You really think President Obama is going to let a Rand Paul have his way?

[bigtree]

There's no effin' way that this Democratic President is going to let any of this extreme republican crowd get it's way with their batshit crazy extreme agenda. The nuts in the republican party are going to have more influence to make their nutty ideas the staple of their party's agenda. They'll put their wackiness ahead of the public's business and the republican party will be defined by the weirdos they've managed to elect.

It looks like we're going to hold the Senate and we've elected some good folks, but it's still going to be a gateway for parts of the conservative agenda; much of it passing with some of our Democrats holding the door open. That's not a new thing, but it makes the Senate a bit less certain as a wall against what the House produces - and the nuttiness that will come out of there if republicans are in control . . .

That makes puts the President in a familiar role for Democrats, as the last barrier against the republicans' extreme - and this cycle, nutty - right-wing agenda. The republicans are going to come out of the gate with absolutely no new ideas for solving the problems Americans face; nothing other than their promise to put a halt to the progress that's been made unraveling the mess their party left behind the last time they controlled the agenda.

There will not be ANY significant rollback of the President's health reform law. The republicans can drag their feet on appropriations for portions of the emerging reforms, but when many of its provisions kick in early next year, it will be like trying to take away medicare or social security. They're playing with life and death when they snip and grab at health benefits for their political gratification.

Moreover, the President is going to be standing in their way with his veto pen. After one or two, they modify their priorities and tire of pushing bills just to see them thrown back at them. It's still a bleak prognosis for any real progress on the issues that we all care about, but we still have a democratic President in place to bar these republican nuts from littering the landscape with their extremely nutty agenda.

[polichick]

1. Hopefully the prez is done "reaching out." nt

[kath]

40. I doubt it. Just tonight, on another thread, someone said that Tim Kaine said some more of the same

bs about bipartisanship, "reaching across the aisle" or some similar stupid fucking bullshit.
They. Refuse. To. Get. It.

[Catshrink]

He'll try to make friends and sing Kumbaya.

And strive for bipartisanship, etc.

[Lorien]

4. Sadly so. nt

[dionysus]

17. will you ever cut the shit? seriously?

[LibDemAlways]

38. I have a feeling if I downed a shot every time he says "bipartisanship"

or "reaching across the aisle" tomorrow at his press conference, I'd be shitfaced in a hurry.

If he had squashed these cockroaches from the get-go instead of playing footsie with them, the outcome tonight might well have been different.

[RiverStone]

2. If it brings out the fight in President Obama - that would rock! n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

5. Don't hold your breath. Obama hasn't shown much fight

in the past 22 months. You expect change now????


TG, NTY

[RiverStone]

14. The CHANGE has already happened!

Obama now has to deal with a red House; and he has not had crazy bigot TPers to contend with in government.

I expect Obama will take off the gloves for how can you negotiate with the Rand Pauls of the world???

And if Obama plays buddy with them, the Dems will front a challenger from within our own party in 2012.

[dionysus]

19. even now you campaign against the dems. weak.

[Tansy_Gold]

27. I am not fucking campaigning against the Dems

I am pointing out that Obama hasn't stood up to the Republicans when he had a solid majority in both houses of congress. I'm not really hopeful -- pun intended -- that he's going to suddenly do so now. Okay?

I am not now and I have not been campaigning against the Democrats. I voted for every fucking Democrat I could find on my ballot in Apache Junction, Arizona this morning. There were offices where there were no Democrats running.

I am a registered Democrat -- even though my politics lean further to the left than that.

And I am fucking sick and tired of every single criticism of the President being greeted with this same lame-ass crap -- "Oh, you're supporting the Republicans!" "Oh, you really wanted McCain to win."

No, god fucking damn it, I did not want McCain to win. I did not want Giuliani to win, or Huckabee or Romney or Palin or O'Donnell or Paul or any of the other right wing lunatics who are out there.

But President Barack Obama has shown me too damn little eagerness to stand up to the relatively moderate Republicans he's had to deal with the past 21+ months, and I don't hold out much hope that he's suddenly going to wake up and realize he's lost the biggest portion of his support. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives PASSED a lot of his legislation. The Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate couldn't seem to budge much. Even some of the Democratic Senators sat on legislation and nominations.

Now he's got to deal with John Boehner calling the shots and setting the agenda. Now he's got to deal with (the distinct possibility of) Rand Paul filibustering EVERYTHING. Every. Fucking. Thing.

