Kucinich agrees with Obama on having to compromise with the Repubs.

[jenmito]

He said so to Cenk Uygur, who disagreed with him. Kucinich said HE, like Obama, thinks the people want Congress to get things done, that they'll have to compromise on things like tax cuts, and said he thinks the Repubs. WILL compromise. So are all of you who are angry with Obama now mad at Kucinich, too?

[Radical Activist]

1. Mouthing off like Cenk is much easier than governing.

Kucinich knows that.

[jenmito]

2. Exactly. I can't stand blowhards like Cenk. n/t

[harun]

4. Cenk knows people respond to courage and back bone, not weakness.

[jenmito]

5. So Kucinich is weak, too? Or is he realistic?! I'd like to see CENK get something done in

Congress.

[phleshdef]

7. In other words, they respond to chest beating apes instead of rational thinkers.

[harun]

60. Ermmmm yes, they do. Look at the last damn election.

[niceypoo]

64. There is nothing rational...

...about giving away the farm in the name of 'bipartisanship'. One sided, 'compromise,' is irrational.

[Radical Activist]

8. And when Obama shows backbone, Cenk ignores it.

He prefers to keep repeating his same narrative regardless of the reality and without care for how much he helps Republicans.

[JamesA1102]

54. Didn't he use to me a Republican? nt

[Radical Activist]

57. Yes, he was.

[jaxx]

23. Cenk knows how to ramp it up and create outrage.

Has nothing to do with courage.

[JamesA1102]

53. So when does he plan on putting his name on a ballot nt

[harun]

61. He doesn't need to. He is going to be my Chief of Staff when I am President.

[MrsCorleone]

74. Cenk has done pretty well for himself, given his new MSNBC gig, by bashing the Prez.

Big congrats for him! Too bad he and the likes of Huffpo, FDL, etc. discouraged so many from supporting Dems in such a critical election with razor thin margins.

[harun]

83. Urging the Prez to take Progressive action != bashing.

[MrsCorleone]

99. He and a lot of other progressives on the air spent the bulk of their time criticizing

the Administration and Dems instead of the repubs, essentially putting out into the atmosphere that dems are corrupt like repubs, Obama is a corporatist, etc.

In an election like the last, where margins were razor thin, what net effect do you think the 24/7 bashing from the left had, especially given that the RW media, particularly on the radio, was also pounding this same message home?

Listen, I made a lot of GOTV calls. There were a lot of Dems who saw through the media BS from both the left and right. But, I also came across far too many who were discouraged and angry because they felt that Dems were the same as repubs. Many were unsure of casting a vote for Dems. Some were not voting at all. And this was in CA where, by and large, we tend to be a little more progressive. Imagine a media atmosphere saturated with Dem negativity 24/7 from conservative AND progressive media. Those not so tuned in and politically savvy (the majority of the electorate) are going to believe the BS. I mean, why wouldn't they? Hell, the criticism was coming from the left, too. It confused and angered the Democratic and Independents voters. It didn't do shit to move the agenda left.

I knew we were in trouble when my two closest friends asked if I also had doubts about the Dems. Keep in mind that these two are reliable and active progressives. My response to them: WTF? Their reply: Well, Thom, Cenk, etc are saying so.

[harun]

102. All the right blame in all the wrong places.

The agenda is being moved to the right every year. It isn't being moved to the right because the media is not criticizing the GOP and letting them move it to the right when they are comfortable to do so. It is eating up and destroying any and all GOP who aren't moving things to the right aggressively.

The Dem's tried to do what the Corporations and the voters wanted this time around. Instead of simply representing the voters. They wanted the Corporate donations and a happy electorate. They get to pick one of the them, they aren't going to get both.

Cenk railing against the Dem's from the start on this failure of strategy was appropriate and in my opinion appreciated. Maybe the Dem's will get it right by 2012. Represent the people, not the biggest Corporations.

