A president is not a dictator, that being said what compromise would progressives accept?

[wndycty]

Seriously, I would love for folks to tell me where Obama is allowed to compromise. So far according to many progressives Obama has compromised too much. What compromise is or would be acceptable?

[SidDithers]

1. K&R...nt

Sid

[wndycty]

3. LOL the unrecs have started. . .

. . .I asked a fucking question and folks are unrecommending.

It shouldn't be too hard, right? He is not a dictator, he is a president and compromise is central to what he needs to do to get things done. He has gotten things done, has he gotten all that I wanted? No. Has he compromised on things I didn't want him to? Yes. But he hasn't gotten a lot more of what I wanted than what I didn't.

[midnight]

2. This progressive would love to suggest compromising on deficiets....

“The American people showed they care about deficits, so Obama should veto any new tax cuts for incomes over $250K.”

[wndycty]

5. And how would you like him to compromise?

He has already said said he wants no new tax cuts for incomes over $250K and I agree with that. That is what I want, but you didn't tell me where you feel he should compromise.

[jody]

4. Is compromise 50% + 1 of the vote? Then every law passed is a compromise. If however compromise

allows individuals to keep part of their sovereignty known as natural, inherent, unalienable/inalienable rights, then there is no room for dictators or a dictatorial congress.

[yurbud]

6. it's not a matter of whether compromise is necessary, but how hard you fight BEFORE you

compromise and whether you use the bully pulpit to get the public to pressure those who oppose you in the legislature.

[wndycty]

7. You can answer the question I posted in the OP, where would you accept compromise. . .

. . .from the president?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. What is an acceptable length of time

considering the legislative timetables realistically available to actually accomplish something? The Democrats plugged away at HCR for nearly a year and reasonable efforts were made to expand government health care (Medicare) and/or the PO before they had to be ultimately dropped b/c of Lieberman's obstructionism (and that only happened at the very end). How much longer should THAT have gone before it likely just ended up in defeat/disaster like Clinton's 1993-1994 efforts?

Obama and his team surely knew that the political "window of opportunity" for getting HCR and Financial Reform legislation was going to be very limited, particularly once the scope of the Republican's obstructionism came into view and we got closer to the midterms, so he and the Democrats in Congress didn't really have all that much time available to them, realistically speaking. The choice likely boiled down to getting something done and getting nothing done and I think that they (wisely) chose former over the latter.

Remember too, it's always harder to repeal progress once it's been made than prevent it from happening in the first place. Our strategy now has got to be protecting our gains and getting more progressives into office to continue to building on our gains and advancing a progressive agenda.

The Democrats are ALWAYS going to be more conciliatory and open to compromise and trying to work with the opposition. That's really just part of how we all are. We don't need nor should we aspire to be cutthroat and ruthless like the Republican Tea Party However, we do need our Democratic leaders to be assertive and still stand up for what is right for the majority of the people in the country and to that end we need to "get their backs" (because the "liberal media" sure as hell won't) AND keep the pressure up on them to stand their ground and not just let the Republican Tea Party run amok.

[ThomCat]

26. Exactly right. Obama doesn't fight for progressive causes before

compromising. He compromises as his opening act, then when he faces some push-back he compromises some more.

On health care, from the very start he pursued the republican plan instead of democratic plans, because that would hopefully bring Republicans "to the table." Then he promises that insurance would "remain necessary and profitable."

The whole goal of Health Care Reform according to progressives was to Eliminate Insurance, so Obama's promise was a surrender! He surrender everything Progressives hoped to accomplish before the fight had even begun. He gave Insurance companies the victory before negotiations even started. Everything after that was just negotiating the terms of the surrender.

Then, he refused to allow progressives to be "at the table," but he refused to bar corporations. That was a very important and telling double standard. Anyone who didn't see through him at that point was being intentionally, willfully blind. He had just blatantly admitted his double standard, that he would give corporations access and privileges while denying them to citizens and progressive organizations. How much more more blatantly corrupt could he get?

Wall Street Reform was another shining example. We did not get Glass-Steagall put back into place. Even though everyone says that removing Glass-Steagall was cause of the problems, and even though everyone says that this is only the first, and single most essential and necessary reform that is necessary, it has not been done.

No matter what smoke and mirrors anyone tries to throw at you, just keep coming back to this. We needed to restore Glass-Steagall. Obama knew it. Every advisor and economist admitted it. Obama didn't want to do it, didn't try to do it, and we don't have any reform that restores any of the provisions of Glass-Steagall. Why not? Because the banks don't want Glass-Steagall restored.

