost impossible to learn, and they will still yell at Obama for scaring them. As if this hasn't always been so. As if the cause and effect of political action hasn't always been known.

Ridiculous.

[Fire1]

26. TRUE THAT!!!! n/t

[EFerrari]

29. Nope. The problem with Obama working solely in the Republican frame

has been pointed out very clearly.

[elleng]

39. ...

:thumbsup:

[WinkyDink]

16. Because they learn fast that they can ask for yet more.

[EFerrari]

31. The real answer to your question is that since our party was taken over

by the DLC, Third Way, New Democrat types, it became reactive, unable to produce its own frames. And when you think about it that way, Obama's strategy is completely unsurprising.

[Marrah_G]

33. That is the trillion dollar question

[JHB]

38. The party is not bereft of new ideas...

...just its "third way"ers and highly paid political consultants.

[guruoo]

42. ;)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BhlZ0raYfrI/S8etyNO7F0I/AAAAAAAACZI/BVIjNtqqIFs/s400/Supe+wink.jpg

[alfredo]

52. Default is the only way the Republicans can end the

social safety net. They have tried elections, they have tried lies, they have tried legislation, but nothing has worked. This is the nuclear option. They will have to destroy our economy and social contract in hope of being able to rebuild America in their authoritarian image.

[dmosh42]

53. Obama is as useless as his AG, Holder. Strictly a compromisor and no ideas of his own..

[ecstatic]

55. Why do you assume he's puzzled? nt

[Bragi]

58. Why everyone should support Obama right now

I believe that Obama, like any intelligent leader, understands the magnitude of what would happen if the U.S, in reality, defaulted on parts of its financial obligations, and he is justifiably scared shitless about this possibility. We all should be.

Unless I'm missing some important group, the only people I see who are NOT afraid of a potential default are dumb and ignorant people who support the tea party movement, and the people they elected, who are, like them, also too stupid to understand real world consequences of public policy vandalism, and too ideology-driven to slow down and think about it anyway.

What I find most outrageous here is that Obama actually does have to negotiate with these people. He actually has to meet some of their demands, even if they're too stupid to realize it when he talks about enacting bits of their platform.

This seems to reality. So this makes me think -- regretfully for sure -- that maybe the repugs have him where they want him to be. As I see it, the President now has to:

- figure out which of their demands he has to meet to stop the wrecking ball of default,

- explain his concessions clearly to them because they're otherwise too stupid to understand for themselves,

- do this while trying to keep us -- the people who support him -- onside by persuading us that he really needs to do shit that we (like him) oppose because of the wrecking ball of default now in the hands of stupid people.

Fuck. That is not an easy situation. I wish I had more confidence in O's negotiating skills, and I am less than thrilled that he was unable to avoid this current situation.

Having said that, I can complain about that later. For now, what matters is that the President get the support of everyone who isn't a tea party dimwit, and the dimwits need to discover just how angry everyone else is with them for inflicting their stupidity on the world on such a grand scale.

[JoePhilly]

62. Time to catch a tiny clue ...

while I think the GOP is now full of evil crazy people ... at times, one of their members, has had an OK idea.

When the do ... Obama says "Ok" ... and then the GOP runs screaming from the idea.

For me, the important thing here is that I always have mocked the right wing for seeing the world in black and white.

What I've learned from DU recently is that parts of our side also see the world as black and white.

And so ... ANY time Obama might agree with a GOP idea, he's immediately BAD!!!!!

I've always thought the left saw nuance, saw complexity ... was not narrowly focused. I'm learning, not so much.