General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf we give him a MANDATE, he'd better USE IT.
Starting to think landslide here, which means a mandate, which means he can pull a hard LEFT and MAYBE save the country...from itsself.
Your thoughts?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Right direction .
northoftheborder
(7,571 posts)but I suspect a slight left might be possible, if pushed, and if he has the congress
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Don't know why, unless they were really for someone else in the primaries, so weren't paying as much attention to Obama. He was definitely liberal, but not at all progressive. He never pretended to be. Progressives don't get elected President, so there's one clue.
He's more liberal than Bill Clinton, though, IMO.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)of those that paid attention before the 2008 election, especially those that read his books or substantial+ summaries knew he was too corporate friendly to be considered progressive.
The appointment of those who were from Wall St or had close ties to the financial industries just confirmed our judgment. On domestic, especially economic policy, he might be better than Clinton but as far as civil liberties and international relations, I don't think we're any better off.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)We put up with that, but now he has no excuse.
We won't have to wait long to see if he is willing to push harder for principles. The Bush tax cuts and the sequester both hit Jan 1.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)In the long run, this strategy will benefit the liberal agenda the best, as the nation overall is still quite conservative and liberal progress needs to be slow enough so that people can grow accustomed to it. If you try to go all in too soon, people will rebel and move to the other side (something like what happened in 2010 amid health care reform). If Obama went full liberal in his first 4 years and demanded abortion rights, forced a gay marriage law into Congress and such, huge amounts of people would vote straight-ticket Republican and all of those would be gone within a month of inauguration day.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Today people are more or less neutral about "Obamacare" (the big bogeyman the GOP railed against), which is why Romney almost never brings it up now. And when you poll on the individual benefits, you get something like 75 / 25 support for each of the main provisions.
Where were we in 2010? The bogeyman "Obamacare" was losing the PR wars badly. But when polled about the individual elements, other than the individual mandate, it had VERY strong support, at least 60/40.
We lost in 2010 because these centerists were pussies. They should be fighting for what is right. Or if you prefer, let's call it "aggressive education of the public". But Obama wouldn't do that. He had a plan that worked out for him personally, but it screwed the party and the country for these last 2 years.
I'm willing to set that aside and move forward, but I expect him to press the advantage we give him.
Hell, we couldn't even get him to say anything in support of the Wisconsin union efforts, ;let alone make a personal appearance in Wisconsin. And now we have Senate candidates in contention in Indiana and Arizona, running against the worst of the worst teabaggers, and he can't see fit to do anything to help them? What is that?
We are left to conclude that he really doesn't care if Democrats have a position of strength. In fact, I would go so far as to say, this confirms suspicions that many have had that he actually PREFERS to not be in a position to do much of anything. We have no choice, obviously, and he knows it.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Most people, except for activists working for a cause, are more comfortable taking steps toward something, rather than drastic change. Like sticking your toe in a chilly pool and gradually getting in.
I also think that O did almost his best in dealing with an obstructionist party who was willing for the citizens to suffer or any number of bad things to happen, all in an effort to stop Obama from getting re-elected. The right was taken over by the radical tea party, and as bad as the right was to Clinton (and they were horrible, spending millions to sue and impeach him), they were even worse to Obama.
Kindly Refrain
(423 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)He was as honest from the start as any politician can be. He was never a socialist, against the war in Afghanistan, anti-capitalism, etc. He was a pretty standard Democrat.
I was an Obama supporter early on. I watched many of his campaign speeches, and saw every debate. I was very clear on what he was, which was a standard Democrat. I liked that, actually. I didn't want a far left candidate...for one thing, a far left candidate can't get elected, IMO. His main opponent in the primary, though, was Hillary Clinton, who IMO was more of a centrist.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But if we force Congress to make progressive law, I'll bet he will sign it.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)and I think we have to vote for him based on what he is
saying NOW, and what we already know about him -- not
an expectation of what many wish he would do. And I'm
fine with that. (for now.)
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Truer words have not been written, and that's the real shame.
The best we can hope for is to get someone that won't work too hard against us.
As long as the people that run him are not threatened or inconvenienced in any way.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It sure wasn't blue dogs and fence-sitters that put him in a position to win. It is the net roots and a strong push from MSNBC that kept the progressive issues under continuous discussion. We have STRONG majorities (60-75%) for progressive issues across the board.
