Whenever the President tries to close a deal the GOP will not let him. He got a form of health care

[applegrove]

reform and they bombard it is "death panel" propaganda which makes it seem more like something to fear into the future than a policy done deal that will help millions get health care. He offers them one debt ceiling deal after another and they run and run...coming up only with something that will have to be looked into in the fall. No done deals or closed deals allowed. What makes us think they will agree to anything at any time because so far they refuse to let Obama govern. And that is their policy. No policy success for Obama.

So whenever Americans think of Obama they think of issues unsolved (anxiety). If the GOP let Obama have a few done deals people would think of obama and feel some issues solved (proud/secure). It is all about the people's relationship to Obama (or the lack thereof).

[RKP5637]

1. That is their plan, have Obama fail at any cost, even if they take the

country down with them. IMO the republican party has become the terrorist party, and that doesn't even take any stretch of the imagination.

[polichick]

2. The good news is a president can do a lot on his or her own...

...so many changes have been made, and some things not so much (like the wars).

[BeyondGeography]

3. They have been shameful

So has corporate America. Both have taken everything he has given them and basically spat in his face. I blame Obama for not keeping the pressure on, but Americans more for letting them get away with it.

[joshcryer]

4. What I find funny. "Death panel" was a GOP meme, "catfood commission" is a Lib meme.

[Bluebear]

21. "lib"?

[joshcryer]

48. "liberal"

Didn't have enough room in the subject line.

[Skittles]

5. which makes his pandering to them all the more maddening

[polichick]

23. Yes, it does - since he's the one with the power to change the story.

[gateley]

6. And look at Elizabeth Warren. We will NOT approve her, so

she wasn't nominated. Now they won't approve the First Runner Up, either!

I don't know how he keeps from losing it, I really don't.

[mmonk]

7. In his first two years, we had both houses and the presidency.

Yet we got a model written by the health care industry lobby and patterned after the Heritage Foundation model and no public option. We probably won't have numbers that big again and that was the best could be done? And the bush tax cuts were extended with those numbers still in office. Under said scenario, how is any traditional Democratic legislative victory possible? Now they control the House and control the direction, coversation, and all government legislative functions as a whole. This system is broken. The two party system is a failure because it cannot function at all like the past.

[jmowreader]

9. The Republicans have controlled the Senate since 2009

Even though they have fewer seats than we do, combine RINOs like Lieberman with the 2009-imposed requirement that a bill needs 60 votes to pass the Senate. Does anyone think it weird that a bill can't pass the Senate with 57 ayes? The Clinton tax increase, which received absolutely no Republican ayes, was passed 51-50 with Al Gore as the tie-breaking vote. We have a Congress that refuses to compromise for the good of the country, and if we don't get it fixed we're screwed.

[dsc]

there was no compromise there either

budget bills only need 51 votes or else he wouldn't have passed his tax increase either.

[joshcryer]

10. Al Franken wasn't seated and Ted Kennedy died.

There was only a period of 49 days where we had a filibuster proof Senate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Fuck that. If they want to filibuster, MAKE them filibuster.

Take each and every item to a vote and MAKE them vote them down, one after another. Then see who the public likes.

This bullshit about surrendering, not bringing something to a vote simply because it won't (or might not) pass, is exactly what gives the minority party its power.

We don't need a filibuster-proof Senate. We need a majority leader who is not conflict-averse.

[Mimosa]

20. ^ +1,000 ^ n/t

[Pirate Smile]

8. Your point about their refusing to let him govern - in a way that they have never done to ANY other

President reminded me of this comment on Steve Benen's blog that has gotten quite a bit of attention:

The predominately white progressive intelligentsia don't see Obama clearly because of our racial blind spot. We don't see the role of race in how he seems to understand himself and how other perceive him.

