Will everyone agree that this is the LAST Obama compromise that could ever be defended?

[Ken Burch]

That NO compromise on Social Security could ever, under any circumstances, be acceptable?

If you could defend any MORE compromises, do you actually believe in ANYTHING?

[Enrique]

1. he hasn't even promised to protect Social Security

the door is way open for him to gut it without breaking any promises.

[tavalon]

20. And you're okay with that?

Gut check?

[wndycty]

2. No because we don't know what other issues he might find himself in a position of. . .

. . .having to compromise and what the stakes are.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. That's Not What He Said

How can you know whether or not to oppose a compromise before you know what it is. That's the classic definition of a reactionary.

I am sure there's plenty of issues he and President Obama would go to the hill for.

[Ken Burch]

22. All future compromises have got to be intolerably right-wing

They will ALL be like this 'til 2012(which means they can't be worth doing).

And it goes without saying that Obama will promise to stay this far to the right if he runs again in 2012.

He should just stop now. He KNOWS it's over for him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Plenty Of Issues I Will Go The Hill For

Repealing DADT

Protecting Medicare and Social Security

Not getting in any more "stupid" wars

If Obama caves on these I will join the chorus of his naysayers...

[wndycty]

32. I have core values, I also understand that if we are true progressives. . .

. . .we need to be strategic when it comes achieving progress.

My core values are pretty strong, however I don't believe in biting your nose off to spite your face.

Thanks for telling me that you think I have no core values.

[bobbolink]

38. Interesting that your "strategy" always involves cutting poverty programs more.

We poor people thank you for your deep concern.

[Ken Burch]

41. True, bobbolink.

Bza's kind of Dem wants us to stop having anything to do with those tacky poor people. The DLC are all about making "the upwardly mobile" the only voters that matter(even though, in this country, hardly anyone but bazillionaires will actually manage upward mobility anytime in our lives).

[bobbolink]

57. What I want from them is the same that I want from their cousins, the RW -- HONESTY.

I want them to say upfront that they are willing to sacrifice poor people.

THEN, I want them to take responsibility for their decisions, and provide painless and quick exits for those they have cut, so we don't linger, suffering, on the street for a long time, just waiting to die.

HONESTY!

[wndycty]

43. So where did I say that cutting poverty was part of my strategy. . .

. . .I acknowledged that compromise in the future could be necessary. . .its a leap for you to think that I mean cutting poverty programs when you say that.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. SS is an anti-poverty program.

But you knew that.

[Ken Burch]

73. "when did I say that CUTTING POVERTY was part of my strategy"?

Freudian slip much?

[Hello_Kitty]

62. LOL

Hey, kudos for the honesty. So we know you'll be defending it.

:rofl:

[Lucky 13]

3. Ken, we keep moving the line further and further and further back.

Meanwhile, the sand is eroding beneath our feet.

Those that are defending this and the tax deal aren't defending principles. They are defending a man. One man who can do no wrong.

They've hijacked our party and no longer need us. Any criticism is just noise.

[BzaDem]

13. The actual line is whether or not a Republican would be more left leaning than Obama.

It might take you another Republican presidency to realize this, but eventually you'll figure it out.

Don't get me wrong -- I personally think that the deal Obama took with taxes was the best one he could get. But I am not about to enable the election of a Republican President just because he makes some future deal that I don't favor (unlike the tax deal, which I do given the circumstances).

[Ken Burch]

21. It doesn't HAVE to be "continued compromise or a Republican"

we don't have to surrender to win.

And it can't be worth bothering if Obama isn't to Clinton's left.

You can't just tell us to give up.

[BzaDem]

27. I'm not saying Obama has to surrender to win.

Though if you want someone to the left of Obama, I can certainly suggest you give up if you value spending your time productively, since that isn't going to happen for quite awhile if ever. That much is obvious.

"And it can't be worth bothering if Obama isn't to Clinton's left."

I have no doubt that Obama personally is to Clinton's left. However, with a Republican Congress, I'm not sure the outcomes will be. But that is mainly a function of a Republican Congress, not Obama.

It is certainly worth bothering though -- we saw the results of an ACTUAL Republican Presidency very recently, and we probably don't want to try that again.

[Lucky 13]

26. We might be headed that way.

There are a few Republicans that are actually fighting the tax deal the Pres. and Rethugs crafted.
There are a few Republicans that are actually more supportive of gay rights than this President.

This WASN'T the best he could get. He knows it (and likely you do too). To not include any Dems in the negotiation tells the story.

HE keeps moving rightward... and rightward... and rightward. And there are people that keep defending HIM as a person... not the ideals we are supposed to stand for. And THAT is messed up.