If that isn't enough to get him to do the right thing, I don't know what is.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It is true they regulate, but if you want real economic or political reform, it has to be done by Congress, and then the President can sign it. Obama, in any case, did not get where he is by being a wild-eyed reformer. Not everybody agrees about what the "right thing" is too, and Obama set out to be President of all the people. I want reform done in a proper way so it will stick.
So while I sympathize with your frustration, but I still think this is the best we are going to get.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Every Congressman and Senator is dependent on the government largesse that goes into their districts and states. The President has the power to deny any of that, insisting that he get legislative action that he wants.
It is not a dictatorship, so some compromise is required, but this guy has been unwilling to play "LBJ-ball" so to speak.
"If you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
Obama has them by the balls on the Bush tax cuts and the sequester. Let's see what he does with it. He needs to come out of that with a good jobs program -- a Stimulus II and an ironclad guarantee of funding to implement all elements of the ACA law.
Volaris
(10,269 posts)because THIS President is a man who understands that CONGRESS is the Governmental/political body that makes laws in this Country, and NOT the Oval Office. I would bet that if he were to have any particular MAJOR bitch about some law that a Liberal/Progressive Congress wanted to pass, he would either get it worked out ahead of time, or veto it for the purpose of sending it back to get fixed. Doesn't mean he's not a good Democrat, just means he understands the Branch Games that get played in the pursuit of Checks and Balances, like a good Constitutional Scholar damn-well should...even when these games sometimes make the rest of us close to crazy.
That having been said, I think he (if he wanted it later in life) might make a damn good Supreme Court Justice, ESPECIALLY in cases regarding the expressed/presumed Powers of the Executive. Any argument made on the basis of "keeping the Country safe", and he could just say "yeah...bullshit, I've been there, and this is NOT something you need. Fuck off and have a nice day."
DURHAM D
(32,607 posts)and sent some money directly.
WH good. Senate good. House maybe.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)If we get a fucked up... "Grand" Bargain... I'll be re-evaluating my future as a Democrat.
Time will tell.
But for now... it's Obama.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)that a team of people in the justice department has
been getting ready for a whole bunch of indictments
of all kinds, and investigations, and .. but it all had to
wait for second term. Which I think is valid, if it were
so.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Gives good dreams. I hope your dream comes true.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)It's just very hard for me to believe they are going to
let all the criminals skate.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
gateley
(62,683 posts)
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)I think the ruling class is being dismantled in front of our eyes, just that it's been done in an unfamiliar way that
hardly recognizable.
Not the classic decapitation drama, but pulling the rug veeeryy slowly and gently. 
most people are used to or wants drama all of the time, even when it comes to complicated issues they'll
rather have red meat yesterday than try to understand what is happening.
tama
(9,137 posts)
To be the soft green grass for fat bottom cheeks to drop on and sit down in softest comfiest landing ever. To join the grass roots pow-wow circle around the camp fire. And feel whole again.
DiverDave
(4,886 posts)shitter.
The "ruling class" will ALWAYS be on top.
Dismantling?
They are so imbedded they can never be moved out.
Always has been, always will be.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)that the ruling class will always be on top, that type of thinking is what makes it easier for them to use and
abuse the middle class, because there are those among us who seem to think or believe that the ruling class
can do no wrong and will always be above us, which gives them that control that enables them to stay in control.
With that type of thinking, there is no surprises then that some of us cannot see how they're been taken apart
bit by bit.
DiverDave
(4,886 posts)I agree that defeatist talk is just that, but until
someone gets something going...
I will be on the picket lines, but that does nothing to them.
The way to hurt rich people is to take their money away.
But when are we going to do that?
Never, thats when.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Prosecute the Bush Admin war criminals and the Wall Street banksters 
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)I don't think that will ever happen, I believe too many deals have been struck for that to occur.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)He will need to move to the Right because it's close (and with voter problems, ballot problems and all the RW will throw against us...the "Close Surprise" looms to intrude on our happiness with these astounding polls showing that Obama has a clear win and therefore we Dems should lay back and bask in the glory.
But, for Obama to use a Mandate would sort of cancel out how he didn't use his FIRST MANDATE to his advantage.
He was faced with a Banking Crisis...and they all got bailed out...but, the American People bailed the Banksters out...and with Second Term Obama (who I am voting for) we might find that another crisis might cause him to "compromise" with the American People to "chip in" once again.