I want the god damned Democrats to GOVERN, and I want them to do it as Democrats, not as wimps. And when I think they are or are going to wimp out, I think I have a right to say so.

But I guess that's not good enough for you, is it? You wany my blind and absolute and unquestioning and uncritical loyalty and praise, don't you? Is your own faith in Obama so fragile that it can't stand up to a little honest and sincere and LOYAL criticism?

Then I'm sorry, I'm truly sorry. And if this post gets pulled, well, at least this time I'll know to save a copy of it beforehand.


Tansy Gold, Not Tombstoned Yet

[Naturyl]

41. + infinity

Give 'em hell. :)

[Tansy_Gold]

44. I tell the truth and they think it's hell.

And you ain't seen nothin' yet.


TG, NTY

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. WooHoo!

:applause: :yourock: :thumbsup:

[bigtree]

28. why would he give up more now?

We may well see less done than he promised, but that won't be because he wants it that way. The republican agenda is to chip and strip away planks of what the President has already accomplished. Why would he assist them in that?

Moreover, TG, the President is up for re-election tomorrow. The republican voters have just provide him the best platform he could imagine with their loquacious, but functionally muted, House and their vacuous, inane agenda. This is a familiar position for our party. We're well accustomed with using the Senate as our bat against the republican agenda.

Of course, I expect that the pace and direction of change will go back to a defensive tug, but the Democratic Senate and presidency are going to be able to dictate the form of whatever manages to become law. That's not something to celebrate, but it's a good hedge in our continuing fight to preserve and enact our progressive agenda. I do realize that's weak tea for many folks, but politics has always been a long haul in my estimation. One election cycle in America is a challenge to the next one. That's about all we've got in our system of government. We've got a fight in place, so we'll get on with it, with some advantages.

[Tansy_Gold]

29. "Democratic Senate and presidency are going to be able to dictate..."

Excuse me, bigtree, but have you seen any signs over the past 21+ months that the President and the Democratic Senate have been dictating a "progressive" agenda?

I don't want to be rude, and I will do my best not to be, but seriously, what's been "progressive" about most of the major legislation passed by this Congress under this President?

Is the economy any closer to being "fixed" than it was on 1/21/09? I'm not talking about a few thousand jobs picked up here and there -- I'm talking about any legislation that's designed to really FIX the major problems of our corporatist "economy" whose only goal is to make scads of money for the already wealthy while the rest of us scratch? What's been done about the mortgage mess? Where's the real consumer lending protection?

One thing that bothered me throughout this recent campaign: Why weren't the Dems campaigning on the strenght of their so-called Health Care Reform package? The teabaggers really campaigned on its repeal, and we may very well see that (which in my mind wouldn't be all that bad since it was such a piece of shit anyway), but there was no major push on the part of the Democratic candidates on the fabulous merits of Obama's "signature" legislation.

Look at my post of 11/24/08 and the response that was included on it regarding middle-class tax breaks and enacting Obama's promises to make sure the wealthier pay their share, and how, to quote the essence if not the verbatim text, "all we have to do is let the bush tax cuts expire." Obama can't even get his Dem Senate to do that.

Yeah, you're right. We've got a fuckin' fight on our hands, and the worst of it is that our leader doesn't seem too terribly willing to lead us into battle.

Unlike Sarah Palin, Tansy Gold is not a quitter. I may get discouraged and I may sometiems secretly wonder what the fuck I'm doing, but I'm still here, and I'm still fighting, even if it's only on DU. Sometimes I'm not sure Barack Obama would even do that much.


TG, NTY

[bigtree]

30. I'll just say, Tansy

. . . there certainly is a progressive agenda and progressive policies for this President and our Democratic legislators to defend and enact. That's going to be less certain because of the balance of power, but that's been the case along. There is a disconnect between progressive critics' complaints against this administration for failing to enact a progressive agenda and progressives' own inability (so far) in electing a progressive majority.

For now, our party is reduced to a defensive role. We can, and certainly should, continue to agitate and advocate for the issues and concerns that we believe are important, but the function and the ability of our Democratic membership will be greatly focused on defending gains made (and there have been some) and projecting their intentions for the next time we have the opportunity to advance more progressive partners to push what we want forward.

I understand the need and desire for immediate change, or even a hint, but our ideals clash with those of others in our political system. This balance of power is just one result. I do agree that the President should put his most progressive foot forward. I believe he will.

[Tansy_Gold]

31. Where's this progressive agenda you speak of?

I haven't seen it.

