President Obama, we elected a DEMOCRAT not an appeaser.

[Dyler Turden]

The Republicans don't want and will not meet anyone halfway. If you say the sky is blue they will deny it. You have tried to "get along" and they have proved that they don't want that.

It's time to give up the idea of compromise and push forward the agenda you ran on.

Please, Sir, you have the office and the power. Use it.

[JuniperLea]

1. Unrec'd because he ran on bipartisanship...

He noted the things he wanted to do, but he's always stood by the bipartisan thing, saying he would be the President to all, not just Democrats. I remember finding that very refreshing. I still do, actually.

[Dyler Turden]

3. We can disagree

And that's fine and good. But IMHO, his actions of late have been more attuned to placating the opposition.

[MrDelawho]

7. I only wish I could be as positive as you.

[JuniperLea]

10. Perspective is everything...

They don't like the meeting in the middle deal any more than we do. They want it all their way, and clearly a lot of DUers want it all our way. I come from an excruciatingly large family... learning to compromise generally came before learning to tie our shoes.

[frylock]

19. it's past time for obama to learn how to tie his shoes

[patrice]

35. It's past time for Americans to learn how to tie their own shoes.

[TBF]

39. Here we go again with the libertarian responses ... nt

[patrice]

40. Actually, there is such a thing as a Liberal Libertarian.

Most of the time, the world that language ONLY refers to is not an either/or proposition, although people use political labels as though it were all of the time.

[TBF]

42. And you thought I didn't know that because .... ? nt

[patrice]

43. Your previous post suggests that you think there is some problem with that.

[TBF]

26. Compromise -

the difficulty here is not with "compromise". The difficulty is in the skill of the negotiation. The right wing starts from as far right as they can, while this administration starts in the middle. Only way to go is right in that scenario. Republicans are going to eat him for breakfast every day with that strategy.

[patrice]

36. That's why he's trying to make this about US. He needs a legitimate counter-weight that doesn't

NEEEEEEEEEEEED him, but will ***WORK*** with him if we get what we want. We, numbers that is, BIG NUMBERS are the only thing that the Right Wing fears. The conventional status quo has been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to 50:50 for too long and THERE IS A REDISTRICTING FIGHT COMING UP.

[patrice]

34. Meee too, JuniperLea! Being a big family made everyone VERY strong, so we learned that compromise

is only possible from strength. Weakness only results in capitulation.

Strength comes from challenge, not, no matter how nice you are, from being enabled.

Our two party system has resulted in a lot of people wearing labels and never confronting THEMSELVES on the issues. It has enabled weakness.

[FiveGoodMen]

49. They want to keep spending all our money killing people -- many of them innocent civilians --

in other countries.

We want to stop that.

Should we compromise? Or do we want it "all our way"?

Shame on you!

[AtomicKitten]

11. +1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWZkg-snbFE

[JuniperLea]

16. That gave me chills...

:hug:

Thanks:)

[AtomicKitten]

23. *

:fistbump:

[AlinPA]

12. Bipartisanship with republicans is like holding out your hand to an angry rattlesnake. They will

strike.

[JuniperLea]

14. I believe it's the right thing to do...

You either reach out and try to work together, or you divide the nation even further.

Imagine what those asshats would do if Obama stuck to a straight liberal/progressive platform! TeaBagger race wars, riots, etc., is what I'd expect. They are too stupid to do anything else!

[Dyler Turden]

18. I DO see your point of reasoning.

And feel that it's somewhat correct. However IMHO, there has been too much bowing down to their "wishes."

[AlinPA]

28. Rattlesnake bites are poison. They do not poison you halfway. If the republicans

were even a small bit reasonable bipartisanship might be OK, but those people want him destroyed. Or worse.

[JuniperLea]

29. I'd rather not play "Really Bad Analogy" here...

Of course they aren't reasonable. Please follow that thought through to fruition in this discussion... most people, I do believe, support the GOTP out of ignorance. The bright glaring white light of truth that shines on their disregard for doing the right thing will enlighten many. You can shout forever about any given topic, but actions are going to be seen regardless of the words.