Of course ROMNEY would be the Ultimate Coup.... Yet.......we need to really think about an OBAMA MANDATE...given his track record.
valerief
(53,235 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)prosecuting Wall Street FatCats.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)Just talk to the folks who work at Goldman Sachs where many of their donation checks went to in 2008.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)nt.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If you have some pertinent information, please specify.
pampango
(24,692 posts)"Back in 2008 Wall Street was split 40-60 Obama-McCain. Now it is split 10-90 Obama-Romney."
http://delong.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551f080038834016304a925a0970d-pi
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)the OP seem to think that Obama's campaign has generated more donations from Wall Street and your link
provides the answer for the OP to see that has not been the case.
Romney is way ahead in Wall Street donations in this 2012 general elections. I hope they see that instead
of coming up with made up facts.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)you still don't get it, isn't that the point everyone is trying to make to you? The link you provided shows donations from 2008 election, how does that compare to this election? Also, don't forget we're talking about donations from Wall Street.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)
unblock
(52,160 posts)obama came in as the first black president, and out of an excess of caution, felt he needed to prove himself a standard establishment president. he's done that, so a strong re-election with control of congress frees him to do more what he thinks is right.
moreover, he's in a position to do some nice things for the left without being overly obvious about it. he can make the health insurance law much more liberal by merely making some amendment, which the right-wing and the media can't characterize as a controversial new program. same goes for some financial reforms, just amend the dodd-frank / consumer protection act.
most importantly, the right has demonstrated themselves to be worse-than-useless partners, and if we win the trifecta and curtail the filibuster, then we don't need them.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)public option. Seriously who gives a good god damn what the republicans wanted in 2008 after they committed war crimes and looted our country?
I don't believe people really believe this story that he wanted to but thought he couldn't. He COULD have. the mandate we gave him in 2008 was CLEAR.
CHANGE.
there was no reason for a single republican to be in his cabinet. period.
People stood in the rain for 10 hours to vote for change.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)so why waste time with what they have to say or do?
unblock
(52,160 posts)unblock
(52,160 posts)but THAT would indeed be a mandate -- and they best start by severely curtailing the filibuster.
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)...lets not go on another second without recognizing the de facto senate rule changes the GOP has enacted by itself
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)It has been used and abused to stop any progress in this country just because the president isn't a Republican, and it's hurt the American people.
The Senate filibuster must go the way of the House filibuster - gone forever.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)A filibuster is a debate on the floor, not such a bad thing to happen. But I don't recall the repugs ever filibustering really. just threatening to.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Here is an interesting article regarding the filibuster:
Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."
To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.
As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."
The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.
"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."
And cloture requires 60 votes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html
Even if ONE Republican senator threatens a filibuster, it's enough to grind the senate to a halt because if the Democrats force a filibuster, the above is the result.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)There could be on republican as you say, and 30 dems. It would all be recorded. It is even possible that the dems could convince enough repugs to get cloture. We'll never know. they just cave. Remember the Dem filibuster? It was rather beautiful.
valerief
(53,235 posts)unblock
(52,160 posts)
Aeroette
(97 posts)I don't understand why they haven't already gotten rid of it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)is the reason why they haven't yet gotten rid of it, but I believe he's had an epiphany since January 2010. He's not a person to be publicly irate about anything, but I've seen him lose his cool a couple of times already (in the form of open exasperation), and I believe he's finally ready to do the right thing and get rid of the filibuster, just as the House had done back in 1890.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)
Cary
(11,746 posts)That accomplished absolutely nothing. In fact it probably contributed to 2010. It was an exercise in rank stupidity.
You have to be real careful with "hard LEFT." A little bit goes a long way. If you want to really make things happen you need to think frog in boiling water, if you know what I mean.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Selatius
(20,441 posts)A lot of more liberal folks were underwhelmed with the nature of the Stimulus Act as well. It was big on special interest tax cuts and subsidies and then came infrastructure spending and very few pennies for an FDR-style jobs program if anything. The lack of a major jobs program to restart the economy probably just meant it would take much longer for the economy to get going again than it possibly could have. The extension of the Bush tax cuts for a temporary extension of unemployment benefits was a big concession to Republicans that was also hard to accept.
All of this made it hard to invigorate a Democratic base to come out and vote. They wanted a clear break from this kind of politics. What happened was a bit less, in my guess. The Republicans had no problem turning out their base. All they had to do was mention that Obama was black, and they already had 30% of their base come out on that. Mention God, guns, and gays, and you have all of them coming out like the good little Germans they are.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)and Obama won't be able to couch his corrupt actions in a need for bipartisan consensus.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I haven't agreed with the President on everything he's done (or not done), but I certainly would never consider him corrupt.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)he uses what we all knew to be unlawful as well as immoral when it was decreed, the bush doctrine, to excuse his crimes.