[MrsCorleone]

105. With all due respect, just how do suppose Dems move left now?

The repubs now have control of the most powerful committees. They hold the purse strings. What do you think they'll do with that power? Help Obama help the people of this country? No way. We just had a Census, and the Repubs now have to power to redistrict critical regions to ensure more wins in 2012. That sure did work out well for the people and progressives.

Take a look at what is already going on in the Midwest in terms of high speed rail infrastructure and the thousands upon thousands of jobs that are now likely lost. The media will never explain to the people that republicans cut what was a pretty ingenious and progressive infrastructure plan by the Obama administration.

The republicans have signaled that they will do all they can to undermine every bit of progress that Obama and the Dems have made. But, instead of reporting these accomplishments ad nauseam and delving into the reasons WHY certain bills were not absolutely positively perfect in every single solitary way, a lot of liberals in the media tore Obama and the Dems down day after day after day.

You're right, the media and the transnationals that run them are at the very crux of the problem. But, forget about media reform with republicans in the House. We had a very slight chance of making inroads here, but it's not gonna happen now. No way. The lies will continue to fly.

These transnationals also have Citizens United to obliterate the progressive Dems that will be up for reelection in 2012. What effect do you think that will have on progressive bills now? What good will they be to the people if they're not around to fight for us all?

Perhaps, Cenk's strategy was the failure here. IMHO.

[frylock]

13. you just can't let an opportunity to kick kucinich go to waste..

even when he has obama's fucking back.

[Radical Activist]

26. I complimented Kucinich. Read again.

It was Cenk who I criticized. I don't know what you're referring to about kicking Kucinich. I'm a big fan of his.

[frylock]

44. my apologies

[jenmito]

32. You misread his post. n/t

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

71. cenk gets paid to

spread ignorance.

[Larkspur]

3. Depends if it is a compromise or a Dem Cave-in

The RepubliCON-Artists have to sacrifice something too, but they seem to want it all their way, whether or they are in the minority or not.

[jenmito]

10. It's an attempted compromise.

If the Repubs. DON'T accept only a temporary extension on the tax cuts for the rich, they will not get permanent tax cuts for the rich.

[treestar]

40. What is the difference?

[DirkGently]

6. Query: How do you compromise with Republicans stating emphatically that they will NOT?

[jenmito]

12. You show the country that the Repubs. are not willing to compromise, and wind up

getting nothing done and blame them.

[DirkGently]

47. Respectfully, I don't think there's a lot of point to be made here. Cenk and others are simply

pointing out that

a) "Compromises" with Republicans by the Obama Administration so far appear lopsided in favor of the Republicans. Healthcare reform was beaten and pulled and prodded and mashed to a pulp, and they still voted against it, condemned it when it passed, and made tearing it down a centerpiece of the midterms, and

b) Current Republican rhetoric is that "there will be NO compromise" with Democrats.

Given that compromise is an inevitable part of any political process, then, the only thing to argue about is whether President Obama should be putting the willingness to compromise front and center in the way that he has. Of course he's willing to compromise -- to GET THINGS DONE. No one seriously questions that.

Likewise, though, there's no smashing to be done of critics who think that Obama went too far in talking endlessly about compromise with Republicans who have repeatedly spat the notion back in his face, both rhetorically and legislatively. They're not wrong about that.


sytnax for edited.

[treestar]

92. Republicans end up compromising too, in spite of their mouthing off

Their usual grandstanding makes them look petulant. Their voters are the ones who respond to the showmanship and ignore the substance. It's not going to endear them to anyone else.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. Where? Please show us just where the repubs have compromised their

positions on bill they wound up supporting in the past 2 years.

I can't honestly think of any major legislation in the past two years where republicans have moved toward the Democratic position and supported Democratic bills. For two years, all we've heard was "passed on partisan lines" and "passed on almost completely partisan lines". Even when we've based the bills on Republican proposals.

Please, support your contention.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. It sucks to have to govern..

So much better to sit in a chair and complain.

[young but wise]

14. +1

[jenmito]

15. Exactly. n/t

[HughMoran]

16. + [ ]

fill in a number of your choosing. ;)

[GOTV]

29. Stopping the Republicans from further damaging the country IS governing.

You only need to compromise if congressmen are being paid by the bill.