[Skittles]

32. nonesense

he wasted valuable time sucking up to repukes - it was always crap, like trying to compromise with rabid dogs

[metapunditedgy]

51. Yeah, if Obama had stood up for the public option (god forbid single payer!),

the streets of Los Angeles would be running with blood. Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago... knee deep in dead bodies. War, famine, pestilence. Zombies and werewolves feasting on the carcasses...

Your stance is ridiculous.

[patrice]

38. True. That's why you need to know which ones are snakes and which ones just hang out with snakes

and MIGHT do differently given a choice.

[Chulanowa]

20. I like the guy a lot... but I don't think he understands the idea of "bipartisanship"

See, bipartisanship is when hte minority party steps up to work with the majority party in the hopes of getting some of their own agenda on the docket. When offered by hte majority, it needs to be "You can ride in our car and go where we're going and we'll stop and you can buy a slurpee on the way"

Obama's bipartisanship is loaning the car to the Republicans, and expecting them to bring it back with a full tank.

[bvar22]

21. I really loved those campaign lines:

"Everyone will have a seat at the table in my administration."

I really believed that for the first time in 24 years, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party was going to have a voice in the White House.
And then THIS happened:

The DLC New Team
Liberals Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85

Republicans, Centrists, "Pro-Growth" Big Business Democrats, all had seats at the table.
The Progressive Caucus was completely marginalized in the failed quest for "bi-partisan consensus".
The national debate lurched to The RIGHT (again),
and absolutely NOTHING was gained in return.

So sad.
A once in a generation opportunity for "CHANGE" wasted.
A Mandate unused is a Mandate wasted.

[BlueJac]

25. I guess all meant Republicans....

the hell with the left!

[patrice]

31. He's literally MAKING people stand up for themselves. Now we . . .

need to learn that committing, in advance, without condition, one way or another as to one's vote affects the processes the President and Congress are locked into: If you're NOT going to vote for him, why should he do anything for you. If you're absolutely going to vote for him no matter what, why should those he's locked in this struggle with give him anything on your issues if you're lost to them anyway.

Whether he intended it or not, this whole situation has taken the word "bi-partisan" to a whole new level for Washington D.C. WE, despite some very negative systemic characteristics, are actually much more part of this particular process.

We'll see how it all works out.

[Yeahyeah]

41. His fucking up is a brilliant strategy.

[patrice]

45. I don't know if it is strategy or not, but what I know, generally, of the assumptions

of Liberation Theology is that the Oppressed free themselves by doing the work, whatever that work is, that is necessary to do so. It is that work that buys them a place "at the table" with their PEERS, rather than as chattel owned by its superiors, or children represented by an authority figure.

[rug]

33. - 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyAgdCZJ4Cw

[readmoreoften]

46. I'd love it if you'd go join the Republicans and ask for their bipartisanship then.

After all, if what you want is "bipartisanship", what does it matter which team you're on? It might make sense for you to join the team that's against working together and push them towards sanity instead of pushing us away from it.

[Quantess]

50. He ran on "hope" and "change"

more than bi-partisanship. This is not what the majority of voters had in mind when they voted back in 2008.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Absolutely right.

Recommended.

[Catherina]

4. Agree. Rec'd n/t

[Rex]

5. I don't know why he thinks he can be diplomatic with Repukes.

Just keep on ignoring those lying eyes!? :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

17. I think of it this way...

He takes the high road, he tries his best to do what's right. You can't fault him with that. What some people here are asking him to do is be as BushCo was and run roughshod over everyone. That was wrong of BushCo, and it would still be wrong for Obama. Right and wrong don't change when the other party takes over.

[Rex]

22. True but the Republican party never changes, diplomacy is not an option

so what is left? I agree with you, the high road is always better to take - but what happens when the other party destroys you from underneath? They don't want to talk, compromise, strike deals, negotiate on bills...no all they want to do is obstruct Obama on all his political ambitions. How can you remain civil with the uncivil and knowing if you don't ACT the barbarians will run you over and burn the village to the ground?

[JuniperLea]

27. What happens is...

they show thier true colors to those they have lied into submission. Even some of the TeaBaggers are waking up.

[patrice]

37. Precisely!!! The Derivative Crash alone was PRIVATE info. There's much that he needs to know and

you don't call the hand until you have a pretty good idea of what others at the table are holding.

[patrice]

44. Re running "roughshod" - I keep thinking of this like teaching. If you just force

your students and they comply mechanically, nothing is learned.