That's just one.
tama
(9,137 posts)Speaking about systemic corruption of US government, Obama economic team was like, duh, a "hint" in your face?
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)where the hell did you get that from?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)Lets not start FUDr and GOPr memes again with majority congress shit without the recognition of filibuster abuse!
treestar
(82,383 posts)
flamingdem
(39,312 posts)and I'm not looking forward to hearing it after the election.
Meanwhile who is demanding and who is working on the results?
jorno67
(1,986 posts)Rush Limbaugh listening, Non thinking Americans get out and vote.
Lets win this first...then worry about a Mandate. No reason to load their guns for them...
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Radical change only leads to a moderate republican or imaginary moderate like Jeb in 2016 finding that opening.
And I am one who believes Obama already has given us major change not seen since 1964-1968. Obama already is one of the greatest presidents.
Little by little one makes things better and better. One has to realize change takes a long time, and its generational. One needs to make things better and show the majority that better has occurred, leading to more democrats in 14 and 16 and 18 and 20 and forever more.
Leading to an 8 to 1 Supreme Court by 2024. (Meaning it would take forever to switch things back.)
The one thing I personally would like to happen in a 2nd Obama term-
I would though like to see 100% amnesty and a quick path to citizenship(say within one year) for any and all who want it.
And after 2014 provisions of health care kick in, then see how much better we can make it
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)wins the day otherwise there'll be a Republican president after 2016, and he, like GWBush, can undo a lot before it can take effect to the point people will "feel it".
Also, Scalia and Kennedy are "only" around 80 and still pretty much going strong. I know Justice Ginsberg will retire in President Obama's second term, but those two just might hold out for a Republican president, so we need to ensure there won't be one anytime soon until those two step off the bench and retire.
We need to keep the Senate and House, and we need to do away with the filibuster in the Senate (just like the House did). I know a lot of people would balk at that idea, arguing that there's the possibility that the Senate will return to Republican control in the near future, but that's just the price the American people will have to pay for voting for Republicans. Democrats won't abuse the filibuster rule the way the senate Republicans have, so the rule should go.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)To me, it is unequivocally to the right.
Do you disagree?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Given that someone like Bernie Sanders, who would have been a mainstream Northeastern Democrat in the '60s, is viewed as a "radical" today, while most of today's national Democrats would be in the center or even to the right of the Republican Party of the '60s or even '70s, I would agree that there has been a very noticeable rightward shift.
rug
(82,333 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 07:21 AM - Edit history (1)
Cha
(297,023 posts)or any of these Accomplishments?
What has Obama Done? Here Are 200 Accomplishments! With Citations
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html
Oh, and please tell me how advocating for Gay Marriage is Center Right?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The Center-Right is occupied by people in both parties who are basically neo-liberals with moderate social views. That doesn't make them bad people, just Center-Rightists.
Cha
(297,023 posts)Progressive. He actually gets things done and that's PROGRESS.
Many people are being helped by ObamaCare.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Two very different concepts.
Cha
(297,023 posts)Plutocratic Opposition since 2010. See links with citations, above.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Our job in the netroots is to remind them of that, and not to forget it ourselves.
andym
(5,443 posts)
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Interspersed amongst the "yes, that would be nice" posts are the:
Set the bar - control of the House and Senate.
Set the bar higher - filibuster proof control of the House and Senate.
Set the bar even higher and then light it on fire - make sure all the people in the country are happy with what he does with the filibuster proof Congress . . . and oh, let's not forget SCOTUS!
It is one of the most amusing aspects of DU - the constant fight to justify both what does happen (the President did it, even though Congress tried its best to stop him!) and what doesn't happen (well, the President can only do what Congress lets him do - what DO you people expect?).
The President, like those before him and those that will come after, is a politician. He'll do what is politically expedient, as he has up to now. The most I hope for is that this term, since it will be his last, he will push that envelope a little bit and take a chance or two.
Ants. Rubber tree plants. High hopes.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
porphyrian
(18,530 posts)Indykatie
(3,695 posts)Why would we expect a hard turn to the right? I don't but then that's just me I guess. I think Obama has done much to satisfy me as a liberal Dem but I understand that's not the case with others of the liberal persuasion.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)is far more liberal than Obama. Polling questions minus obvious party markers make that obvious (to me anyway).
If--big if--this 47% meme actually makes some (other) people wake up, we could see a big move to the left by the "center."