What do we have instead? We have weak provisions that if the banks do some things that would be objectionable they have to report it. That's right, They Have To Make An Announcement in some bureaucratic form that they did something wrong. The reforms don't prevent them from doing it. The reforms don't take away their structural ability to doing those things wrong. The reforms don't even have teeth to mandate strong punishments when they do these things wrong. All the reforms require is that they tell someone after they have done whatever it is they know they shouldn't be doing. That is what counts as reform these days.

Oh, and we have a new Elizabeth Warren in the new Consumer Advocacy Commission that may or may not have enough authority to start pursuing some of the smaller banks to get at some of this fraud and corruption. But the big banks, and the roots of all this corruptions and fraud? That's beyond her authority. Her commission certainly don't have that level of power, or the necessary political backing or support from the Fed or from Congress or from Obama that she and her commission would need when the all the big guns come out on Wall Street demanding blood.

When every lobbyist and every big donor who writes the big checks starts demanding that Obama and our Party shut her up in a very big way or they will stop writing checks, who do you really think all of the our politicians in DC are going to support? Do you really think for even a moment that Obama and the leaders of our party would back her, and our interests, over the demands of Wall Street? Really?

So we have this timid and weak president who refuses to negotiate. From the beginning he gave us a loss in health care reform by caving in to the insurance industry. He caved in to republicans. He has surrendered to Wall Street.

Progressives are, surprisingly, the only people Obama won't surrender to. Us he will keep fighting. He's even fighting to keep DADT in court all the way to the Supreme Court.

And now I see that he's fighting to keep blatant discrimination int he military too. Anyone who has been in the military for 6 years or more who gets discharged from the military gets separation pay. If you are discharged under DADT because you are LGBT they cut your discharge pay in half! There is no legitimate reason for it, and no explanation.

Activists have tried to get the this changed, but the Department of Defense refuses! So now there is yet another lawsuit pending on behalf of former and current LGBT service men and women. Obama could have ended this at any time with the stroke of a pen! As Commander in Chief this is something Entirely within his purview. Yet, under this "fierce advocate, as Pam's Hosue Blend puts it so eloquently, "Homos get half."

We have a weak and timid president who will not act like a democrat, and will not fight hard to defend left-leaning and progressive positions before compromising. Instead we have a president who will give us right-leaning positions, and who will compromise immediately and move farther to the right, and then keep moving to the right until a deal has been reached just so he can declare that any deal is victory no matter how much of a loss it is.

[ibegurpard]

37. good summation

[AllyCat]

8. End the war. We'd have lots more money then.

Since Congress never declared this war, the POTUS should just be able to stop this one.

[Vincardog]

9. What compromise is the GOP OFFERING?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. Good question

AFAIK nothing.

Wonder why all those damned moderates and centrists aren't asking that question?

:wtf:

[de novo]

10. I have no problem with compromise, it is impossible to govern without it.

Where I have a problem is ceding too much of the field before the debate even starts. Also, compromise suggests a give and take, that each side gives a little. That doesn't happen. The repugs draw lines in the sand and do not budge. The Dems give, the repubs take, and in the end there are still no votes from the repugs.

I understand that a lot of the giving is to conservatives within the Democratic Party. This is where the compromise could be effective. Knowing that the party it populated with a significant number of conservatives, I would like to see the debates start from the more progressive end, knowing that some will have to be given up to reach the consensus within the party. And, only give to the conservatives when the are bound to reciprocate, either on that specific issue or on the next piece of legislation.

It is not compromise when it only flows one way. And, it is not compromise to say that passing any bill is a positive for the country or for the party.

[Armstead]

11. Bingo -- Hit nail on head

[polichick]

12. Compromising doesn't mean waving the white flag before negotiations even begin...

It means that during negotiations BOTH sides get something and BOTH sides give up something.

Sometimes the prez seems to think that compromise means Dems cave and Republicans get what they want - even when Dems hold all the cards. It's absurd!!

[grumgrum]

14. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

Nicely put.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. None. That's why they're progressives...

...you can have a maximalist program only when you've got no real interest in governing.

[Armstead]

15. You sound like Glen Beck -- Bashing those "awful" progressives /nt

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[CakeGrrl]

19. Where did the OP say "awful"?

Nowhere that I've seen.

Part of the problem I see on this board is the knee-jerk impulse to take a victim stance as an excuse to start a flame war. The first response to your post just adds to it.

[Armstead]

21. The long tradition of casting "progressives" in a negative light -- just a difference in degree

Beck admittedly uses a much wider definition of "progressives" to include anybody who is not right wing.

The "not progressive" faction of Democrats and DUers are not so sweeping.

However the spirit is the same, in terms of defining people of very liberal/progressive beliefs as being harmful "leftists" who are out of touch.But no matter how open to compromise we are, we see the goalpost constantly being moved away from us, and then we are stereotyped as uncompromising and unrealistic .