The changes MUST be rooted IN us. WE are the only ones who can do that. No amount of someone, anyone, doing it for us will work, unless those roots are set in our own characters and in our daily lives with one another.

We live in a country of people who are passive, even if they are political, they barely vote, do almost NOTHING for their candidates, they do not study the issues, nor communicate with others about the issues.

What is happening here COULD change some of that.

This is a religious guy and he identifies with Liberation Theology. This is one of the things about him that got him the job in the first place, but now that he has done some of the Republicans' dirty work for them, they want to get rid of him, because they really do FEAR his philosophy of governing and the reason they fear it is that it takes the best elements of theirs, stuff that Republicans after Eisenhower only pay lip service to now, he's taking some of their philosophy of governing and being more honest about what government service for "the common good" really is. He IS their worst political nightmare and that's why they have gone insane.

[muffin1]

6. K&R nt

[bigtree]

8. I think he's mostly made reasonable compromises with the legislature, so far

I agree with this statement from the President to progressive bloggers:

" . . . there has not been, I think, any issue that we've worked in which I have been willing to sign on to a compromise that I didn't feel was a strong improvement over the status quo and was not the best that we could do, given the political alignments that we've got.

And, yes, it leaves some folks dissatisfied. I understand that . . .

read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/obamas-interview-with-progressive-bloggers_n_775112.html

[TriMera]

9. k & r. n/t

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dyler Turden]

15. Well that's really a nice response.

If you disagree, please tell me why. I have no problems with differing opinions. And do tell me without hesitation as to what you want to say as in your wishing me to go fuck myself. Please provide instructions.

[laughingliberal]

24. K & R nt

[patrice]

30. When 1/3-1/2 of your base isn't doing anything but pledging to NOT vote for you, where's the percent

-age in doing anything ***FOR*** them. That's not leverage and he needs leverage.

There needs to be something that is strong enough to at least have a significant chance of countering the Right. Nothing that a President MUST prop-up would meet that definition.

He needs to be in a position in which he has something that one or another of their factions (preferably the largest Repub faction possible) WANTS, something which they WILL LOSE, because if YOU don't get what you want and you, therefore, vote him out of office, he can't deliver what they want either. It would be best if this was something that splits in their own base deny them giving/getting for themselves. Now, can you think of anything in the news currently that fits this description . . . ?

[The Uncola]

47. Rec a million times over,

I can't stand cowards.

[Blue Owl]

48. The incurious idiot before you did it for 8 years

And we're still pushed too far to the right.

Put it in "D" and take a hard left, Mr. President.

[bluestate10]

52. President Obama must show some spine.

But President Obama may have backed republicans into a corner with the Debt Commission that he called for after republicans backed out of authorizing a Congressionally sponsored Debt Commission. Obama let democratic and republican leaders of the Senate and Congress pick commission members. President Obama does not write budget and tax legislation, Congress does. Republican now have the right to control all budget and tax writing committees, although it seems that republicans may be having second thoughts and will try to stick democrats with majorities on key budget and tax writing committees. I pray that Nancy Pelosi does not let democrat take majorities on tax and budgeting committees. Pelosi should insist that the most conservative republicans go to the committees, or that newly elected tea party members take republican seats on the committees. I am one democrat that hope President Obama is surrounding himself with savvy senior aides who understand that a clever course is for President Obama to jawbone from the sidelines while republicans blood let each other in Congressional and Senatorial committees and during chamber votes on legislation, then veto their offerings after giving fire and brimstone speeches.
BTW. There is hope for President Obama yet. A poll taken in Virginia shows that President Obama would beat all the known republican hopefuls for President handily if the election was held today. President Obama would trounce Sarah Palin in the same poll. But the election is not today, which coincidentally, is not a bad situation for President Obama. Virginia was one of the first states to elect republican office holders after President Obama took office and during the health care debate. The Commonwealth of Virginia elected a conservative republican governor and a conservative Attorney General. At the time of their election, President Obama would have been defeated by any republican. Voters in Virginia seem to be having buyer's remorse over the choice for governor and AG but failed to make the translation to Congressional seats during midterms, wait two years, they will have remorse over the tea partiers that they elected to some Congressional seats.