comment #1

bluetide says ...

Perry is just going to serve as the Tea Party foil for Romney and I think he probably knows it. Romney will be the nominee and, barring a major screw up on his part or a major miracle on the part of Obama, Romney will be the next President. I'm resigned to it.

comment #2

James Rocchi says ...

I did the math on this a few weeks ago: If 5 Million people donated $137 each, they could out-spend what the Republicans did in 2008. Surely you could put together a five-part plan for

1) Campaign Finance Reform where individuals are limited to $250, and corporations and special-interest groups to $0.

2) Tax Reform that repeals the Bush cuts, restores the estate tax and raises top tax rates while simplifying the tax code to benefit real entrepreneurs and small business owners.

3) Trade Reform from 'Free Trade' to Fair Trade, and giving aid to small businesses and manufacturing, not tax-dodging multinationals.

4) Military Reform that turns Pentagon spending from a college fund for Aerospace contractors and instead values the wages of fighting men and women more than the price tag of the gear they use.

5) Health Care Reform that is actually reform, essentially nationalizing the health care system like in Britain and Canada.

And run House Reps, Congressional Reps and a Presidential Candidate of tickets on those principles?

It would never happen, would it?

comment #3

nodirectionhome says ...

As Alex Bennett said a few times on his radio show, 'We voted for Shaft and ended up with Urkle' I voted for Obama, I campaigned for him but Im abandoning ship this time out. Did the Republicans fight fair, no and yes it was there were racial overtones in their actions. Bush & Co ran this country into the ground But after two years any inactions are clearly Obama's own mistakes to claim. Healthcare, Bush Tax Cuts are all major decisions where he presented himself as leader in front of TV promising reform meanwhile behind doors he floundered and compromised to the country's disadvantage for reasons unexplained to even the most experienced of Washington's elite. His problem is an ego which made him hypocritical and untrustworthy. Just god forbid if Palin is President, Im moving to Canada.

comment #4

eddie mars attacks says ...

Great, here comes the "moving to Canada" bullshit. You're not going anywhere, dumb ass.

comment #5

Kakihara says ...

James: What's the point of investing in a guy who's bought by the same corporations as his competition?

comment #6

James Rocchi says ...

Kakihara: You can't fucking read, can you?

comment #7

eddie mars attacks says ...

You know, Kakihara, there's a term for people that make the claim both parties are the same. They're called "uninformed voters."

comment #8

Kakihara says ...

eddie mars: Really? So tell me what exactly have the Dems done which proves me wrong? They voted for the same war as the Repubs, voted for Bush's (anti-)banktruptcy bill, supported their model for health care "reform", kept Gitmo open, weakened the EPA, support pushing back SS benefits to non-Boomers, and are currently willing to bring back slavery, er, Georgia Works.

comment #9

eddie mars attacks says ...

Man, I feel like I punched a retard.

comment #10

Sridhar Prasad says ...

Really? You really want to make the point that nothing's been accomplished in the past 2.5 years?

The Left drives me absolutely nuts. Compare Obama's first 18 months in office with any Democrat in a century and the only two that compare are Roosevelt and Johnson. He passed the largest spending bill in 40 years within 6 weeks of taking office. He passed financial reform, healthcare reform (mind you, before the Left started committing political suicide, the "holy grail" of Democrats since Truman), restructured the American auto industry (which is now actually solvent), passed a second stimulus bill last year (including a rather large, progressive tax cut in the form of the payroll tax holiday), and, for kicks, added two women to the Supreme Court and ensured that anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can serve in the military. Oh, and he authorized the death of Osama Bin Laden and wound down the Iraq War. That's four years worth of stuff -- and a hell of a lot more than Bill Clinton did in office, by the way.

Upset about the compromises? Deal with it. Sad that your pet issue didn't get resolved? Welcome to being a responsible adult and governing. What's your alternative? Grandstanding and making a speech that ultimately goes nowhere? Letting the country fall into default?

The biggest problem with liberals is that WE FORGOT WE WON. We were so used to yelling at someone that instead of yelling at the right, we started yelling and screaming at ourselves -- and it'll cost us the most progressive administration we've had since the mid-1960s.

