So, Obama is using the bully pulpit and taking the jobs bill fight to Republican districts

[Recursion]

Will there be a mass DU statement that he's finally doing what we asked him to?

[Solomon]

1. Of course not.

Be prepared for the coming dogpile about how he waited too long and wasted the momentum he had in 2008.

[TheWraith]

57. And if the bill dies, it'll never occur to them that the "bully pulpit" doesn't work like they think

[Proud Public Servant]

2. Look at your own phrasing

"he's finally doing what we asked him to." This is his 966th day in office, and "he's finally doing what we asked him to." Happy to acknowledge it, but I'd still like to know where the fuck this Obama -- the Obama I voted for -- was for the first 965 days. Glad he showed up, though, especially because he still owes me some change.

[MineralMan]

4. Welcome to DU.

Truly.

You might want to watch those "change" comments, though. They signal something that isn't too popular around here.

[Recursion]

5. What will be sad is when the jobs bill doesn't pass and people think it's because he didn't "fight"

enough, rather than the more realistic conclusion that Presidential rhetoric doesn't change Congresspeople's minds, and this is part of the campaign.

[Proud Public Servant]

6. I think Congress's role will be clear

Their disapproval rating is through the roof, and their obstructionist nature is obvious. The question is, once the House thwarts the President (again), will he remain in Truman mode and call them on it? Or will he (God forbid) once again praise some piece-of-shit legislation as "the best deal we could reasonably expect"?

The fate of his jobs bill is, to a great extent, out of his hands. But the fate of his presidency is not; he needs to have the stomach to keep fighting, regardless of whether he wins this round.

[PRETZEL]

11. I don't know if it's out of his hands indirectly

I think it's definately the kick off to the 2012 election and could be a big talking point for alot of potential Democratic Congressional candidates.

Both the President and the current Democratic Leadership needs to be out there pushing this. They need to let the American public know that Boener and his party is what is holding it up. They need to do like the President is doing, going into those districts and talking directly to those who are unemployed, underemployed and what the bill could do for them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. He's going to be visiting here in Raleigh -

he needs to have a little sit down with our Governor.

She faces a recalcitrant republican legislature. She offered up a state budget. They didn't like it. They sent one up to here with a LOT of problems. She vetoed it. They finally passed it over her veto.

She didn't compromise. She didn't say "it's not quite what we wanted, but it's the best we could get". She does not own this republican budget. They do. And as things go to shit, people will remember that she she said "No" to it.

And they will know where to place the blame.

It's a lesson he needs to learn.

[hfojvt]

46. considering that I don't want the jobs bill to pass

I cannot see myself saying something like that. Now, if he would fight harder for something I want, like, oh I don't know, back in December when the Bush tax cuts were up for renewal. But now that Obama is fighting and demanding for Republicans to cut taxes for the rich, I am supposed to be happy?

[Number23]

63. Excellent point

But I really hope that it does pass.

[dennis4868]

7. Yeah, where was he the first 965 days

www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

[pnorman]

32. I was searching for that!

THANKS!

[WingDinger]

9. Obama's main failing is: Not liking promotion. Propaganda or even good press.

He is studious. and meek. his successes are not mentioned by him or his. Half to not inflame his opponents, and half true meekness.

But succeed he does.

What we finally want him to do is stick his successes IN THEIR FACES. We want some slams. Some chops that are impossible to come back on.

I do too. But sober authority should win.

[TwilightGardener]

31. LOL. Ok, pal.

[leftstreet]

49. +1

[MineralMan]

3. Praise for President Obama is somewhat hard to find here.

He has my praise for what he is doing right now with regard to the Jobs Bill. That it contains no cuts in any social programs is a big plus, too.

I do not like every element of it, but I can say that for almost every large bill passed in my adult life.

Good job, Mr. President!

[Tippy]

8. I wish things were different here on DU......but

"You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time."

People tend want immediate results and want things their way I guess what I am saying is people want instant gratification. But in most cases it just don't work that way...

[bigwillq]

27. I don't.

DU is what it is, today and yesterday (or last month or last year or 10 years ago), because it thrives on user-generated content. DU is what it is because of the people who choose and/or allowed to post on it.

If one doesn't like it, then they have the option of making it more suited to their liking, either by posting content they feel is most appropriate for this site or by utilizing some of the site options, like hide thread or ignore.

If that still doesn't satisfy the user, they are free to post on other sites that more closely align with their beliefs and ideas. There's plenty of them out there on the web.

But, in the end, DU is just a message board, with various viewpoints, some of which we will agree with and some we won't. It's important to keep that in perspective.

[gordianot]

10. Going to Republican Districts is excellent.

Republican attacks on Obama have been personal. One item hard to miss is the Secret Service allowed people without an invitation to crash a Whitehouse party. I felt after that incident there was a change in Obama's tone the threat should have been unmistakable. He has my deepest sympathy Republicans have become a monstrosity to even have to sit in the same room has to be painful.