[Ozymanithrax]

36. The Constitution requires that Congress perform certain required functions...

They must legislate, even when they are ruled by Republicans.

Would you prefer Democrats shut the government down because they refuse to compromise before Republicans do it?

Yes, the government must govern, and the way our government is set up requires compromise. Only absolute one party rule by tyrants gets around that.

[GOTV]

89. Last time the government was shut down it worked well for us ...

... Clinton was able to pin the blame on the GOP. Obama and the Dem leadership could do that this time two but their timidity probably wouldn't allow that.

[MrsCorleone]

100. +1

[ProSense]

11. Some people don't understand

strategic arguments.

The only thing some people care about is rejecting Repubicans, even if nothing gets done.

[zipplewrath]

17. Bit of semantics

The question is whether the GOP will "compromise" at all. They wouldn't on HCR. They wouldn't on the stimulus. Everyone understands that if you want to pass something in the next 2 years, you're going to have to get it through a GOP House. But if the definition of "compromise" is to basically take whatever they'll give you, that's foolish. We're going to have to "fight" with them.

[bornskeptic]

38. Three Republicans voted for the stimulus - Snowe, Collins, and Specter.

At that time it was not known that Specter would switch parties, and without Republican votes it wouldn;'t have passed.

[Ian David]

18. This is the same Kucinich who votes against more Dem bills than most Republicans...

... because the bills aren't Liberal enough?

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Of couse, he only votes against bad Dem bills when there is no chance

of his vote killing the bill - you may have noticed. He TALKS against bad bills far more than he votes against them - such as health care reform. Only idiots don't recognize that he talks them down for the OPPOSITE reasons the republicans do.

[de novo]

20. That be well and good, if repubs compromised. But, they do not.

It is naive to think they will.

[jenmito]

21. So you're calling Kucinich naive? n/t

[de novo]

67. Nah. Kucinich is a politician.

I like him, but he still is a politician. Anyone who really believes the repugs will compromise in good faith is naive and setting themselves up for failure and/or disappointment.

I think Kucinich, and other politicians who use that wretched word, are saying it in regard to very specific and narrow circumstances or issues. There is really very little that will actually get done in the next two years. Any legislation will be either weak and meaningless or right-of-center. Of course, any bill that Obama signs will be spun ad nauseam as a success by anyone with a hand in it. But, nonetheless, it will be nothing a liberal should be proud of.

[Ozymanithrax]

24. Whether they compromise is irrelevant to this.

The government must govern. Bills must be passed. If Democrats in the house decide to vote against everything Republian enmass, it won't matter. Simple majority rules. But, they may be able to get a very few things done.

I am sure that a lot of people here would like to see a Democratic party in lockstep, and become in the House the party of No.

We revile the Republicans when they are the party of No. Will it be good if we do it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Let's see - when the repukes vote no on every bit of GOOD legislation

that's a bad thing.

When dems vote no on every bit of BAD legislation, that's an equally bad thing?

[Ozymanithrax]

37. When we condemn Republicans for being the Party of no...

and then do that ourselves, that is a bad thing.

This is about the fact that the government must function. It it is shut down because Republicans and/or Democrats refuse to compromise, then everybody is wrong and everybody suffers.

I am opposed to suffering.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Suffering happens. Maybe you're too young to know that.

Nobody likes being punched in the face, but if being punched in the face today can stop my being shot in the face next week, I'll take the punch.

You cannot compromise with people who do not know the meaning of the word.

[Ozymanithrax]

41. I'm a 'Nam Vet...

Lived most of my life below the poverty line.

I know suffering. For that reason, I am anti-suffering.

The government must function and our elected officials must govern for it to function. Sometimes governing requires compromise. It is the nature of our system.

The demand for no compromise continues to push us as a nation toward a Constitutional cliff. I'd rather not jump over the cliff voluntarily.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Here's your compromise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x515086

So, HOW do you deal with people like that?