Speaking for myself, I am basically a mloderate liberal open to compromise. Even a mild voluntary public option would have been an acceptable compromise from what I'd really like to see -- a single payer system like the rest of the civilized world has.

But not a "compro,mise" that delivered us into the hands of private insurers without at least forcing them to keep their rates at a reasonable income-based level.I am thoroughly fed up with "compromises" like health-care "reform" that gave up all facets of a public insurance alternative while forcing people to buy private insurance.

Too often we see compromises that completly gut even the core of what we supposedly believe in.

[CakeGrrl]

23. The OP isn't dogwhistling any 'Second Amendment remedies' to deal with progressives

I don't see how it makes any sense to equate a reasonably asked question with the likes of Beck's insanity. It just amps up the negativity and defensiveness, is all I'm saying.

[wndycty]

25. Thanks for the back-up

:kick:

[wndycty]

24. I'm a progressive and I created the OP why would I cast myself in a negative light

:kick:

[Prism]

20. Public option, DADT or ENDA, a total Iraq withdrawal

Where would you like to start?

On gay rights, I wouldn't be a fraction as pissed about DADT if we had some kind of push for ENDA. I said at the beginning of Obama's presidency that I did not expect DOMA within the first two years. I figured there was no way - and I was right. But in being ok with that to some extent, I did expect movement on ENDA and DADT. The President has certainly compromised - with the wrong people.

Single-payer a no go? Fine. Public option.

Must escalate Afghanistan? Fine. Finish up in Iraq and close Guantanamo. (Finishing in Iraq does not mean leaving 50,000 anything there).

Wall Street needs bail out? Fine. Bring back Glass-Steagall.

And on. And on. And on. And on.

I would accept many, many, many compromises. I don't believe any of them are unreasonable.

My question is, "What compromise would the President's fiercest supporters be unwilling to accept?" I have never gotten a clear answer or one that stuck. I still remember last summer, it was all "Oh, if there's no public option, I'll be just as pissed as you!" And then there wasn't, and the same people who said they'd be just outraged went right ahead and defended even that to the hilt.

I'm tired of defenses. I want some advocacy.

[ruggerson]

29. +1

[RandomKoolzip]

39. This ^^^

[paulk]

44. +2

[ibegurpard]

22. a public option, which the majority of people polled supported...

...would have been an acceptable compromise.

[moondust]

27. Whatever happened to the "unitary executive?"

You know, the idea that the President IS a dictator "in time of war?" Or whatever.

Everything would be sooo much easier...

:sarcasm:

[Davis_X_Machina]

30. Dammit...

...I left that voting booth in 2008 saying to myself "Fuck yeah! Now we've got our Bush. Son-of-a-bitch better start breaking shit!"

Because that's just how our government works.

[BeyondGeography]

28. "We have to deal with the world as we find it."

How did we get from "change you can believe in" to that sad state of mind?

Team Obama needs to ask themselves who loves ya, baby? Do NOT say things like "we have to deal with world as we find it" in response to the first major issue you will tackle post-midterms. We started supporting you four years ago because we hate that fucking world. If you lose enthusiasm among people who supported you with time and money starting in Feb. 2007, it won't matter how many independents you pick up by being less Republican than John Boehner.

That said, Obama doesn't have to compromise on the Bush tax cuts. He can let them expire and push for his own tax cuts. He is President and he has that power. I wish he would use it.

If he still wants to compromise, a $1 million cut-off for extending the existing rates is both a victory and much better public policy than a wholesale extension. A one-year extension of the top rate, decoupled from middle class rates, is also a win. Anything else is a cave-in.

[Catherina]

31. +1 n/t

[Phx_Dem]

32. Obama has an obligation to the country, not just progressives.

It he needs to compromise to get things done, for the overall good, then so be it.

[harun]

33. He should only give in to Republican's when they offer something in return.

They have offered nothing.

Compromising on Tort Reform would have been fine by me if he got a Public Option in return.

If they want to raise the age for Social Security get in return get a Medicare Buy-in.

They want to extend tax cuts for the super rich, fine, get a new Corporate Tax that goes directly to the needy. Or put a tax on peoples stock and bond portfolios that goes directly to the needy, etc. Kill the capital gains tax and make everyone pay 2% of their portfolio to the needy each year, then when they pull the funds out, have it be free from taxes, etc.

Plenty of options.

[rufus dog]

34. Not sure of the context

There are plenty of areas for compromise. I believe you mean specific to the tax cuts since that is the key issue on a lot of OPs.