[Romulox]

12. Why is Obama trying to sneak 3 different "free trade" deals into his jobs bill???

"Free trade" is a jobs destroyer, as even this administration admits. They're also asking for money to retrain workers displaced by these trade deals! :wtf:

[Recursion]

13. Because the light manufacturing jobs will go overseas with or without agreements

And agreements at least help us capture some exports in return.

[Romulox]

15. Just like NAFTA, right?

:rofl:

[Recursion]

22. Yes, just like NAFTA, which is why ag as a sector is doing so well

Laugh all you want, NAFTA is a large part of why American farms are doing so well.

[Romulox]

35. I just want to point out how ludicrous of a "point" this is--Agriculture is the most subsidized

sector in our economy.

I mean, it just isn't possible to pick a worse example! :silly:

[phleshdef]

39. Actually agriculture is a wonderful example.

Here we have an example of us subsidizing something that people need and it operating very well in an economical sense, regardless of NAFTA.

As I said in another point that you LOLed at, if we did right by our economy, NAFTA would be of no real consequence. Agriculture is an example of high federal government interaction leading to a successful industry. If we applied smart government to other vital sectors of the economy, I believe you would get similar results.

[Romulox]

41. We all need manufactured goods, too. Why "free trade" for some, massive subsidies for others?

:silly: :hi:

[phleshdef]

43. What does that have to do with anything I said?

Don't change the subject just because you lost a point in the argument.

[Romulox]

52. You're touting US agriculture policy as a triumph of "free trade". Bizarre to say the least.

And no, NAFTA has been the subject of my posts to this thread since the first. :hi:

[phleshdef]

56. No, I'm touting US agriculture as a triumph of federal government intervention despite free trade...

...and thus backing up my point that if we did things right, NAFTA wouldn't matter, a point you are going to eventually have to swallow.

[Claudia Jones]

62. not really

Not unless you call ADM, Cargil, and Monsanto "farms."

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are responsible for the impoverishment of and loss of many small farms in Mexico and Haiti. NAFTA is also causing the economic destruction of rural farming communities in the United States and Canada. The resulting loss of rural employment has created a landslide of socio-economic and environmental consequences that are worsening with the continued dismantling and deregulation of trade barriers.

When NAFTA came before Congress in 1993, US farmers were told that the agreement would open the borders of Mexico and Canada, enabling them to sell their superior products and achieve previously unknown prosperity. Corporations who operate throughout the Americas, such as Tyson and Cargill, have since used the farming surplus to drive down costs, pitting farmers against each other and prohibiting countries from taking protective actions. These same corporations have entered into massive farming ventures outside the U.S. and use NAFTA to import cheaper agricultural products back into this country, further undermining the small farmers in the U.S. Since the enactment of NAFTA, 80% of foodstuffs coming into the U.S. are products that displace crops raised here at home. NAFTA has allowed multinational mega-corporations to increase production in Mexico, where they can profit from much cheaper labor, as well as freely use chemicals and pesticides banned in the U.S.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/8-nafta-destroys-farming-communities-in-us-and-abroad/

[phleshdef]

24. If we did right by our economy in other areas, NAFTA nor any other deals would be of any consequence

At least in the context of jobs, there is plenty of work to be done here, in this country that unemployment could be brought down to even better than normal levels. We wouldn't even notice the effect of NAFTA on the American labor force had we not spent the past decade engaging in near total neglect for domestic infrastructure and large scale energy and transportation projects. When Clinton signed NAFTA, his administration was spending a lot more here at home, a whole lot less/next to nothing on foreign war efforts and he treated our economy in a pretty balanced way. I'm not saying that as a defense of NAFTA because, as we've seen, it met its potential to become a bad deal. But if we were doing right by everything else, it really wouldn't be much of an issue.

[Recursion]

25. And people act like the jobs wouldn't have left anyways

Nothing about a lack of NAFTA kept corporations from sending jobs across the border, it just meant the shirts wouldn't be as much cheaper for us when they came back here.

[Romulox]

29. Vote for Democrats--You Would Have Lost Your Job, Anyhow! nt

[Recursion]

33. Basically

"We can manage our nation's inevitable relative economic decline better than the other guys."

Not romantic, but accurate.

[Romulox]

34. This sort of argument is what lead us to "Gore = Bush". If the Democrats can't help us, then what

who cares if they're elected? :shrug:

[Recursion]

45. Because there is a difference

But not even strong progressive policies can return us to our postwar, growth-based prosperity.

[Romulox]

53. You get up on a podium and tell the people that.

:eyes:

[Recursion]

60. Me? Hell no

I'm just being realistic, though

[Romulox]

30. LOL. nt

[phleshdef]

20. In order to try to "sneak" something into something, you have to actually try to be sneaky about it.

The President has been openly in support of these trade deals for a very long time now. Whether or not one approves or disapproves of the terms of these deals and whether they do enough to protect American labor, etc, you can not possibly argue that he has been trying to "sneak" them in. Thats absurd. I've seen him on my television numerous times, being anything but sneaky over his support for these recent trade deals that are on the table.