Hope springs eternal.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I suspect the House will remain in puke control and the Senate could move to their control. Either way the pukes in the Senate will block anything he tried to do. We are in gridlock territory. Until the Dems have control of the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, very little will happen.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)"keeping our powder dry" ring any bells? Just quit pretending that the Democrats want things to change, they have been given the power to change time and time again, and each time they have chosen to prevent it.
You want change? Get 100% of the existing Democratic leadership out, make a Democratic tea-party. As long as we tolerate our party being controlled by status quo, ruling class warriors, we will never be allowed to change anything. This is, after all, working out very well for them.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)All of the excuses that people make for our self serving leadership makes me sick.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Republican believe that fucking over other people to get more for yourself is a good thing. They believe that it is every republican's god-given right to impose white christian values (whatever they may be at any given moment) on any/everybody else and that it is further their right to kill, maim, or torture anybody that doesn't agree with that. And they believe that America is the very best of all possibilities ever, always has been, and always will be, regardless of facts.
But the Democrats are just the alternative. The True Party Faithful are prepared to excuse any action or position, no matter how bad, wrong, or unlawful, simply because the republicans are bad.
OSPREYXIV
(74 posts)FDR was not beholden to them.
We must understand how our political progress has been hijacked by a class of master criminals who are deviously subtle. Using media and the press to spew double-speak and double-think. Orwell's Big Brother in pinstripes. They are capable of ANYthing and operate by decades, not quadrenially because they can afford to do so.
We cannot.
They are terrified of us because they would be
brought to justice if enough of us understood how strategies work. The struggle will begin on the first Wednesday in November.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)
Skittles
(153,137 posts)perhaps the realization he won't be running for re-election will light a fire
krawhitham
(4,641 posts)phiddle
(789 posts)1. STRONG voting rights legislation including requirements for voter-verified ballots and open-source software to curtail the shenanigans we've seen since 2000. Throw in filibuster reform.
2. Tax justice issues: BIG increase in the personal exemption, no favored treatment for capital gains income, take the caps off of FICA, Financial Transactions (Toobin) Tax
3. Aggressive promotion of energy conservation and non-carbon energy sources.
kentuck
(111,069 posts)After the Bush disaster.
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)that's not enough for Democrats. The Dem Party is a big tent and has more people who don't fit a precise mold. It has blue dogs, yellow dogs, all colors of dogs. So to have a majority for Dems, you need a super majority. Some Dems are likely to vote with Republicans, if a bill is too far left or controversial (lest progressives hate them, remember that their districts are conservative; if the rep weren't a blue dog, then he'd be a Republican, so the rep has to keep that in mind, AND he IS a moderate-conservative Dem, not just acting like one).
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Not only did the President do everything he could to appease the Republicans but the blue dog/DLC/third way assholes in the senate scuttled whatever good shit the house sent them.
Forget about ever having a true progressive agenda going through. Yeah, the entire Republican party are bought out whores but so are most of the people in the Democratic party. The best we can hope for is a slower move to the right. We always move to the right, no matter what.
Oh, we might get some social things but economically it's all corporate, anti-labor horseshit.
I hate to be a wet mop in the middle of our happy time but things are what they are.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)as if we make the real heads of the party turn left, and by that, I mean the Clintons. As long as the Blue Dog Clintons are in power,no one will dare cross them.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and it's gotta be done before the mid term elections.
Also - decent wages for "dirty jobs" where people are extremely important and you can tell when they don't show up - those without college educations. All people need a home, a car and food - and if their work has any value, dammit, they should be paid for it.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It can't. That's what the health reform act was about, and it is concluded for now. It hasn't even been fully enacted yet. No legislator will be willing to go through the same pain again, trying to pass a SECOND health reform act. And the people would be in no mood to go through that fight. Not when the economy is struggling to get on track.
A raise in the min. wage would be great, IF they exempted teens. Teens can't get hired for the min. wage these days; it's too high for a kid. Yet they need to work to save for schooling, help with family finances, pay for car ins., buy a used car, etc.
Mainly, I want the economy to keep growing, for jobs to increase, house values to go up, interest rates to go up (for retirement accounts). That would help everyone.
I want a modest tax increase on the wealthy.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)or going without it. Employers balk about paying it.
The economy cannot grow unless something is done in January 2013. You'll see....I know it will happen...
People will take chances taking new jobs, moving, getting more schooling, but they need the assurance that they are covered by something...
have faith, keep sending them emails...
Employers don't want to pay for health care - single payer will take them off the hook . . .