First of all, we think that he understands himself as one of us. A progressive activist, heir to the radical and New Left movements most of us were raised in. He is not; I think that he understands himself (and certainly his real base understands him) as the first African American President. We're thinking Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. We should be thinking about Harold Washington, the first African American mayor of Chicago. Washington was elected and immediately faced a solid wall of opposition from most white aldermen in the city. Washington understood his role as breaking down that wall of opposition and assembling a governing majority, which he finally did after his re-election. Unfortunately, he died shortly thereafter. By the way, one of Washington's political strategists was David Axelrod.

How does Obama break the iron unity of the GOP opposition to assemble a governing majority in the US Congress?

If we progressives were not blinded by our own assumption that our history is the only history, we might see how Obama may be seeing his situation.

White progressives often think that African American elected officials are politically naive. We will far more credit to Cornel West, who has never been elected to anything, than to an elected state senator, or even the President of the United States. We think that Obama does not understand the nature of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell or Eric Cantor, as though he has not sat across the table from them. He doesn't understand how mean they are, we think.

Obama acts entirely within the tradition of mainstream African American political strategy and tactics. The epitome of that tradition was the non-violence of the Civil Rights Movement, but goes back much further in time. It recognizes the inequality of power between whites and blacks. Number one: maintain your dignity. Number two: call your adversaries to the highest principles they hold. Number three: Seize the moral high ground and Number four: Win by winning over your adversaries, by revealing the contradiction between their own ideals and their actions. It is one way that a oppressed people struggle.

Obama has taken a seat at the negotiating table and said "There is no reason why we cannot work out solutions to our problems by acting like responsible adults. That is what people expect us to do and that is why we have entered into public service." That is the moral high ground.

Honestly, I have been reminded more than once in the last few months of those brave college students sitting in at a Woolworth's lunch counter, back in the day. Obama sits at that table, like they did at the counter. Boehner and McConnell and Cantor clown around, mugging for the camera, competing to ritually humiliate Obama, to dump ketchup on his head.

I don't think those students got their sandwiches the first day, but they won in the end.

Obama is winning. Democrats are uniting behind him, although some white progressives think that they could do the job better. Independents are flocking to him. Even some Republicans are getting disgusted with their Washington leaders. Obama is not telling us about lack of seriousness of the Congressional GOP; he is showing us the vivid contrast between what we expect of our leaders and their behavior. The last two and half years have been a revelation of the essential conflicts in our society and politics.

If white progressives understood much about the politics of the African American struggle in the United States, we would see Obama in the context of that struggle and understand him better. And you don't have to be African American to know something about the history of the African American struggle. The books and the testimony is there. It's not all freedom songs. But you have to be convinced that it is something that can teach you something you don't already know.

[mmonk]

11. True on their behavior. So why make deals with them or try?

They got the big enchilada with the tax cut extension which gave them full operational control. We have gone backwards. If they won't let him, then do no harm.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. Since Progressives are, essentially, color blind, we tend to forget

Obama is not. That's a wonderful piece, PS. I would love to have a link to the blog so I can bookmark it.

The Republicans know their base, and they know how to use your strengths against you. It's their forte. This is what they've been doing with Obama, and more importantly, us Liberals. They're using our color blindness against us, to beat Obama and make him look weak, resulting in across the board disenchantment. If a Liberal brings up that they're against the black man in the White House, we're immediately attacked for playing the race card. That usually shuts a Liberal up because we abhor racism...not knowing we did exactly what they wanted us to.

Progressives and Liberals alike, need to remember how Obama sees the world. Only then can we empathize with what he has to deal with, understand how he operates, and take away the club Republicans have been bashing us, and the President, over the head with.

[Pirate Smile]

15. It was a comment to a blog post. The link below posted it by itself & links to the original post.

I'm on my phone now and had trouble getting back to the original.

I thought it was interesting because I remember reading about how all (or almost all) the white alderman banded together to make it pretty much Impossible for the Mayor to govern. That sounds pretty damn familiar now & then, like now, it was done in an unprecedented way. He had managed to break through that after being reelected but then died of a massive heart attack soon after.

http://theobamadiary.com/2011/08/12/the-moral-high-ground/

I wish Dems could focus on the unprecedented obstruction during a time of crisis instead of aiming most of their venom at the person being obstructed.