I've seen an economic team and policy that has addressed the wants and needs and obscene desires of Wall Street and corporate fat cats, but not too much for the working classes. Oh, yes, there were those little changes to the credit card rules, preceded by a nice breaking-in period that let the credit card companies do their dirty work ahead of time. And the Lily Ledbetter law about unfair pay practices. And the sort of overturning of stem cell research restrictions.

HCR wasn't "progressive" at all. Whatever it may have been designed to do, its net effect was to funnel more and more and more and more and more and more and more working class dollars into the investment class pockets.

We still haven't seen major reform of Wall Street derivative trading or HFT or anything else. obama's economic team is made up mostly of Wall Street veterans, so no one's holding their breath that the reforms will be really meaningful or that they'll address the real problems.

NOTHING has been done about the mortgage mess. NOTHING.

Tax reform? Wasn't that going to be a big part of Obama's governing? Middle class people would get a break and the wealthy would start paying more? How has that worked out? Huh?

And I would be willing to bet real money that, now that the elections are behind us, the lame duck congress will PASS extensions of the boooosh tax cuts for the rich because, after all, THEY'RE RICH. You don't really think they're going to vote to raise their own taxes, do you?

The wars drag on and on and on and on and on and on and on. The jobs keep disappearing because the corporate fat cats have to make more and more and more and more money by shipping jobs into cheap labor markets, and there's no voice in this country screaming STOP BUYING ALL THAT CHEAP CRAP THAT YOU DON'T NEED.

There is no voice of sanity in a leadership position in this country. None.

And there's sure no voice of progressivism. ESPECIALLY at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.



TG, NTY

[bigtree]

32. a 'Case for Obama'

Most of the criticisms of this President center on the fact that he hasn't fulfilled all of his promises or hasn't done enough to make the ones he found when he came into office go away. There are very valid criticisms of the personnel he's chosen to manage his agenda, but there are some concrete accomplishments which are obscured by the magnitude and the duration of the economic mismanagement of the last administration.

Further, we've yet to see a progressive majority which would enact most of the significant planks of a progressive agenda that the President might propose. We could watch him spit in the wind, but I'm fine that he didn't waste his time standing in the way of the incremental changes he achieved in defense of things which are clearly unsupported by the balance of power in our legislature.

It's always convenient to complain about the President's failure in enacting a progressive agenda, but short shrift is given to the reality that he needs partners in Congress to push it forward. That progressive majority hasn't been forthcoming. That's a big deal. Who's responsible for that? I certainly don't think you can put the blame for the inability of progressives to field and advance enough legislators to form a working progressive majority at his feet. It's not as if there was/is majority support among voters for a progressive presidential candidate.

This president has worked with what the voters gave him. This round will be a decidedly more defensive one. That's not his doing. That's what voters have dealt him. Where is the evidence that voters are insisting on a progressive agenda? Any fight he wages - and he has waged some with a bit of success - is an uphill fight because of the conservative and republican legislators voters have sent to manage what he proposes. Yes, he has waged some and won some . . . albeit with a muted effect that obscures the historic effort he's made in moving Congress to act in response to the financial catastrophe and national emergency.


from the pda: http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2010-10-31-03-45-02-news.php

___ Less than halfway through his first term, Obama has compiled a remarkable track record. As president, he has rewritten America's social contract to make health care accessible for all citizens. He has brought 100,000 troops home from war and forged a once-unthinkable consensus around the endgame for the Bush administration's $3 trillion blunder in Iraq. He has secured sweeping financial reforms that elevate the rights of consumers over Wall Street bankers and give regulators powerful new tools to prevent another collapse. And most important of all, he has achieved all of this while moving boldly to ward off another Great Depression and put the country back on a halting path to recovery.

Along the way, Obama delivered record tax cuts to the middle class and slashed nearly $200 billion in corporate welfare—reinvesting that money to make college more accessible and Medicare more solvent. He single-handedly prevented the collapse of the Big Three automakers—saving more than 1 million jobs—and brought Big Tobacco, at last, under the yoke of federal regulation. Even in the face of congressional intransigence on climate change, he has fought to constrain carbon pollution by executive fiat and to invest $200 billion in clean energy—an initiative bigger than John F. Kennedy's moonshot and one that's on track to double America's capacity to generate renewable energy by the end of Obama's first term.