More people going for health care means more nurses, doctors, buildings, equipment, testing, billing, etc., it's an economy all of its own..
hughee99
(16,113 posts)there was a number of Democrats that had to be pressured or "bribed" to go along even with that.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Remember, a black man can't be elected president - have you already forgotten that miracle?
Obama is a man of miracles. He amazes me.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Pride cometh before a fall.
Raine
(30,540 posts)going by the past. 
onenote
(42,658 posts)And what is your prediction for the House and the Senate, because there's a limit to what the President can do when Congress is closely divided.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)This is exactly why the Public Option was eliminated in the health care bill. Right-wing Democrats objected to its inclusion.
For left-wing legislation, you need a rebuilt New Deal Coalition. Those are the Democrats you need. Those were the ones who passed into law the Social Security Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and provided funding for programs such as the WPA, the PWA, the CCC, and a whole host of other programs including the earliest food stamp programs that provided help to unemployed Americans and the helpless.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Is the reverse true also?
I mean, if Romney wins but we still have a majority (or even a minority with more than 40 senators), does that mean we could expect that Romney's agenda would by stymied?
Why is it that the Dems need a perfect bullet-proof majority in both houses in order to move to the left but the same logic does not apply for the reverse situation?
Selatius
(20,441 posts)Play a game.
Let's say to get a bill passed, you have 100 cents. You must let the other player split the pile of pennies into two piles--one for yourself, the other for himself.
The problem is if you're dealing with a faithless negotiator, he'll take 99 cents and leave you with just 1.
The 1 penny, for example, represents the health care bill, without the Public Option. You are the only player that was forced to change strategy to get something passed, anything that you could grasp at and call progress. The other player held the same strategy throughout the whole exercise: Obstruction.
If both players are in the mood to cooperate, a lot more could get done. You could've been looking at a 52 to 48 split if you were dealing with Goldwater Republicans, but that's not what your other player was. Your other player was a total whore of Wall Street.
See, to get a bill passed, you're going to have to go through the gauntlet of people in office who don't want the bill passed, so you are at the disadvantage of making concessions to win their vote. On top of that, you have other members who are threatening all progress by filibuster.
In other terms, a lot of people are getting paid precisely to avoid liberal legislation or at least try to water it down. The wealthiest donors, for the most part, are right-wingers in favor or corporatism, collusion between state and big business. Liberals were never so rich as a group. To make it worse, some of the members who were threatening to side with Republicans were fellow Democrats.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)do we keep forking over the 99 cents to get our 1 penny?
Selatius
(20,441 posts)The most direct solution would be publicly funded elections, but the Supreme Court would likely strike such a proposition down. The dominant interpretation on the Court is that the ability to influence elections by spending cash is a 1st Amendment protected activity. Corporations are legal persons afforded 1st Amendment protection, and they have astronomical amounts of cash to spend.
So ... to get a truly competitive public funding campaign mechanism into place without actually stripping away the idea that cash = freedom of speech, you would need a system that gives a lump sum to a prospective candidate who meets the qualifications for public financing and then is given further infusions of cash if he or she is outspent by an opponent running strictly on private donations.
In fact, Arizona does this for state level offices; however, in the now infamous Supreme Court case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that a publicly funded candidate getting matching funds if outspent by a privately funded opponent was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it had the effect of encouraging the privately funded candidate to spend less rather than more because the publicly funded candidate would simply get matching funds anyway, and this was seen as an infringement on the free speech of a privately funded candidates.
You need a constitutional amendment putting publicly funded elections into law. It must be specific and it must outline all rules necessary in order to give as little legal room for the Courts to misinterpret. To do that, you need 2/3rds in the House, 2/3rds in the Senate, and 3/4ths of all state legislatures voting in the affirmative to pass this amendment into law.
You need a supermajority. This likely requires two or perhaps more lifetimes to do.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)politics and other events. It takes away the wailing and gnashing of teeth and finger pointing. And most CTs.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)since he already has used the mandate he was given in 2008.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Right now we are not predicted to even win back the House yet. I seriously doubt a Repub House is going to be responsive, let alone a coalition of blue dog type Dems in the House.
One step at a time. These are not landslide #'s, they are perhaps 2008 #'s. A Landslide is 1988 electorally or 1984 popular vote and electoral college.
W. said in 2004 he had a mandate but he did not have enough of the popular vote for that.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But if we can get Obama elected, we can become active in the party and make sure that the next candidate is at least slightly more to the left than Obama, more progressive.
