Obama’s reelection is not that important.

[obxhead]

Obama’s reelection is not that important.

Before you race to that alert button, I’m not railing against Obama, I am advocating for policy change.

Lately I have heard and read a lot of excuses for why Obama can not do this or that. Some of those excuses are valid, but many lead to a statement that “he can’t do that because he would lose in 2012.”

Obama’s reelection is not more important than ending the senseless crusade that Bush started in the Middle East. Stopping the senseless death of thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of innocent Afghan and Iraqi citizens is more important than 2012. Ending the endless flow of capital and endless borrowing of capital from abroad is more important than 2012.

Obama’s reelection is not more important than ending the oppression of the GLBT community. America is supposed to stand for equality and freedom. Neither is true for the GLBT community and until it is America is not living up to what it stands for.

Obama’s reelection is not more important than providing fair, effective, and affordable health care. I’m willing to bet that 2011 will finally bring the “fix it later” part of the HCR debate. Fix it later will likely mean anything that is good for us is removed. Obama standing up for us in that fight is more important than 2012.

Obama’s reelection is not more important than not only stopping the increasing flow of job loss to other countries, but reversing the trend. If we do not, at bare minimum, slow the exporting of our jobs our economy will never recover.

Obama’s reelection is not more important than not only saving social security, but actually expanding it. As our economy continues to flounder more and more people will need to rely on SS more than ever. Many people that can not yet retire are spending their retirement now just to survive. Many of the people in this position will never get another job that will help them rebuild those savings that they can not afford to be spending now. 2012 is not more important than saving the lives of tens of thousands of Americans that will require SS to survive.

Obama’s reelection is not more important than rebuilding our infrastructure. Getting a serious program to rebuild our roads, bridges, power grid, dams, power plants, etc is more important than 2012. Yes Obama has taken a step on this aspect, but it’s a step that is about 1% of what we actually need. Not only do we need this done, it would employ millions.

There are many more issues that I’ve heard Obama’s reelection are more important than. Personally I’m willing to risk Sarah Palin in 2012 to get some change that we don’t just want, but require. Besides even if she did win on 2012, so much dirt would be found that she would be forced to take an early retirement herself.

I support Obama and I call on him and my fellow supporters to tell him to fight for us now and worry about 2012 when it gets here. America and its people are more important than anyone’s reelection, no matter how great they are.

Edit to add:

I will support and vote for Obama in the general election over any Republican in 2012. I am simply tired of the excuse that we/he can't do this or that in the next 2 years because of 2012.

[Clio the Leo]

1. And he would agree with you.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-good-term-president/story?id=9657337

But the question has never been whether he'd have the votes in '12 .... but whether he has them NOW (in Congress.)

[gateley]

2. Well said, Clio. nt

[obxhead]

4. Actions speak louder than words.

He had the votes for 2 years and squandered them in my opinion. Now we are possibly stuck with 2 years where nothing we need can get done.

[ProSense]

5. So what was the point of the

OP: "I support Obama and I call on him and my fellow supporters to tell him to fight for us now and worry about 2012 when it gets here. America and its people are more important than anyone’s reelection, no matter how great they are."

Now: "He had the votes for 2 years and squandered them in my opinion. Now we are possibly stuck with 2 years where nothing we need can get done."

[obxhead]

11. I thought the point of the OP was clear.

I have heard/read in many places that Obama can't do something because he will lose in 2012.

I am calling on Obama to do more for us in the next 2 years and for some of his supporters to put the excuses back on the shelf. We voted for change because we need change.

I can support Obama and feel he squandered his first 2 years at the same time as well.

[ProSense]

12. "Personally I’m willing to risk Sarah Palin in 2012....Besides even if she did win on 2012"

Yes, it was crystal clear.

[obxhead]

15. I thought so too.

I'm pushing for Obama to fight for us, not a reelection.

[Dr Fate]

10. "We did not have the votes."

"We do not have the votes."

We will never have the votes.

"We counted the votes and they were not there."

We will continue to count the votes and they will never be there.

[obxhead]

14. That is not the case.

If it is there is simply no point in even going out and vote for him again. If he can't bring change why expend the effort?

Personally I believe he has the power to bring change. That's why I continue to fight, criticize, and support Obama.

[Dr Fate]

20. No, it's does not have to be the case, but it certainly is the talking point.

You will basically be told that it is not Obama's job to fight for votes, but that it is merely his job to count them.

You will also be told that the bully pulpit is "over-rated." And there is "nothing" Democrats can do to get their way as a minority, despite the fact that the GOP as minority was able to get their way on so many things.

You will also be told that Obama cannot/will not twist the arms of Blue Dogs & DLCers to vote Liberal in the same way that he got Liberals to vote centrist.

It does not have to be the case, but it is.

Ever notice that we have just many talking points for why we have to let conservatives have their way- as we do for ways to fight conservatives? Perhaps even more. That should tell you something.

[obxhead]

23. Yes, those are many of the excuses I hear daily.

Having them pushed here and elsewhere is the wall that stands in front of change.

[Dr Fate]

24. And new ones are being crafted. Watch for them. n/t

n/t

[Clio the Leo]

19. Except that he didn't have the votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=523118

[Dr Fate]

22. And many did not accept that excuse. At least now the excuse is for real.

We realize that it is not the job of Centrist Demcorats to fight for votes- it is their job to merely count the votes to see how many centrists are for it, then make the left compromise based on that count.

Our strategy is not to fight for votes, but to count them, and count them again, if need be.

[great white snark]

8. +1

Thank you again.