He's not the messiah. He's the guy we elected to enact our ideas, initiate "change". But he's not the guy I thought I was voting for. Give me a primary challenger and I won't make the same mistake again.

[BzaDem]

34. Have you looked at WHY the Republicans are fighting the tax deal?

Hint: It's because it allows unemployment to be extended for 13 months.

"This WASN'T the best he could get."

Please explain to me what deal could be better than the one he got, that could get 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate, or 218 votes in next year's House and 60 in next year's Senate. You say it isn't the best he can get -- surely that implies you have a better deal with at least potential vote names in mind. What is it?

[Lucky 13]

67. Break it apart. One part is not contingent on another.

That's a good start. Vote on items separately.

There are a thousand articles outlining how this is NOT the "best he could do". (Much more than handful of ones supporting it - mostly from RW rags.) Go read the opposition of this for yourself - there's plenty of it. I'm not going to waste my time summarizing for you when I know there's no changing your mind.

[Poll_Blind]

4. The "payroll tax holiday" is, above all other things, totally unaccptable and indefensible.

Whatever was the previous egregious legislation the President favored is the last compromise that could be defended. This is indefensible. Without being overly dramatic, this is my personal Rubicon. Destroy Social Security and it's back to the jungle, Sinclair's jungle, for all of us.

PB

[Poboy]

5. He has ALREADY put SS at risk. The tax holiday is a trojan horse.

He knows this. He is pushing for it and has the comission on deck to hack away further.

This guy is against us.

[BlueJac]

6. True

[rucky]

7. The next two years are going to be 100% compromise, or Government Shutdown

I'm not sure which one will do less damage.

[somone]

8. Obama is not working for us, he is working against us

He's doing work for the ruling class. Evidence has shown that the guy has no principles or values. He couldn't care less about the middle class, the poor, the elderly, the disabled - or the future of this country.

[dkf]

19. Yeah he should have let the Unemployed go without an extension because he hates the rich

Then we would all be happy.

[bobbolink]

51. bwahahahaha!

[eilen]

68. He certainly works hard at marginalizing the left. nt

[NorthCarolina]

9. The last one that can be defended? I don't believe THIS ONE can be defended.

With a straight face.

[Ken Burch]

12. You're right, it can't

But I'm wondering if those who defend this have ANY core values about anything.

Obviously, if you ALWAYS compromise, you can't actually care passionately about anything at all.

[NorthCarolina]

14. I do not believe this has anything to do with compromise. Obama is getting exactly what HE wants. nt

[bobbolink]

53. Bingo. More and more people are seeing behind the curtain.

A president with no clothes on is not a pretty sight.

[BzaDem]

11. Honestly, you will probably look back on this compromise as the best one he made

(compared to the ones he will have to make in the future).

He is, after all, going to be working with a Republican Congress. Compromise tends to be what happens when the people elect a divided government.

This doesn't mean I will personally favor future compromises he makes. I favor the tax compromise, since it is actually the best deal he could get given the circumstances and expiration deadline forced upon him. That doesn't mean I would favor a Social Security compromise, which doesn't have any event forcing one for decades. (The government will continue paying full benefits till 2037.) Likewise, I doubt I would favor a large compromise on healthcare, since Republicans and Democrats have diametrically opposed plans for controlling healthcare costs.

However, I am not about to throw Obama under the bus just because he makes a deal I don't like. If the people didn't want compromise, they wouldn't have elected divided government. Poll after poll after poll shows vast supermajorities of America want Obama to compromise with Republicans (and Republicans to compromise with Obama), so I will not be surprised if we see more compromises in the future (even though I'm not one of the vast supermajority that favors compromise).

[Ken Burch]

15. You're going to be loyal to a man who has NO core values and NEVER fights for us?

Great.

Face it...centrism is defeat and irrelevance. Obama is worthless if he ends up being this year's Clinton.

[BzaDem]

23. What do you mean "loyal to a man?"

Do you mean "will vote for him in the general election?" Then yes.

Do you mean "will vote for him in a primary election?" Slightly less likely given what happens, but there would have to be incredible circumstances that warranted that (given the unlikely chance that a challenger could ever win).

Do you mean "will stand up and clap for every deal he makes?" Of course not. If I don't like a deal, or I don't think it's the best one he could have gotten given the circumstances, I have no problem saying so.

"Face it...centrism is defeat and irrelevance. Obama is worthless if he ends up being this year's Clinton." Obviously you don't mean electoral defeat, since Clinton himself won re-election by a margin even larger than Obama was first elected. Policy defeat? Perhaps. But that was pre-ordained by the results of election 2010. There is next to nothing Obama can do legislatively anymore -- that is pretty much by definition.

What progressive goals do you expect him to accomplish without Congress?