Obama has done a lot of things very well, but I would like to see a president who can bring some order and control into the financial sector. I would like to see a federal reserve that responds to the people and not just to the banking class.
Also I would like to see less privatization of traditionally public, government functions.
The private sector should manufacture and sell products in sectors that benefit from competition.
Competing for a government contract -- or automatically getting a government contract because its specifications were written for your company is not competition.
The government can do things best in areas in which real competition is not efficient or at best a joke -- like schools, like the military, like police and fire services, like courts and so many other traditionally public institutions and functions.
But we would have to have someone with a far more liberal philosophy than Obama to just get that one change back to the traditions that made us a great country. Oddly, what I am suggesting is deeply conservative. It's the conservatives that are far too radical about privatization.
tama
(9,137 posts)By Obama appointments:
"Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, reported on the stay late Monday and acknowledged that both Forrest and Lohier were appointed to the court by President Obama."
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/
B Calm
(28,762 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)think exactly as you do?
Who is this "we" that has a single agenda for the president?
And who says the president can accomplish everything without Congress?
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)In another thread yesterday I posted this:
Come November 7th,
Obama will be in the white house, and hopefully more Dems in congress. But the religious right, purveyors of war, Wall street elite and the army of corporate lobbyists aren't about to give up. Casting a ballot is an essential first step in preventing a Republican catastrophe, but thats only the beginning.
Come November 7th, push left. Push HARD left, and keep pushing, so that maybe if we're lucky we'll see something that resembles what used to be the center. On Nov 7 2016, it might be Jeb smiling and waving, so a lot of work must be done before then.
The president and congress (and likely a supreme court pick) must be pushed leftward to address:
the environmental crisis that we are in.
They must be pushed left to restore civil liberties that have been eroded over the last 11 years.
They must be pushed left to create jobs that are sustainable and meaningful.
They must be pushed left to accept that 'market based solutions' and trade agreements are creating an extreme amount of wealth for the very few, and are simply a re-branding of "trickle down" economics.
They must be pushed left to accept that capitalism as we know it is deeply flawed and getting worse, and band aids aren't enough anymore.
As individuals it is incumbent upon each one of us to hold elected representatives feet to the fire. It is also incumbent upon every person to reevaluate whether their worth is calculated by the contents of their wallets, or the contents of their hearts. Every person who has a stake in the future should start realizing the status quo is crashing, and its up to us to decide whether we want to crash and burn, or manage a soft landing.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)so many people here already thinking about what they plan to complain about for the next four years.
I applaud people who have the smarts to plan ahead.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Can't protest the rightward march now, because it's an election!
But let's start already smearing those who plan to work for and hopefully force change after Obama is re-elected.
Civil rights, schmivil rights. Indefinite detention, for-profit prison systems, surveillance state....get used to it. Endless war? No problem! Protecting corrupt banks and impoverishing the 99 percent? Aw, quitcher whining! And you will be cheering along with the rest of the right wing when Obama signs the chained CPI and raises the Medicare eligibility age after the election....even though desperate seniors are choosing between food and medication as it is.
What a constant, reeking pantload this claiming to be Democrats is....the utterly absurd Third Way claims to care about the same Democratic principles and values as the rest of us.
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe with something more specific than 'civil rights, schmivil rights'.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The post I responded to issued a blanket, smearing insult toward everyone in this thread seeking any sort of citizen participation and attempt to push this party into representing them.
Many issues are mentioned in this thread, but the post I responded to did not single out any of them. The post did not attempt to explain why raising even a single one of them should be met with this kind of sneering condescension and insult. The post merely spewed. It issued a blanket, vapid smear of anyone who would ever question anything this government is doing or attempt to gain some voice in the second term.
The post was a perfect illustration of the arrogance, the authoritarianism, and the utter contempt the Third Way has for Democrats who care about the rightward shift of our party.
Your kneejerk response here, and your utter failure to grasp the irony of what you just wrote, only underscores the problem.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)There was no "blanket, smearing insult toward everyone in this thread seeking any sort of citizen participation and attempt to push this party into representing them."
It was an observation that many posters in this thread, who have done nothing but complain since Obama took office, are already whinging about what he won't be doing to their satisfaction in his second term - and he hasn't even been re-elected yet.
If you truly believe that complaining on a message board about positions that haven't been taken yet, and policies that have not been advanced, equates to "citizen participation and an attempt to push this party into representing them", you're even more politically ill-informed than I initially thought.