[Cosmocat]

25. WELL SAID - 535 to 1

nm

[SusanaMontana41]

32. My problem with Obama isn't the obstruction.

That is the fault of the 'baggers.

My problem with Obama is that the obstructionists get rewarded for their bad behavior. Consistently. Obama has caved consistently. I know what the obstructionists stand for. What does Obama stand for?

[demgrrrll]

14. Teary eyed Bravo

[Pirate Smile]

16. Yeah, it is a great piece. It's nice to get that perspective even though it's kind of sad. People

need to stop acting like he is dealing with a normal Congress. He's not.

[BlueCaliDem]

17. I've been trying to say that for months!

But Progressives, being color blind themselves, pooh-pooh me. They automatically believe rightwingers and TeaBaggers are color blind, too. They're not. They're prejudiced, hateful, white supremacist racists (one on Huffington Post even assailed me telling me, since I'm Asian, that I'll never be as smart as a white woman! Really!) who hate Democrats with a passion, but who truly loathe the black man in their White House.

[loyalsister]

45. Very well said

I firmly believe Obama is a true believer in the ideology of MLK. He is all about unity and avoiding bitter conflict.

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. Martin Luther King Jr., Accepting Nobel Peace Prize, Dec. 10, 1964

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. Martin Luther King Jr., December 11, 1964

I have a dream that one day the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Now, I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Martin Luther King Jr., Speech at Civil Rights March on Washington, August 28, 1963

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. The difference is, MLK kept marching. When the KKK blocked the road

he didn't just say "OK, let's go home."

Everything he did was to transcend the opposition, not cave or surrender to it. If it meant some heads got cracked, if it meant he spent the night, or week, in jail, he went ahead and did it anyway.

He didn't cut a deal with evil.

[applegrove]

13. Unrecs? Really?

[BlueCaliDem]

18. Goes to show more DUers aren't what we think they are.

Unreccing this sane and sage piece shows what Democrats are up against. Post anything negative and derogatory about President Obama and it gets high recs. Post anything positive, or even remotely positive, and it's immediately unrec'd.

I guess he can do no good and they'd rather have a Republican back in the white house.

[Bluebear]

22. He got the exact form of health care he wanted

[lame54]

24. A real leader wouldn't wait for permission

[Cosmocat]

26. Really?

how, given our constitutional democracy, put this theory to work.

how, exactly does the EXECUTIVE branch not wait for permission from the legislative branch?

[Pirate Smile]

27. This is the ridiculousness that people have dreamed up and are attacking the President based on.

Ignore the constraints and obstruction. Just blame the President.

Republicans love it. They block the stuff and fools blame the President.

[lame54]

28. let's talk about ridiculous...

The repugs were demoralized after the election

Obama nursed them back to health with his RIDICULOUS calls for bipartisanship

now they are more vicious then ever because they sense his weakness and are acting on it

[Bluerthanblue]

29. no, the republicans weren't demoralized after the election- they

knew that the situation was one which would be impossible to manage. Do you REALLY think that they were behind McCain Palin???

Pres. Obama made no secret of his desire to work in a bi-partisan manner all throughout his campaign. The fact that the republicans are completely unwilling to do so, should have backfired on THEM- but we are doing a good job of making this about the "failure of the Democratic party" instead of pointing out the obvious.

It took the debt-ceiling issue to finally open some people's eyes, but the media is working hard to silence and down-play the fact that the republican/tea-party obstructionists would rather see this nation fail, than work together.

When we continue to stoke the "he-caved, he doesn't fight for "us"- we are working FOR the republican machine- imo.

edit to correct spelling

[Gin]

31. The death panel meme is making a comeback in a little different

theme....saw the ad stating the 15 member panel will be making medical decisions on what procedures seniors will be able to get....so...they will tie end of life to it...mark my words..

this panel was mentioned many times at a recent town hall in VA and now it's in the first ad I saw today.....

we need a counter point because there is a 15 member panel, with no medical background, making medical decisions in the bill....hmmm.......just like the insurance companies.