[Ken Burch]

29. He can use executive orders. He can rally the base.

He could do everything Truman did between 1946 and 1948(other than the loyalty oath thing).

And he could make a point of vetoing everything the Boehnerhaus passes, since it will all be loathesome.

He can only gain from growing a spine.

Compromises like this are the path to certain defeat. It's impossible that the people would give Obama any credit if there was an economic recovery now. They'll credit it all to Boehner.

[BzaDem]

35. "They'll credit it all to Boehner."

Has that ever happened in American history? Voters crediting an economic recovery to someone other than the President?

"He can use executive orders."

He will be implementing Financial reform, and Healthcare reform. As someone said on FDL, FinReg in particular was more a promise to make a law by executive order than an actual law. However, as you know, Obama can't actually change the law with an executive order (only implement its instructions in a way consistent with the law).

[tavalon]

28. It didn't have to be this way

He had two years in which to come out with fiery rhetoric and no backroom deals and he would have secured Washington for Dems and we could have spent the last two and the next two purging DINOs. Yeah, I think the tent has gotten too big. But shoulda, woulda, coulda, has come and gone.

The people, for the most part (present company excepted) are stupid and don't pay enough attention to important things like elections. They know their angry, as I am, but they haven't figured out what hurts so they "voted the bums out" and voted in bigger bums. Idiots inside and outside of the beltway. This wasn't a request for compromise, it was a poorly understood scream for jobs and job safety. They'll get neither from their stupid choices, just more pain.

[tavalon]

30. Do you really believe this election was a mandate for compromise?

If so, I must accuse you of being a political consultant for this current administration, maybe even in the core of Obama's advisers. That, and you are egregiously wrong in your assessment of the American people. This was about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That the choices made at the ballot box are as stupid as the average American voter is sad, but unsurprising.

[Recursion]

37. God yes

Did you notice the campaign at all?

[tavalon]

40. LOL

Political junkie here. :hi: I watched the minutia of this campaign season and I could see clearly what was happening and knew that I couldn't do much to stop it (I voted) and I figured those high paid political analysts would get it wrong and how they would get it wrong and it played out just exactly as I knew it would.

[Recursion]

46. I knocked on doors in eastern Ohio

I got a lot of people who were sick of politicians more intent on being "right" than getting stuff done. YMMV.

[tavalon]

47. In other words, they wanted stuff done

Did you ask them what stuff? Like, perhaps, job creation, job protection, job retraining, jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Recursion]

52. Jobs was a lot of it. So was ending EPA wetlands protection

I'm not sure why; that may have been a particular ruling in that area or something. People couldn't cut down trees in their backyard. And when I looked into it I think it was actually an Army Corps of Engineers thing, not the EPA.

[Uben]

17. No

Why do you think "your way" is the only way? It's not. Obama is dealing with a split congress and to get anything passed he will have to work with the republicans to some extent. Gridlock is not governing. Even Bush reached out to dems on some issues.

[tavalon]

18. As a non-defender, I can say I've seen the defend at all costs Dems

on the board dwindle greatly.

[Poboy]

64. The majority left are likely paid to do so. -nt

[johnaries]

24. NO, this country was built on compromise.

We'll never get ANYTHING accomplished if we don't compromise sometimes.

[Robyn66]

31. I think this one pretty much did me in

I have been saying "just wait youll see" for a long long time, but this one really kind of kicked me in the gut. The only saving grace is the unemployment benefits will be renewed but otherwise I am just kind of numb now. I am not even watching the political shows as much as I usually do because it is so hard to see what is happening. I will never vote Republican, and I will always vote but right now I am just heart sick.

[mmonk]

33. Evidently it is all about "strategy" and political calculation to

"win" elections to answer your question "If you could defend any MORE compromises, do you actually believe in ANYTHING?"
That, I think, is what many believe in in the political class.

[Recursion]

36. Well, no, I don't agree with that at all

eg, I could see a deal with DADT in exchange for some ludicrous weapons system that the military doesn't even want (unless DADT gets stripped out of the defense authorization bill after all, which is how Reid and Pelosi should have done this to begin with).

That NO compromise on Social Security could ever, under any circumstances, be acceptable?

Depends on what you mean; we're going to have to do something to restore the FICA levels in 2 years (even Reagan raised FICA levies). I doubt an outright benefits cut would be politically possible; though the GOP will wail for one, it wouldn't get through the Senate. But I could see raising the FICA cap (which we want) in exchange for either means-testing some benefits (which they want) or expanding IRA access (which they also want). So, no, I can't say that "any compromise" about Social Security is off the table.


If you could defend any MORE compromises, do you actually believe in ANYTHING?

Yes: actually accomplishing things rather than waiting for the Great Progressive Pumpkin to show up and reward those activists who are the most sincere.