What a friggin' joke.

comment #11

nodirectionhome says ...

sorry eddie i didn't put a smiley face or an lol at the end of my last sentence for dumb ass like yourself a to emphasize a quip.

comment #12

Flash Gordon says ...

Nothing more entertaining than a bunch of Libtards insulting each other. Pass the popcorn.

comment #13

eddie mars attacks says ...

"last sentence for dumb ass like yourself a to emphasize a quip"

Make that two retards.

comment #14

otto says ...

You make some good points, Prasad. Obama has pushed through some major legislation. And on the foreign policy front, he's restored sanity and respect in a way that most Americans don't see. Travel to far reaches of the globe as I do, and you'll see that Obama's mere presence has quelled the hyperbolic anti-Americanism that fueled al Qeida and its offspring.

But on the domestic front, let's get real for a moment. The reason Dowd's column resonates is because she's right. Obama has fought for nothing. He has achieved what he has by wholly conceding his position - so all of his "achievements" are cosmetic. For example, the health care reform he championed was dead in the water until he capitulated to lobbyists and insurance industry and took out the public option. Only when it resulted in a windfall to these corporate interests did it get passed.

His signature political move - make a great speech and then immediately accede to the opposition - has resulted in policies that greatly favor the wealthiest in our society. Obama has said as much himself, pointing to the consequences of his opponents plan before he agrees to it. (E.g., the government shutdown, the debt ceiling impasse).

The greatest injustice in the world today is the hegemony the wealthy and corporate interests have over the political system and the resulting marginalization of the middle class and poor. Obama has done nothing for these people, except to give them the droppings allotted by corporate interests. In this sense, he is, in the worst, most offensive sense, the Republican's houseboy- emphasis on "boy" and all of its antebellum ugliness.

The truth is, why would the Republicans want him out? They get about everything they want from him anyways.

comment #15

arispil says ...

"...the health care reform he championed was dead in the water until he capitulated to lobbyists and insurance industry and took out the public option. Only when it resulted in a windfall to these corporate interests did it get passed."

AND bingo.

comment #16

Wrecktem says ...

Wow, now Otto is calling Obama an Uncle Tom. Have you no shame?

Prasad is 100% right. Anyone with any brains knew that Obama was the ultimate conciliator when he ran in '08. Didn't you read his book? It's his basic political philosophy: work across the aisle at all opportunities. When the GOP won the house in '10, he had no other option but to try to work with them. The American public consistently says that they want compromise. And when the president tries to give it to them, suddenly he's a wimp. A buckler. Whatever.

Maybe what the country needs is some ballbuster who never says "yes" to anything the opposition wants. No...wait. We had someone like that from 2001-2009. I don't remember that working out so well.

The fact of the matter is that vast swaths of the U.S. continue to be conservative and are prone to vote Republican. Our federal system rewards rural states with a disproportionate amount of influence in the Senate. Gerrymandering allows state and House legislative seats to lock in conservative incumbents. The House is elected every two years, so the passions of the people can sway political stability in Washington. Even with the best intentions and the best political skills, sometimes circumstances don't allow for presidents to get their way.

If you support the president's goals, instead of moaning and lashing out, the right thing to do is work hard to reelect him, and work hard to unseat the GOP House and grow the Democratic Senate's majority.

comment #17

elzilcho says ...

Prasad's post is indicative of liberal illusions in Obama that will crash and burn come November of next year. Seriously, the best thing would be for him to lose.

comment #18

bill weber says ...

Dowd with the conventional wisdom as usual.

OBAMA IS A CONSERVATIVE. As is anyone who will ever be nominated by the Dems under Citizens United.

His "heatlhcare reform" was a silk purse for the insurance industry.

He's worse on civil liberties than W.

On the global front he is, of course, a bloody criminal with his mass murder disguised as war. (Like all our modern chiefs.)

comment #19

Kakihara says ...

Sridhar: "Compare Obama's first 18 months in office with any Democrat in a century"

Ok, FDR passed Social Security and won a war against three countries while in a wheelchair. LBJ ended segregation. Carter made peace with Egypt. Truman integrated the Armed Forces, passed the Marshall Plan, and recognized Israel. Woodrow Wilson fought and won WW1. And Clinton stopped Milosevic.