[Pirate Smile]

33. Republicans figured out before Pres. Obama was even sworn in that it is the fact that the

other party joins in supporting legislation that makes it "bipartisan" not whether the content of the deal actually includes both Democratic and Republican ideas. They decided to refuse to support ANYTHING the President was pushing so they could say it was one-sided, "extreme", left-wing, etc. even when it was something they had supported - such as the bipartisan debt commission that 7 Republicans had sponsored. They all refused to so the President had to do it through executive order.

Plus, because of the conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson & Blanche Lincoln, legislation got moved to the right anyway to get their support.

It is why so many Republicans who had supported parts of the Health Care Bill backed off and started spewing crazy-sh@#.

They also knew, as did all the economists, that recoveries after financial crises are much slower and more difficult then your standard recessions which are caused by interest rates getting too high.

The House passed more stimulus while Nancy was still Speaker but, of course, we couldn't get it through the Senate.

By not working with Dems on anything, they knew they could just throw spitballs until 2010 and then do everything they could to cripple the economy after that - which they have done.

This is truly the first time a party has aggressively sought to hurt the Country & its economy because they think it will help them politically. It's really treasonous. Then we have a segment of Dems who are more focused on bashing Pres. Obama 24/7 then going after Republicans. Quite the win/win for Republicans.

I can't believe that any Dem who actually watched Bachmann or Perry give their spiels over the weekend would still continue to focus on attacking the President and act like there isn't much different between him and them. People need to wake up. It is 15 months before the next election. Stop providing constant assists to Republicans by undermining the President.

[Bluerthanblue]

35. I agree- very well stated.

:hi:

It's essential that we work together. Now more than ever.

[Cosmocat]

43. Congrats on spewing the right wing talking point!

"weak"

And, "sense his weakness ..." Seriously, could you be any more of a right winger with that kind of thinking? This is the thinking they promoted with their hair brained "war on terrorism" crape and to justify Iraq.

The Tea Party grew out of NOTHING within three months of his taking office, and these morons were running around in public events with guns strapped to them withing 6 months of his taking office.

If you think they acted the way they did because of calls for bipartisanship, there is no trying to have a reality based conversation with you.

[Marrah_G]

30. I would like to know how the GOP managed to get hings passed when W was president.

Yet when we are in charge we end up somehow unable to pass anything even remotely liberal......... even when we have control of both house and senate. The republicans get RW policy passed on a continuous basis even when they are not in control.

This screams either incompetence or purposeful to me. It really has to b e one or the other.

Either they are greedy politicians who do what the corporations wsant them to OR we just continue to vote in very weak, spineless, ignorant people to represent us.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. the gop doesn't allow it's members to break ranks- at least

until the tea-party congress came in. Now, the gop is having a very difficult time achieving the solidarity that they've had for so long.

Dem's traditionally seem to be much more difficult to get to walk in lock step- which is good in some ways, (it shows a commitment to principals) but often bites us in the butt in the long run.

"herding cats" that description of trying to get the Democratic party to vote together is pretty appropriate imo.

[Marrah_G]

38. You make some really good points

I'm not sure how we are going to get anything to move to the left in the future.

[Pirate Smile]

36. They didn't get Social Security privatization passed. They got their tax cuts through by

by reconciliation. Both NCLB & the Prescription Drug Bill were supported by enough Dems to get it passed. The Prescription Drug Bill was a new entitlement - of course quite a few Dems supported it.

Don't forget that Bush got the benefit of a rally-round-the-flag episode that lasted a long time after the 9/11 attacks. That was only 8 months into his 1st term. His friggin incompetence got used as a way to try to shut up critics - and it worked for a long time.

President Obama should have gotten that when he stepped in as President while the country's economy was falling off a cliff but Republicans, being the assholes they are, refused to do it.