On the social front, he has improved pay parity for women and hate-crime protections for gays and lesbians. He has brought a measure of sanity to the drug war, reducing the sentencing disparity for crack cocaine while granting states wide latitude to experiment with marijuana laws. And he has installed two young, female justices on the Supreme Court, creating what Brinkley calls "an Obama imprint on the court for generations."

What's even more impressive about Obama's accomplishments, historians say, is the fractious political coalition he had to marshal to victory. "He didn't have the majority that LBJ had," says Goodwin. Indeed, Johnson could count on 68 Democratic senators to pass Medicare, Medicaid and the Voting Rights Act. For his part, Franklin Roosevelt had the backing of 69 Senate Democrats when he passed Social Security in 1935. At its zenith, Obama's governing coalition in the Senate comprised 57 Democrats, a socialist, a Republican turncoat—and Joe Lieberman . . .


read more: http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2010-10-31-03-45-02-news.php

[Tansy_Gold]

42. The point is, Obama didn't fight.

He compromised early and often, and he didn't provide the leadership that was so desperately needed in a very polarized nation.

The filibuster has itself been altered in the past, from the original (?) 2/3 supermajority of 67 to a mere 60.

But the fact that neither Obama nor the Dem leadership addressed this in the past two years -- and failed to USE it prior to now when in the minority -- is what's driving some of us progressives up the wall.

As someone else posted, power is one of those things you either use it or you lose it. Obama and the Dems had it, and they lost it, and they lost it stupidly.

There are several things that can be pointed to that happened very early in the Obama administration that set the stage for what happened tonight.

1. We all know about the whole issue of leaving boooosh-era crimes unaddressed. The Dem majority in the house and/or senate didn't have to obsess about it, but they could have at least given some attention to issues like torture and lying. I mean, these are big deals. Big Fucking Deals. But Obama put them off the table.

2. Appointments early in the transition were dangerous. Not just Rubin and Summers and Geithner on the economy. Obama also took key Democrats out of elected positions that left their states vulnerable -- Arizona, Kansas, Colorado to name just three. And yes, part of the blame has to go to Napolitano, Sibelius, and Salazar for walking away from the people who elected them.

3. Failure to focus on the central issue of the failing economy -- JOBS. Krugman doesn't get it. I'm not sure Reich gets it. Obama doesn't have a freakin' clue. NEITHER DOES THE ELECTORATE, which is why they put the economy as their number one issue and then vote for the people least likely to fix it.

Obama never established himself as a true foil for the radical right wing. He didn't have to be a real socialist, but he could have used his bully pulpit to point out what real socialism is and what would happen to this country if we eliminated it.

4. He never confronted the media on their bias -- and on their lies. That was what killed John Kerry in 2004, and Obama didn't learn that lesson.


Am I advocating that he become a progressive dictator? No, of course not. But he has acted as if the issues that divide this country are academic discussions and he's done nothing to resolve them. His education secretary continues to advocate unequal education opportunities; that's not the way to re-establish an intelligent, informed, rational electorate. We've got the teabaggers because too many administrations have dumbed down the public at a time when they most need to be un-dumbed.

Can Obama fight back now? I don't know. But I think he if doesn't figure out how to do it and do it pretty fucking damn quick, he's gonna get his hopey changey thing handed to him on a platter.


TG, NTY

[QC]

33. I would love to see some fight, but if we haven't seen it yet,

it's probably not there.

[Greyhound]

50. It will but, gosh darn, now he really won't have the votes.

Oh well, he tried. What else you gonna do, vote for (insert name here)?

[HuckleB]

3. Of course not, but...

... Obama will have spend at least two years of his presidency stopping stupidity, rather than moving forward.

America has chosen to sit on its arse. We are one dopey bunch of fools.

[Naturyl]

6. Haha, the better question is will Rand Paul let Obama have his way.

In case you haven't noticed, the right-wing isn't in the habit of letting us "have" anything. Compromise is our game, sadly.

[BeatleBoot]

7. He has a gift: The Obstructionists in the House of Representatives

I know it's making lemonade out of lemons.

But what the hey.

[onehandle]

8. The bipartisan speech (part 718) has already been scheduled for tomorrow. nt

[originalpckelly]

9. President Obama would compromise with headhunters who wanted his head.

"How about cutting it half the way off? Let's meet in the middle here."

[Jamastiene]

25. Bingo. n/t

[readmoreoften]

10. Oh I ABSOLUTELY do.

He'll be as bipartisan as he can. You're not immune from being sold out.

