I hope President Obama has learned something from recent events. He began calling out the Repubs on

[JohnWxy]

their contemptible tactic of sabotaging the recovery every way they can to deny the Dems a successful recovery from the Supply side disaster the GOP crafted. The President made about three gradually stronger statements, in the last of which he rightly referred to John Boehner's statements - since Boehner (regardless of McConnell's formal designation) is the leader of the GOP's war against Obama. Three speeches calling the Republicans on their malevolent politics of sabotaging the recovery. And yesterday Boehner blinked.

Burning the crops, laying waste the country

Hopefully, Pres Obama will learn from this and keep it up. He has a responsibility to go after those who are making our nation weaker in order to score a political victory. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge burned the crops in the fields to create havoc and improve their chances of taking over. The GOP are using the exact same tactic of destruction, making our economy and the livelihoods of millions of Americans collateral damage in their war against Obama. Actually, it's not Obama they hate. What's so disgusting to Republicans, is this idea that people count more than profits. (of course we need profitable enterprises. But there won't be enough profitable companies for a healthy growing economy, if people do not have enough money to spend to support these companies...that's as true in 2008 as it was in 1929). Maximizing the wealth of a few at the expense of the many will inevitably lead you off a cliff, whether it's 1929, or 2008.

As for President Obama, he needs to realize that the head of the party cannot function if it's cut off from the body - the Democratic Party's Liberals and it's liberal ideals. He compromised too readily, preemptively, giving up one third of the stimulus by converting it to tax cuts. During a depression, tax cuts to people who are afraid of losing their jobs, are not going to stimulate the economy with increased consumer demand. People will just hang onto any extra take home pay they get or use it to pay down their debt.

If he had not converted one third of it to tax cuts the stimulus would have been 50% LARGER. BTW, Christina Romer (along with every liberal and every reasonably intelligent economist), from the beginning, knew we needed a bigger stimulus package. But Pres Obama, seeking to avoid a fight, went with a smaller stimulus package, hoping to buy GOP cooperation. What did it get him? Three Republican Senators voted for it and now we have a mediocre recovery going. The stimulus package was inadequate (no surprise there) .. and now the ever diabolical Republicans, after doing everyting they could to weaken the stimulus, are attacking Obama for not achieving a stronger rebound (which given the severity of the Deregulation Depression was unlikely anyway - many economist have been saying for many months not to expect anything but a slow recovery which could take a couple of years).

MR. President, it's a little late, but I hope you have come to realize, the Republicans don't give a damn about anything except beating Democrats, no matter what the cost to the country. And the Liberals in the party???... they ARE the party. They are a big part of the 'enthusiasm gap' you may have heard about (of course the political strategist extraordinaire Mr. Gibbs, probably doesn't think this gap really exists - actually, he prefers to ignore it - rather than admit to being wrong.). So much for 'post-Partisan' politics and denigrating the very soul of the Party as the "professional" left.

[customerserviceguy]

1. Boner and McConnell are just playing good cop/bad cop

At least Boner is on the ballot this year, McConnell could give a flying crap what the President says about him.

[Recursion]

2. I think Obama has a sense of when campaigning works

Namely, in the run-up to an election.

While antagonizing Republicans the remaining 90% of the time might be fun, I don't think it would actually accomplish anything.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. There are multiple stations between campaigning and

praising them. For a year and a half, the President kept up with the bipartisan one way love fest, in which he called them honest, and they called him every name in the book, then he'd criticize some Democrats, and the Republicans would agree with him, then call him a Kenyan.
Your characterization of truth telling as 'antagonizing' is just a silly editorial leap. The man kept begging for them to 'come to the table' and claiming that they had wonderful ideas which we needed.
And of course, anyone with eyes can note that no matter what the President or other Democrats do, the Republicans will feel 'antagonized'. Criminals should feel antagonized, don't you think? Our rivals, do you think they we should empower them? Cast a blind eye at their wrongs, turn that page? Show me how that has worked so far. Did all the praise and bipartisanism lead to a non antagonistic Republican Party or did it lead to Rev Jones and Glenn Beckkk?

[JohnWxy]

6. It is precisely this attitude of worrying about "antagonizing Republicans" that I think is pointless

That's like worrying about antagonizing the Taliban or al Kaida. Republicans are already bent upon the fighting Obama and the Democrats at every turn. Their politics is the politics of destruction. There is no merit it appealing to their 'better' side. They have no better side.

The reason there is this enthusiasm gap is many Dems were at first, disappointed by Obama's precipitous compromises, later exasperated by his continued 'post-Partisanism' while Republicans have continued to work feverishly to undermine real progress and sabotage everything the Democrats have tried to accomplish.

If Obama would stop trying to befriend the beast that continues to knaw at his outstretched hand and instead started calling them on their perfidies, which are hurting our economy and millions of Americans, then you would see Democrats become roused from their malaise. Just recently he has started to do this. I applaud him for this. It's long over-due but I hope he will keep it up. Millions are waiting for him to 'get a clue'.

Being President, being a leader means being able, when necessary, to fight for what's right. Maybe Obama is afraid to commit himself to a stated goal because he doesn't want to be put in a position where he might have to compromise (sometimes compromise IS necessary to get something done) and thus give in on something he said he wanted. (you can avoid this by jumping to the compromise position right off the bat) But there is no shame in compromising ..IF YOU GAVE IT EVERYTHING YOU HAD trying to get what you wanted. Nobody should fault him for not getting everything he wanted -- if he really gave it a good fight in trying to achieve a certain goal.

FDR wasn't afraid to fight the Republicans for the good of the country. And the Republicans still hate him for it, while he is regarded as a hero by the rest of America. This is the kind of character Obama needs to find within himself. Sometimes we need a diplomat, sometimes we need a fighter. I think he could be this if he would, I believe, stop worrying about the possibility of failing to get everything he wanted. THere is no shame in compromise if you gave it a good fight (we don't REALLY think he is superman, do we?).

THat's my thinking anyway.

[Skittles]

3. it's called "ELECTION TIME"

[txlibdem]

4. President Obama will learn in 2012 how smart it is to appease the Rethugs and dis the base

Progressives and liberals will be the most energized and the most active during the primaries in 2012.

We needed another FDR, not someone who will "continue to include Republican 'good' ideas in any legislation" he signs, as Obama has publicly stated he will do. If the Republicans had ANY good ideas the nation would not be in this Depression. I think we'll get such a person from the primaries in 2012.

/edited for grammar.