"He passed financial reform, healthcare reform"

Except it's reform INO.

"restructured the American auto industry (which is now actually solvent),"

Too bad nothing else is. And we're still dependent on oil.

"and, for kicks, added two women to the Supreme Court "

Women who aren't against enabling torture, but are for ending liability against it.

"and ensured that anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can serve in the military. "

Only after he couldn't defend it in court. Not to mention that I don't see the appeal of just adding more cannon fodder to two endless illegal and immoral wars.

"Oh, and he authorized the death of Osama Bin Laden and wound down the Iraq War."

We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it doesn't mean squat.

"and a hell of a lot more than Bill Clinton did in office, by the way. "

Clinton saved a shitty economy, albeit by replacing it with a bubble economy.

"Upset about the compromises? Deal with it. "

Upset about more Americans being forced into tent cities and being forced to work for nothing to be able to compete with China? Deal with it. Upset that more jobs are going to be shipped overseas? Deal with it. Upset that your kids might be on food stamps and have a lower life expectancy than you did? Deal with it.

"Sad that your pet issue didn't get resolved? Welcome to being a responsible adult and governing."

How is allowing lunatic tea-baggers to dictate political discourse responsible?

"What's your alternative? Grandstanding and making a speech that ultimately goes nowhere? Letting the country fall into default? "

Funny that you say that while ironically defending Obama, since he did let the country default while making speeches which go nowhere.

Wrecktem: "Anyone with any brains knew that Obama was the ultimate conciliator when he ran in '08. Didn't you read his book? It's his basic political philosophy: work across the aisle at all opportunities."

There's a difference between working across the aisle and letting one group dominate the discussion.

"When the GOP won the house in '10, he had no other option but to try to work with them."

So what's his excuse for period before the GOP won the House?

"The American public consistently says that they want compromise. "

The American public wants compromise to get things done. But they're willing to vote for people who agree with them on progressive values, if they can get some change. The Dems do not stand for compromise or change. They stand for giving the GOP whatever it wants without a fight.

"Maybe what the country needs is some ballbuster who never says "yes" to anything the opposition wants. No...wait. We had someone like that from 2001-2009. I don't remember that working out so well."

No, it didn't, but he still won two terms.

"The fact of the matter is that vast swaths of the U.S. continue to be conservative and are prone to vote Republican."

Except that was clearly not the case three years ago.

"If you support the president's goals, instead of moaning and lashing out, the right thing to do is work hard to reelect him,"

I would if I knew those goals actually served my interest.

elzilcho: No, the best thing for him would be to resign.

comment #20

Sridhar Prasad says ...

So Kakihara's right. I was imprecise. Compare the President's first 18 months with any other Democrat's first 18 months, and the only ones that are more impressive are either Roosevelt or Johnson. Outside of that, I stand by what I wrote.

There's just a de facto lunacy that 1) liberals / progressives are uniformly right, 2) the entire country agrees with liberals / progressives, and 3) all we need is the right leader who is sufficiently liberal and progressive and the skies will be golden again.

When has all of that ever been true? And reform INO? Tell that to the 30 million Americans who'll have insurance if this bill survives the next 5 years. And immoral wars? Which war? Good luck being a pacifist and a President.

We don't live in an ideal world. Arguing for a perfect world that doesn't exist is the height of idealism -- and is romantic, in a real way. But true governance is often about making the best of bad choices.

I don't agree with all the choices Barack Obama's made -- but to argue that he's a complete disappointment, a failure, a spineless fool, etc. is just insane if you judge him by the record. Has he been perfect? No. But he's been a damn lot better than liberals think -- and the self-loathing is driving me nuts. To blame the President for all of the world's ills, and to claim that he's been radically ineffective is just flat wrong.

comment #21

Krillian says ...

After watching tonight's debate, it looks like Mitt knows he'll win NH and Nevada, Perry will win Iowa and SC, and then after that Mitt just needs enough sane people in Florida, Michigan, etc. to win the nomination.