[Beetwasher]

39. No Compromises EVER!!! Draw LINES In The SAND!!! MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY BABY!! YeeeeeeHAWWWWWW!!!!!!

Ride 'em cowboy!

[Ken Burch]

42. So you think it's silly for this party to EVER stand it's ground?

Your way means giving up. That's what settling for crumbs and tiny increments always means.

[Beetwasher]

45. Destroy Our Enemies, Turn Them Into Ash!!!

Let god sort 'em out.

Core prinicples? You mean like making sure people on UI have their benefits extended so they can keep a roof over their heads and feed their families? Those core principles?

[Ken Burch]

48. This wasn't the ONLY way to do that.

And it won't help those people if what's left of our social safety net is gutted, as the tax surrender now guarantees.

Nothing justifies consigning the country to six years of austerity budgets.

[Beetwasher]

49. You Tell ME How YOU Would Do It So Those People Do Not Lose Their Benefits. I'll Wait

What's your plan? Let the media shame the Repubs for voting agains UI extension? On what planet?

[treestar]

44. On any subject of any kind ever?

When we got the Republican congress (which some of the left claim credit for, since they allege their not working the election is what loses Democratic votes?)

[ProudDad]

55. You and Obama and the Dems

are going to get the republican Congress you worked so hard to get...

By ignoring public opinion and the needs of We the People...

In order to serve your corporate masters...

[ProudDad]

54. No...

None of the Obama/Dem capitulations are defensible...

[Bonhomme Richard]

56. I stopped defending at health care. n/t

[elias7]

58. So you gave up on Clinton early?

By the reasoning you've used, once Clinton failed to get anything passed re: health care, you gave up on Clinton, too? Or is it that you were unhappy with the compromise? Problem is, despite the lack of what most of us would consider real reform, a bill with some seriously good things for HCR was passed. You could argue that Obama was more effective than Clinton in this regard. Would it have been better if he went down fighting for the public option and nothing passed?

[Ken Burch]

59. Was Clinton worth ANYTHING after 1994?

For the last six years, we were basically in an extended version of Nixon's first term...at BEST...if Dole had won, we wouldn't even have noticed.

Clinton abandoned the poor.

He abandoned people who work for a living when he put the Republican NAFTA treaty through(and he probably also bears some responsibility for the number of people coming in from Mexico, since NAFTA did nothing for that country but make life worse for the many while enriching a tiny class of plutocratic criminals).

If we don't defend the powerless, we're not a party with any honor, and our politics are soulless and empty.

[Bonhomme Richard]

60. "if he went down fighting for the public option"

If he at least raised the issue of the public option he wouldn't have lost me but he had no intention of even giving it a shot. That was my Obama eye opener. This tax bill and the first salvo against SS is not surprising me. Disappointed..yes, surprised...no.
As for Clinton, yes I did give up on him because he to was for maintaining the status quo that Reagan started that led us down the road to the current mess we are in. The way he is supporting this tax bill only confirms that my opinion of him was dead on.
The person I will stand behind doesn't have to win all the battles, or even most of them. All I ask is that he show up.
Does this mean that I won't vote for a democrat? Of course not because I absolutely loathe republicans and all they stand for and frankly I think they are traitors to the nation. That doesn't mean I have to be like a lemming and follow someone off the cliff. In this climate I am forced to vote for the lesser of two weavils.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. No, brcause it can't be defended

with this move the Democratic Party signs on with the "Government is the problem" crowd, when the going gets tough take it's money away and let the private sector manage "the solutions". It's Reagan's ideology delivered by a Democratic president, the core cave in.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Oh, they'll be defending SS cuts here. The 'deficit' will suddenly become Very Important. eom

[LucySky]

66. Things that are not broken should not be fixed. No compromise.

[Hawkeye-X]

69. Obama needs to go on full lefty attack mode. Order Reid to invoke the nuclear option

now and until the new Senate is seated, then reid will establish a rule with the simple majority rules, and all filibuster has to be attended and any attempt to threaten filibuster will be ignored until they start filibustering in the chamber.

Hawkeye-X

[MadHound]

70. Don't worry, when Obama signs off on cutting SS and Medicare,

He will still have his defenders here, saying just how great it is and how we needed to cut SS, and that somehow, cutting SS is a stimulus, and other such rot.

[Better Believe It]

71. The Obama/GOP tax cut deal is an attack on social security.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. The Acolytes will defend ANYTHING

There are some staunch supporters here who would spin and justify anything, and resort to any form of muscling to silence dissenters.

The appeal used by his campaign was an emotional one, and that kind of adulation defies any logic.

[sarcasmo]

74. You couldn't get every one on this board to agree it's cold outside.