:fistbump:

[Hawkowl]

3. Excellent point

I have never heard it put so well!

[Ken Burch]

6. In fact, if Obama's re-election were to be accompanied by his permanent adoption of Clintonism

re-electing the guy would be pointless(as was re-nominating Bill Clinton instead of replacing him with an actual DEMOCRAT in 1996).

We have nothing to gain from moving any further "to the center".

"Centrism" equals pointlessness.

When Republicans talk about wanting Obama to be "moderate"...they mean they want him to be the most prominent house slave in the land.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. Very well put!

I wish Obama could read this...

Recommended.

[obxhead]

18. Thank you!

That means a great deal to me coming from such a seasoned poster here as you.

:hi:

[GSLevel9]

9. I wish people would stop talking about Palin running/winning...

it WON'T happen.

[obxhead]

16. I agree.

I put that in there because without fail that is always said immediately after the Obama can't/reelection BS.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. There are a number of obstructions to any policy.

First, there is the makeup of House. Republicans masterfully obstructed Congress for 2 years, and now that they are in Control of the house, they will decide what gets done. Sure, the Democrats in the Senate could write a bill to do anything they want, assuming it can get out of committee (see Second reason) and Republicans can write their own version or just not enact a version and at all and it does not get enacted. Both houses must pass the same bill because the President can not Legislate.

Second, there is the Senate with a very slim majority, and a plan to make Obama a one term President, take over the Senate, and give Republicans total control again. Obstruction in the Senate will be worse this time, and even if they change the filibuster rules, they are not going to get rid of it. Remember, the President does not legislate. Republicans have shown that they do not need to govern or do anything to get back in power.

Third, Should the President try and force his agenda down the unwilling throats of Republicans and nothing gets passed, it is a win for Republicans. Their primary goal is to make Obama a one term President. To do that, they just have to make sure he gets nothing done. Yes, it may make a lot of people happy to see him tilt at windmills, but the government must govern not please a segment of the population by fighting for doomed policies.

You see, change requires that someone Legislate, (That is Congress) and someone sign that Legislation (that would be the President), and the courts stand by to make sure it passes Constitutional Muster (SCOTUS). Our system is written to require either compromise or unanimity. Republicans have all the unanimity they need when in power. They are very good at that. In a mixed power situation, compromise is absolutely critical.

And if there is none, that leads to a Republican President in 2 years and probably a Republican Senate and a House. That is more change than I care to see.

That, of course, will unite DU like nothing else.

[ej510]

17. The only reason it is important, because we need him to pick Supreme Court Justices.

This is how we will overturn Citizens United IMO.

[Ozymanithrax]

26. No, we need him to govern.

It may be years, if ever, before Citizens United is overturned.

One of the main reasons Congress wrote the 14th Amendment was to cut the Dred Scott decision off at the knees. It was never over ruled, but the 14th Amendment gutted it. We may need a Constitutional amendment to fix this, which means it will stand while the Republic stands.

The President sets policy, and acts to moderate legislation using the veto pin. If Congress wants something done, and can not over ride a veto, they have to compromise. Congress acts as a check, on Presidential power to go to war and perform international diplomacy. They must sign off on treaties and only Congress can declare war.

What we need is a government that governs, something the modern Republican an party refuses to do.

[obxhead]

28. The filibuster is a huge part of the problem.

The fact that Dems will not force the Republicans to actually do it is an even more disgusting aspect of the problem.

[treestar]

21. Wrong. Think of the supreme Court

And you start off with the wars, what do you think Republicans will do - just build them back up.

[obxhead]

25. Yes, the SC is an important issue.

As far as the wars go, if they were actually ended it would be extremely difficult for them to be restarted, even if all 3 branches were firmly controlled by Republicans. They were difficult to get started even when the public supported them. I will go back to war would not be a winning campaign strategy for anyone, especially when so many have trouble just putting food on the table.

[liberal N proud]

27. The thought of a republican president scares me

And it truly frightens me thinking of who the GOP might run.

There should be a balance, but I think if Obama takes Congress to task for partisanship, he will come out on top. People are angry at Congress more than they are at Obama with the exception of the media and pundits.

[polichick]

29. For me it's all about policy too, not personalities - or even parties...

k&r

[quaker bill]

30. Obama in the Whitehouse

is the precise constitutional equal to typical republican majorities in the House and the Senate. To the extent you would not want to give the House and Senate to republican majorities, you should want Obama re-elected, as both are equal.

You need to wrap your head around the notion that none of the things you mention as desirable are going to happen over the next two years, not one, no chance. What President Obama does or asks for will not make a difference, other than the notion that if he asks for it, almost anything, it becomes less likely to happen, simply because he asked. There is nothing about the common good that this incoming crop of republicans desire to serve. Their one and only goal is to defeat the President in 2012.

This is all it is about, and it will be about nothing else. Republicans are deranged over the fact that they were beaten soundly at the polls by a young, inexperienced, eloquent, non-veteran, somewhat liberal leaning, black man. They have no other focus than payback for this slight by the voters, and will joyfully pitch the entire country under the bus to get it.

Watch'em go, and keep your raincoat handy.

[Awsi Dooger]

31. Wrong, an Obama defeat attaches far beyond 2012

It would be viewed as a daily double of failed presidencies, along with Jimmy Carter, despite the 30 year gap. We can't afford for that type of dialogue to hit the apolitical types. Fox News, and elsewhere, will abuse the comparison, every time another Democratic nomination is clinched, "Is he another Carter or Obama?"

Regardless of political breaks or national mood, Obama must be more forceful the next two years.