[Ozymanithrax]

48. Compromise doesn't mean we give Cantor everything he wants.

Compromise is defined as " A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions."

We negotiate.

Tax cuts for wealthy and middle class are not even necessary for the function of the government. If Republicans decide not to compromise, then all the tax cuts will expire. I can live with that. That is called deficit cutting.

Then Republicans have to pass new tax cuts, and get them through the Senate. That will require compromise, where no one gets everything they want.

I oppose refusal to compromise. But I don't define compromise as laying down and letting the other side have its way. For out elected leaders to govern, there must be some compromises made. If they don't, then it is quite possible for the government to collapse. The Constitution has not remedy for a congress that fails to legislate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. You just don't get it. It is CANTOR who is refusing to compromise, not

us. That whole piece was about Obama compromising, reaching out, and CANTOR refusing to hear it. We have been compromising for years and getting NOTHING from them. That is not compromise - that's surrender.

And was it a bad thing when the Republicans shut down congress in 94? That alone guaranteed Clinton's re-election.

You don't define compromise as laying down and letting the other side have its way - but that's the republican definition. That's why THEY never give and always demand.

So again I ask, How do you compromise with people who don't understand the meaning of the word?

[Ozymanithrax]

51. I get it, I support Kucinich saying he would compromise.

I support Obama saying he is willing to compromise.

I don't support Democrats inheriting the mantle of the party of no. Just because Cantor is an ass doesn't mean we have to be.

And to govern, some compromise is necessary.

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. And again you ignore the fucking question.

HOW DO YOU COMPROMISE WITH PEOPLE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORD?

You talk as if comprise is the final objective - it is NOT the fucking objective.

Getting something done is the objective - and getting it done with as little damage as possible to the people. If the only way the other side will 'compromise' is for us to surrender, THEN we DO NOT COMPROMISE.

Sometimes, to govern, you HAVE to say 'NO'.

Dennis knows that. I'm not sure Obama does.

And BTW, if the other side wants to impose theocracy, create a wealth-based aristocracy, dismantle the constitution, eliminate social security and medicare after repealing HCR, start new wars, we damn well BETTER become the party of 'no'.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. You know, it is possible for Kucinich to be wrong.

Progressives do not worship their leaders.

But look at it - with even one of the (supposedly) most liberal congressmen advocating compromise, publicly, who will it rebound on when the repukes REFUSE to compromise?

I'm not surprised when a politician uses a little political calculation in making a public statement. Dennis has been around long enough to KNOW that the other side has no intention of compromising.

The real question is, when legislation comes up and the repukes do NOT compromise, will he then move to their position? I doubt it.

[Chulanowa]

28. "Progressives do not worship their leaders" - No kidding?

http://www.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.290631.1284521062!/image/1041769580.jpg

[treestar]

95. Since Progressives don't follow their leaders blindly and Republicans do

that's an advantage to Republican intransigence, so you could at least remember that before carping at Democrats for not being uncompromising.

[GOTV]

27. I don't want them to just "get things done" only an idiot wants that.

If they're trying to do the wrong thing I'd rather things do not get done.

Do they think that if they're not passing something they aren't earning their paycheck.

[jenmito]

30. Obama and Gibbs both said making the tax cuts for the rich permanent is not gonna happen.

So if the Repubs. won't accept anything less, THEY will be guilty of not getting any tax cuts extended.

[GOTV]

90. That's how it should be spun. Will it be? Probably not. I'm afraid they'll go ...

... for a compromise which will be worse. The GOP will suggest a 2 year across the board extension and Onama will foolishly agree. THen coming up to the next presidential election the GOP has the tax issue all over again.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. I just saw that, and my take was not the same as yours

Any house divided by Party will have to make compromise to get anything done. This is a freaking given. I did not hear Kucinich agreeing with the advance capitulation methods that Obama calls compromise at all.foundational capitulation of his basic beliefs, which is what Obama seems to think compromise means.
It is really, really not fair to write your own version of what a third party said, put it forth and ask that your version be commented upon. The possibility of the listener's inferences overriding the actual spoken words is always present, and this is why quotes are the only way if you are going to ask for opinion about what was said. Kucinich did not say this, you did. To me, that is just pointless. A game of political post office.