[Romulox]

28. The administration admit that these deals will COST JOBS. That's why I said "sneak". nt

[phleshdef]

36. I imagine you meant to say "doesn't admit".

And my thinking is that they actually believe they can get some short term economic bang out of it and they believe they can raise our own exports. I'm not so sure they are right about that, but I think thats what they believe.

But in the larger scheme of things, trade deals in and of themselves are not "evil". It depends on the details. My fear is that some of us on the progressive side of things have become so turned off by the consequences of existing trade deals that we are becoming closed minded to the idea of trade deals in general. But we really do need to increase our own exports and there is nothing unprogressive about the idea of doing that.

[Romulox]

37. No, I meant what I said. Obama's support for "free trade" with Korea is supposedly contingent on

expansion of "Trade Adjustment Assistance program"--that is worker retraining.

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/


"But in the larger scheme of things, trade deals in and of themselves are not 'evil'. "

"Evil"? I think we need a wider vocabulary if we are going to talk about something as complex as trade. You are the only one who's mentioned "evil". These "free trade" deals are observed destroyers of jobs, to the point that the President has linked his support for these programs to support for "retraining" displaced workers.

" My fear is that some of us on the progressive side of things have become so turned off by the consequences of existing trade deals that we are becoming closed minded to the idea of trade deals in general."

Right. When the President began his campaign with a lie about "renegotiating NAFTA", he closed the door on all of that. :hi:

[phleshdef]

38. Then what you said made absolutely no sense.

If he was trying to be sneaky, then you would say that he isn't admitting to whatever it is you are taking issue with in regard to the trade agreement policy. If you are saying that he is admitting to whatever your grievance is, then you still can't possibly say he is being sneaky.

I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt with the assumption that you meant to make sense. Apparently I was wrong, my apologies.

Of course trade deals are more complex than good vs evil. Thats exactly my point.

[Romulox]

40. These job-killing "free trade" deals can't stand on their own--so they are glommed onto a "jobs bill

even though the President admits they will cost jobs.

My comments don't "make sense" only when one is trying to defend the indefensible.

[phleshdef]

44. No, your comments don't make sense because your words contradict one another.

As I clearly illustrated in a way that you completely failed to refute.

[tgal]

47. Great posts Romulox

Thanks. You get it.

[Romulox]

54. Thank you for the kind words! nt

[HappyMe]

14. Of course not. nt

[Mr Dixon]

16. IMO

Nope more like, continued crying about how he has failed us, some people can't be pleased, GO OBAMA 2012

[KurtNYC]

17. HE'S FINALLY DOING WHAT WE ASKED HIM TO !

(that's as mass as I can make it).

I give him credit. Right battle, right timing, right tactics.

[CakeGrrl]

18. He's BEEN doing this. This is NOT because DU has been

"holding his feet to the fire" by calling him a "fucking quisling" and "weak caver".

So I hope the so-called DU critics don't attempt to take credit for a development like this if they think that screeds like that are 'motivational'.

But nor do I expect much positive commentary about it. It'll be more like "He should've done it LONG ago", even though those who might say that are oblivious to the fact that he's done these types of gathering since he became President.

[lame54]

19. Isn't this it?

[Bluenorthwest]

21. I used to have a rubber ink stamp that said 'Better Late

Than Never' and I'd use it today if it were on my desk, and stamp it on a letter to the WH along with a note that said 'passing the bill might require compromise, getting elected requires clearly spoken and yes, partisan communications of one's personal principles.

[treestar]

26. Are you kidding? It's just talk.

We need action! Threaten those Republicans and MAKE them vote progressive! :rofl:

[me b zola]

42. He's willing "to get tough" for undermining social security

I'm supposed to be happy about this? So sad that so many who say they support social security are not hopping mad.

[JoeyT]

65. That and free trade.

Just like we asked him to!

[ibegurpard]

48. I didn't ask him to fight to undermine social security and promote more free trade

go team!

[DCBob]

50. Im glad he is doing it but Im afraid it will take more than this to counter the terrorbaggers.

RW media is killing us. They have a bigger and louder bully pulpit spewing lies and disinformation non-stop 7x24x365 in nearly every home, car, bar and restaurant in America.

[kentuck]

51. Don't take this wrong...

But has the President already compromised on his bill? Did he say he would sign it piecemeal? :facepalm:

[joshcryer]

55. No.

Obama will never get credit for any good thing that his Administration comes out with.

[Capitalocracy]

58. This is what we wanted him to do for the public option. nt

[Bucky]

59. I don't think DUers do anything en masse except squabble. If you want unanimity, avoid Democrats.

[TheKentuckian]

61. The squabbling would be minimal if we decided to leave the Republican policy to

the Republicans and "bipartisanship" was the result of hard negotiation rather than an insane goal.

[neverforget]

64. I am happy that he's doing that. Just keep calling out REPUBLICANS

and not "Congress" as a whole.