To me compromise is extending the tax cuts to those with AGI below 250k. Politically that is a given that the tax cuts must be extended, and I can live with that. For the tax cuts for earners over 250k I am OK with extending that number based upon the impact. So a temporary extension (or even a permanent) on 50k addition, OK, 500K, maybe, 750k, getting gray, over a million, no.

If you are going to negotiate that way, show your cards up front, then you have to be willing to brawl after a certain point and that means NO compromise. To throw out soft numbers and not have a hard stop point means you begin negotiating at the highest number, in this case 1 million.

Look it is a core belief backed in hard data. Trickle down economics doesn't work! It is a proven failure and negotiations only legitimize a non legitimate position! So when you see Obama supporters concerned about compromising on this issue this is the reason. At some point an all out fucking brawl needs to take place and for some of us this is the issue we want and must fight.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Compromise is not a thing that exists on one side.

A compromise is a two part thing. A compromise can not exist as an autonomous item that one side is meant to accept. A compromise is a thing that is created from elements from both sides, it is a 'co promise', it can not be created in advance by nor approved by just one party to a negotiation.
The area in which I think the administration could improve is in the negotiaition and talk prior to those negotiations.When compromise is sought and instead capitulation is offered, that is an insult to those on the other side of the table. It does not engender trust. It deprives them of sharing in the victory. It is best to go in sounding hard line, that is best for one's own side, and it is also best for one's rivals. It is that language that signals respect, and a need to negotiate, the intention to seek compromise. Only strong opposition on your part can buy for the rival anything to take away but more 'points won'. A good fight gives them the pride of the battle won. And with that pride, they need less actual 'win' to remain standing tall.
If they ever had to make money by negotiations with far more powerful people, they'd learn and learn fast.
Sorry to actually answer when you were wanting flames. I think they do it poorly, and never get to the compromise, which is the art, and is to be sought. I do not really think he has compromised, I think he has repositioned and altered policy in advance, and sort of left the other side out of the actual process. You can not just say 'I know what you want, and here it is' and call that compromise. Even if it is exactly what they want in the end, they also want and need the process, and in the case of politics, so do the people, they need to see the process, not a predictive reduction done to avoid the process. Compromise is a process. It can not be approved by one side and delivered to the other as a gift.

[Pamelita]

36. I would say let's not compromise on the most important issues

Such as health care, war, etc.

[That Guy 888]

38. I like the compromise that keeps the tax cut for everyone under a quarter of a million a year income

If the goppers won't agree to that compromise why reward them with more?

Do you have any examples where the goppers have given something up they wanted in return... you like an actual compromise? A compromise in which the MAJORITY of goppers voted for the compromise? How about double digits? Have at least 10 goppers voted with the President on a "compromise"?

[Dr.Phool]

40. This is a horse that's been beaten to death several times.

It's called negotiation. It's a means towards a result.

You don't start out at a place where you think your opponent will settle. They will sense weakness like a shark senses blood in the water, dig their heels in at that point and demand more.

And then you send in your best negotiators. Nor someone already sympathetic to the other side. If we told you what is acceptable now, the battle is already lost.

First off, you have to draw a line in the sand, IN YOUR OWN MIND, that some things are non-negotiable. My personal line is absolutely no tax breaks for those above $250k. From there you could possibly make a deal for more tax brackets at the levels above that. Why should LeBron James and Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates be in the same bracket as their dentist?

Your trump card is letting all the breaks expire. I, being a good citizen, could live with that. Living in a society with government provided services has a price tag. And besides, my breaks under the Bush cuts were pretty small to begin with. I could live without them. By letting the other side know, that you're willing up front to let them all expire, and tell them you will use a tactic that you haven't used yet. Use your BULLY PULPIT to scream every day that the other side is holding your tax cuts hostage for Hollywood Elites, Paris Hilton, Donalt Trump, and Adam "Pacman" Jones.

[baldguy]

41. What are the conservatives willing to give up?

"Compromise" must go both ways - otherwise it's capitulation.

[Mass]

42. compromise means both sides getting something from the other side. What has he gotten?

I would favor a compromise that would lift the $250,000 to something higher, accompanied by a higher tax above $10,000,000. Both sides give something. This is compromise.

Giving an extension, even temporary, is not getting something from the other side. They know they do not want to increase only the rich, so what are they giving up?

[Exilednight]

43. Misconception on your part. It's not the .........

compromise that the left base is upset about. It's the the fact that he compromises before he even begins the fight. He allows Republicans to frame the message and the administration, Obama in particular, is caught playing defense.

Everyone I talk to is not afraid of a loss, it's the fact that he doesn't even lace up the gloves.

[DirkGently]

45. Ah yes. Remember when those horrible Progressives refuted all compromise ... oh, wait. They didn't.

[Clio the Leo]

46. We DO NOT COMPROMISE!!!!

We...

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