[jenmito]

33. Then what do YOU think Cenk disagreed with Kucinich on? n/t

[KoKo]

103. +1

[phantom power]

34. Chasing "compromise" is a fool's errand.

[okieinpain]

42. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOW COULD HE SAY COMPROMISE

hahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

43. Kucinich wanted Ron Paul as his running mate. He said an eagle needs two wings to fly.

I am not surprised by his disagreement with Cenk in the least.

[JNelson6563]

46. Oh dear.

:popcorn:

[Vinca]

49. If he thinks Republicans will compromise, I've got a tower in Paris to sell him.

[niceypoo]

62. Compromise with republicans means ....

... the Democrats give in and hand the republicans the car keys for nothing in return.

[Enrique]

52. I love Dennis, but he's not a fighter

he holds all the right positions, 100% progressive, but he doesn't get stuff through.

[countrydad58]

55. Yes I am!

[Life Long Dem]

56. There are some that would be mad at Obama no matter what he did.

Just as there are those people who go looking for things he may have done wrong. Just like one reporter reporting that Obama bypassed a city in india where the biggest offshoring companies are located implying Obama isn't doing anything about jobs. Yet they spoke too soon because Obama is coming back with 53,000 jobs from those big offshoring cities.

[ibegurpard]

58. yup

no compromise with these criminals and thugs

[Pisces]

59. Blowhards are dime a dozen, people who know how to govern and get

things done, few and far between. I am sure Kucinich will be another loved dem who gets crucified on this board. We build them up to tear them down. What cliche's we have become.

[jgraz]

63. LOL. So now Obama is validated because Kucinich agrees with him.

What does that say about all the times Kucinich disagreed with him? :shrug:

[treestar]

72. Why isn't Kucinich thrown under the bus for this?

If it's wrong for Obama to do it, why isn't it wrong for Kucinich? Where are accusations of spinelessness?

[jgraz]

75. When Kucinich squanders the greatest opportunity for change in 80 years, I'll consider it.

You'll let me know when that happens, ok?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

82. Again, why is it OK for Kucinich to speak of compromise?

Your response there is just a dodge. You mean only a President should not compromise while others can?

[jgraz]

84. Did I say it was OK?

No, I don't think I did. In fact, I watched that interview and found it incredibly disappointing. I don't know what Kucinich is up to but, whatever it is, it ain't gonna get us more seats in 2012.

You seem to have a problem understanding that it's possible to both a) admire someone and b) disagree with and criticize them.

[treestar]

87. So let's disagree with and criticize any politician who ever

compromises (though we may admire them). Pretty much covers them all, though. What is the basis for the admiration?

[jgraz]

88. It's called "participatory democracy"

Our job as citizens isn't to admire politicians, it's to make sure they do their jobs.

[treestar]

96. It's our job to support the ones we agree with, so they have

political capital.

They do their jobs by showing up.

You're the one who said you admire Kucinich, though you disagree with him about compromise.

But you are 100% against compromise.

You mentioned the word admire, what is there to admire about a compromiser, from your view?

[jgraz]

97. Your post betrays simplistic thinking

It's not possible to monolithically "agree with" a politician. I don't 100% "agree with" anyone -- including, often, myself. In a complex world, you agree with certain ideas and disagree with others. That agreement may change over time.

But "agreeing with" a person, unconditionally? That smacks of hero-worship. Even for the few politicians I truly admire, it's simply not possible to "agree with" them 100% of the time.

[krawhitham]

65. Dems govern to help people, Repigs govern to win the next election

It is that simple

[SidDithers]

66. K&R...nt

Sid

[polichick]

68. imo Kuch is kidding himself...

...if he thinks the other side is actually going to give anything.

The tax cuts are set to expire - extending them at all is a compromise.