[Poboy]

11. You still haven't learned. He will fold. They will win.

We have two years to get our individual affairs in order.

The country will destroy itself in two years. 2012 -sort of appropriate actually.

[BeFree]

18. Remember the talk about the year 2000 crisis?

And how in 2000 the computer 'glitches' got bush close enough to steal the election?

[librechik]

12. these idiots have no intention of completing a tea party agenda

They only hold it out as a lure to get stupid folks to vote for them. They are there to complete the corporate agenda of making Obama a one term president and finishing off the middle class.

[Uzybone]

16. ding ding ding

[Raine]

13. Uh yes

looking at the last two years ...for sure. x(

[Individualist]

15. Yes

[cordelia]

20. Yes

[jaxx]

21. I'm with you on this.

The President will keep them in line with the veto. And gawd knows, if Harry Reid is still senate leader he does know how to drag his feet on getting anything done.

Those who think the President is a wuss....it just ain't so.

[ismnotwasm]

22. Hell, no

The ONLY good thing about this is that Paul is a very obvious weirdo, and is bound to fuck up and embarrass himself. He might not know he should be embarrassed though.

[BlueIris]

23. This is very, very bad news.

Especially for the president. I doubt he's going to be able to get much more done and despite how little love I have for the man, I am really scared for him.

[Jamastiene]

24. I think you are deluding yourself.

All he has done since taking office is belly up and let the right wing have whatever they want. Just because there will be more in there who are further to the right than the last bunch will not make a difference to him. He'll just keep doing what he has been doing for the last two years, because no one has been allowed to tell him the truth.

He has got half the party blowing smoke up his ass and never criticizing him when he does something that leads us off a cliff. He said hold his feet to the fire, but those of us who do try to get called the worst names possible...by both the "Obama can do no wrong" part of the party and his own administration.

We see how effective the last two years have been. He caved time and again to the right wing and that moved the country further right. If he had stood up for liberal principles, we would be in a different boat today. Instead, this country just swung HARD right.

Truman said it best:
"The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don’t need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I’ve seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn’t believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don’t want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are — when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people — then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again."

-Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action.
May 17, 1952
(source: Truman Presidential Museum and Library)


What we are seeing now are the results of not listening to the lesson in that speech. We appease and cave to them, we get more Republicans, a country that keeps moving right full speed ahead, and a damaged Democratic Party that might not be able to recover for years to come.

I really think you are deluding yourself. He'll give them everything they want.

[Raine]

46. EXACTLY! nt

[Shining Jack]

49. +1 n/t

[Erose999]

26. Yes, Rand Paul will have his way. We haven't seen the last of Obama 'scapitulation to the GOOP. nt

[QC]

34. Yes. n/t

[Desertrose]

35. He will unless he really changes the way he does things.

And I really hope he gets new advisers who clue him onto the current reality. No more playing nice with the GOTeabaggers.

[grantcart]

36. Hell the Senate Caucus isn't going to let Rand Paul have his way.

They are going to teach this young man a valuable lesson on 'hubris'.

[bigtree]

37. I think you're absolutely right about that, grantcart

Especially now that our majority leader has the wind behind his personal political back.

[Tansy_Gold]

45. And what "Senate Caucus" would that be?

Do you know what a "caucus" in the Senate is?


TG, NTY

[grantcart]

47. The Senate Caucus he belongs to: ie Republican - did you really need to

identify which Senate caucus I was referring to?

[Tansy_Gold]

48. Yes, I did need that clarification

because you wrote it as if there were only one Senate Caucus that included all Senators. In fact, there are many and Paul may end up belonging to several of them or none of them.


TG, NTY

[guitar man]

39. If I was Obama

First thing I would do is call little Rand to the oval office for a private, closed door meeting. I'd have the biggest meanest secret service agents on the payroll there and I'd have them throw his ass down and one stand on his face while I explained things to his racist little ass. :evilgrin:

then I'd send him back over to the senate to think about it ;)

[tuckessee]

43. The Prez better worry about his wars and the tanking economy.

Let the Democrat Senators deal with the kook.

[cbdo2007]

52. Of course you're right - but you're not going to get much support for this here at DU.

Everyone here is all "world is going to end" and tomorrow they think we're all going to be required to go to church.

Right, we're still in charge - Presidency and Senate.

The repubes cannot get anything done, I just hope we can get some stuff accomplished without THEIR help. I'm not worried about them putting stupid bills through cause they won't be able to.