Also - the Democratic Party isn't "liberal" per se. More Democrats actually label themselves as moderates then liberals. The Party has to accommodate both. Republicans are mainly conservatives, not many moderates left.

When we had 60 votes in the Senate, for a couple of months, that meant we could get passed ONLY legislation that was "as liberal" as Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Lieberman, Landrieu.

We are not talking about a Senate full of Barney Franks, Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kuchinichs - it had to be OK'ed by Ben Nelson.

It is much easier to just stop legislation or try to keep it from getting funded (Republicans) then it is to create new programs or expand them to help more people (Dems) - especially to help people who tend to be disadvantaged and have little political power (poor, young, minorities, uninsured).

People need to deal with reality instead of imagining Bush getting everything he wanted and President Obama getting nothing accomplished. That is not true. We knew after Republicans took over the House that we were not going to be getting anything other then pure sh@# out of the House of Representatives. Let's focus on winning back the House and keeping the Senate & Presidency.

[Marrah_G]

37. I was reading through your post and thought it made some good points.

I was going to thank you and maybe have a good conversation. You pointed out some thing I had not considered.

Then I saw this: "People need to deal with reality" blah blah blah. That's all I see afterwards.

Insulting people as being stupid or not reality based because they see/saw things differently then you just stops all conversation.

:(

[Pirate Smile]

39. Sorry that that cut the conversation short. I just see a lot of Dems pushing a myth that is

demoralizing and damaging - and I sometimes lose patience with it. But I apologize for that comment.

We just need to stop the circular firing squad and aim at the Republicans - that includes me sometimes. :hi:

[Marrah_G]

40. Deal :)

I do the same sometimes. We need to find some way to not just get people with a D beside their name into office, but people who believe in liberal progressive values. It's so hard to primary conservative Dems, especially now with citizens united.

[Pirate Smile]

41. and even though the conservative Dems suck - they are still better then an R.

Blanche Lincoln sucked but was still better then the straight Republican vote that took her place.

I think that only works in red states where it is highly unlikely a more progressive Democrat could get elected - which is why Lieberman is so friggin annoying - there is no reason for a Connecticut Dem to act like he has.

Ben Nelson annoys me but I'd rather he keep his seat then a RW'er take his spot.

Manchin truly pisses me off but I try to ignore it because I know the alternative would be much worse.

[Marrah_G]

42. It still doesn't create any meaningful change though.

Someone asked in a thread recently, something to the effect of what is the endgame of voting for the lesser of two evils? And I have to agree...they keep moving to the right and we keep voting for "the lesser of two evils". Eventually our "Lesser of two evils" will be anyone a hair breath to the left of crazy woman Bachman and her husband.

[Pirate Smile]

44. It is better to have more Dems. They are reachable. Republicans simply are not.

edit to add - their votes re who controls the Senate are important and votes to end filibusters are also.

We may just disagree on this. I think it is still preferable to have Dems in those seats even if they are further to the right then I like.

[Marrah_G]

46. I think the only thing we disagree with is is who is reachable

... and how. A Canadian poster just sort of summed up my frustration here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1744765

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1739507

combined with the Citizens United ruling.

Our politicians will never make the really tough choices on anything as long as they are constantly trying to get re-elected and relying on corporate funds.

[PurityOfEssence]

47. They don't play fair. How hard is that to understand?

What the fuck is this guy's problem? What the fuck is the problem of his acolytes? He's dealing with obfuscatory assholes, and they'll never be anything less than that.

He's too much in need of being loved by everyone and following some idiotic chimera of transcendent bipartisanship. The nasty part is that the craving for bipartisanship is REALLY a need to be some extraordinary politician. When dealing with these guys, it's very simple: brute force and getting one's way. They will NEVER play fair. They don't think they should: they think that anyone with any different approach is a hateful enemy of civilization itself. They have no pluralist core like liberals; those of other philosophies are pure evil.

[grahamhgreen]

50. In sum: Obama = Anxiety / Republicans = Screwed?