[KoKo]

69. Do you have a link or quote from the Transcript or View? Thanks!

[KoKo]

104. *crickets*....*crickets*

[jenmito]

109. I looked at the website-they don't HAVE transripts of the 3pm show. n/t

[KoKo]

110. How would we know...then?

:shrug:

[jenmito]

111. You wouldn't know other than to take my word for it. n/t

[KoKo]

112. True...but I know where you are coming from and you "think" you know where I'm coming from...

so where do we meet to do the "HANDSHAKE?" :shrug:

[jenmito]

113. I just posted what I heard. I didn't post specifically to you...

so I don't know what you want me to do or what you mean by meeting "to do the 'HANDSHAKE.'" I have no problem shaking your hand, but I don't know what it would mean. :shrug:

[jefferson_dem]

70. Cenk?

Whatever. I couldn't care less what that blowhard thinks.

[CTLawGuy]

73. and under the bus goes Kucinich

nt

[grantcart]

98. Surprised that it took 73 replies to get to the obvious Bus reference

Is it back from the shop yet? I understand the undercarriage has been torn apart.

[CTLawGuy]

115. it was found teetering on a mound of people

precariously so.

[ProudDad]

76. As long as the f*cking idiots keep trying

to continue the "industrial growth" paradigm on a finite Earth...

That's already severely depleted and polluted by that "growth"...

There will be nothing important accomplished...

So it doesn't matter which right-wing of the corporate war and pollution party gets "elected"...

We're fucked until there's a major sea change...

Power Down...relocalize...end the failed experiment in industrial growth capitalism...

It will kill us all if continued...


Kucinich is on the wrong side on this one!

[TheKentuckian]

77. Republicans believe compromise means doing what they demand

and

What they demand is generally and broadly to the detriment of the American people, our habitat, and our constitution.

The TeaPubliKlans are not the opposition but the enemy. Don't think so? Go ask them and you'll find an answer much closer to mine than yours. Just listen to them from the rank and file to the top two elected leaders. You have absolutely zero institutional Republican cooperation, the little defections are absolutely force by constituencies in the Atlantic east that could. Easily flip should their Senators get all teabbaggy and so they are somewhat forced to act on essential matters after watering them down as much as possible.

Outside of the super precarious Brown and the Maine centrists, we get shit ever and never will. We get essentially nothing in the House no matter what. That shit is strictly party line with some Blue Dogs going with the pukes pretty regular.

[Smashcut]

78. Link please

[yurbud]

79. Kucinich has a track record of fighting the good fight before compromising.

Obama compromises before there's even a fight.

[The Uncola]

81. Well..

.. then Kucinich is just as wrong as Obama is. No wonder the Regressives eat these guys lunch without even breaking a sweat.

[laughingliberal]

91. How funny! It's like people think my principles and beliefs will change depending on who's talking.

That's the problem with personality cults. Every time someone opens their mouth, they have to shift again.

[LibDemAlways]

93. Attempting to compromise with a repuke is like

attempting to compromise with a rattlesnake. You can try, but chances are, you are going to get bit.

[Umbral]

94. Yes.

If Kucinich really believes the Republicans will compromise, he's delusional or just a damned fool.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

101. Burn him! He's a witch!

Oh, Kucinich said it? Then it's okay. :rofl:

[ProudDad]

106. You do realize your username is an oxymoron? (n/t)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

107. Yes, I do -- that's why I chose it.

[Major Hogwash]

108. Wull, yeah, sort of, if you put it that way. Ya know, it hurts to give back a little.

Or just cave in like a house of cards.

I'm surprised you haven't been voted off the island yet.

LoL

[DemocraticPilgrim]

114. It's because it's not a dictatorship. Just because Bush did it, doesn't mean we do Democratic by...

name and nature and make up of the party. There is just a very bizarre notion that Pres. Obama controls everything, if not all of us turned up at precincts then we fully expect a conservative direction. We don't hold all the cards now, we're not a do nothing party but as voters we should of done more to get the vote out. I said over and over this won't hurt Democrats it can only hurt the people, if we don't increase his majority.