Word to the wise: Affixing negative labels like Third Wayer to everyone who disagrees with you is a clear indication that you have nothing else, and certainly nothing of substance to add to the discussion. That Label-Maker shit was worn out a long time ago - and your insistence on still using it is a sad commentary on your inability to see beyond your own obvious limitations.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)gets dragged out again. Third Wayer, DINO, conservadem, corporatist, yadda, yadda.
This thread is full of people already planning their complaints about things that haven't happened. And if those things don't happen, they'll find something to complain about anyway.
But cheer up! Maybe you'll get a new Label-Maker for Christmas - your present one is pretty worn out by now.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)to make sure that labels on parties, like "liberal," "democratic," or "representative of the people" mean nothing, it makes sense that the voices of those who actually expect the Democratic Party to stand for something would elicit nasty, authoritarian posts like the one you have written here.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
It's an old song, Summer, and it's an ugly one. Words mean things. The Third Way stands for certain very ugly policies, although they desperately try to avoid admitting it. It's the old Third Way messaging problem. You can only claim to stand for certain values and principles, while actively pursing policies that diametrically oppose them, for so long before people will call out the bullshit.
You can't explain or justify your blanket, all-encompassing, contempt-filled smear of anyone who might wish to have a voice or influence policy during Obama's second term. Frankly, your posts illustrate all by themselves, much better than my hypothetical "labelmaker" ever could hope to do, the utter contempt for voters and the rank authoritarianism of this right-wing, neocon infestation of our party.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)that by labeling people, they become what you have called them. That is laughable - and you know it.
Please provide links to any comments I have made on this message board that identify me as Third Way, or being sympathetic to their policies. There are none - and you know that, too.
"You can't explain or justify your blanket, all-encompassing, contempt-filled smear of anyone who might wish to have a voice or influence policy during Obama's second term."
Again, any links? No, of course not. I have made no such comments.
What I remarked upon in my first reply on this thread is the fact that it is filled with comments like, "He'll never do such-and-such. Don't hold your breath. We're screwn no matter what," etc.
That doesn't sound to me like people who are planning ways to have their voices heard in Obama's second term. What it DOES sound like is people who enjoy complaining, and have no intentions of doing anything else but.
Like I said, there's nothing like planning ahead. Get those whines in early. Not only is it non-productive, it's downright counter-productive. But for some, it's all they've done for the past four years, and it is obviously all they plan to do over the next four.
Marr
(20,317 posts)If Obama wins by a huge margin, it will be proclaimed a ringing endorsement of Third Way leadership, and proof that the party much walk rightward.
If he lost, the explanation would be that he was just too liberal, and paid too much attention to liberals, and the only way forward is rightward.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)to issue threats and what not to our not yet elected Dems. Gonna take a lot of work to get a Dem Congress. And by "work" I don't mean posts on the tubes.
Come & join the effort, invest your time and talents, and help make the mandate happen. Then you can get all pissy and stuff if things don't go your way far more convincingly.
Julie
porphyrian
(18,530 posts)...Congressional seats as we can.
mathematic
(1,434 posts)Somehow, both the left and the right think Obama is a secret socialist. Additionally, but not specifically related to policy, the right thinks he's a secret muslim and (some of) the left think he's a secret atheist (usually with something like "he only does religious stuff for the political value"
.
I'm absolutely convinced that nearly all people, regardless of political stripe, believe what they want to believe.
Obama is not a leftist. There wouldn't be a hard left turn if he won with 80% of the vote. If a moderate gets a mandate it's not evidence that there is a mandate for leftism. Why would anybody believe otherwise?
sendero
(28,552 posts)... so don't get your hopes up.
And for those echoing the tired incorrect refrain that Obama is not a progressive, well I see that now but in the 2008 campaign he DAMN SURE TALKED LIKE ONE and the speeches are out there for anyone who cares to dispute that to see.
Cha
(297,023 posts)The defeatist posse likes to make its presence well-known everyday here.
They think others can't see through their vote suppressing efforts, but it's not working.
Cha
(297,023 posts)but, it doesn't keep Progress from moving
[font color=blue][font size=21pt]F
RWARD![/font][/font]
neen
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Grand Bargain II after the election!
It's especially ironic that we get this leftward turn in rhetoric before every election, given the insulting and ludicrous mantra we are fed the rest of the time....that liberal policies just aren't feasible because the country wouldn't accept them!
coldwaterintheface
(137 posts)We best hope he does not offer up cuts to SS or Medicare again or the Pubs will take it this time so he can get his grand bargin.
At least it will be bipartisian!