Bachmann - done. Cain - done. Santorum - done. Newt - done. Huntsman - better tonight but way too far behind. Ron Paul is Ron Paul.

comment #22

KRF says ...

Excellent post Wrecktum. Completely agree.

comment #23

austin111 says ...

Obama's biggest problem is perception and it is huge. If he would stand ground on any one principle and stay there, it would be a huge improvement. The problem is that he always seems to compromise and some things simply cannot be compromised. He therefore looks like a weak pushover. Even if he were a great orator, which he is, no one seems able to take him seriously anymore. And my god, the President of the U.S. has to be second banana to a football game when he is giving an important policy speech at one of the lowest times in our country's history. There no longer seems to be any dignity to the office.

comment #24

Chicago48 says ...

Romney, President; Perry VP? Could happen.

As for Obama, it's his nature to be conciliatory....remember he's a lawyer.

comment #25

Rorark says ...

What Prasad and Wrecktum said. The left's betrayal of Obama is a disgrace. People like Kakihara are so ideologically retarded they might as well be Tea Partiers - rigid, uninformed, willing to discount every progressive accomplishment of the last two years because it didn't go far enough - not that anything achievable in the real world ever would be.

comment #26

Rorark says ...

What Prasad and Wrecktum said. The left's betrayal of Obama is a disgrace. People like Kakihara are so ideologically retarded they might as well be Tea Partiers - rigid, uninformed, willing to discount every progressive accomplishment as not good enough - not that anything achievable in the real world ever would be.

comment #27

Kakihara says ...

Sridhar: "There's just a de facto lunacy that 1) liberals / progressives are uniformly right, 2) the entire country agrees with liberals / progressives, and 3) all we need is the right leader who is sufficiently liberal and progressive and the skies will be golden again."

Well, even if they aren't entirely correct, the country *is* in tune with liberal/progressive values. And whether or not we'll be seeing puppies and rainbows again if we get someone more like Nader and less like Bill Clinton, we'll at least be on the same page for once.

"And reform INO? Tell that to the 30 million Americans who'll have insurance if this bill survives the next 5 years."

And what about those who don't have insurance and can't afford it, and won't even get government help for it for another two years? Also, for those who still have insurance, or can afford it, how are they protected from HMOs continuing to price-gouge them? That bill did not address any of those problems.

"And immoral wars? Which war? Good luck being a pacifist and a President."

The last two before Libya?

"But true governance is often about making the best of bad choices. "

Except Obama is making the most mediocre of the best of the bad choices.

Chicago: Ugh, no, please. Especially since Perry is close to the Bush family and might acquire the know-how to shop for his own John Hinckley. But I guess it'd be better for him to be Veep than Bachmann....

comment #28

Kakihara says ...

Correction. Three years.

comment #29

joe banks says ...

ironic that the biggest cases of buyer's remorse seem to be coming from the corners who couldn't wait to throw Hillary under the wheels of the HopeChange Express.

while those of us who were called every name in the book for supporting Clinton knew that Obama was every bit the centrist she was but put party over candidates because the only thing that matters against the TeaOP is winning f'ing elections.

where's Greg Peck to slap the wobblers around a couple times when you need him?.

"You're in it now, up to your neck! "

comment #30

Bob Violence says ...

this nails it better than the stunningly overpaid and overexposed Dowd ever has

but then the NYT won't give you a platform for pointing out that presidents ultimately represent about 1% of the people who actually vote for them and everyone else gets what's left over at the end of the day

comment #31

bluetide says ...

Sridhar, I'm sorry but the whole "most progressive president since FDR and Johnson" bit is BS and you know it.

On foreign policy, you'll get no argument from me. Obama's foreign policy has been the most effective and progressive of any US president since FDR. He has navigated a minefield of shit and dealt with the most obstinate Israeli leadership in history with aplomb. Everything hasn't always come up roses, but when things have gone belly up on that front, Obama has always effectively minimized damage. And I think that fifty years from now, his Cairo speech will be seen as a catalyst for the Arab Spring.

But Barack Obama has probably had the most conservative economic policy of any US president of modern times. I realize that this is not in a vacuum and that the Republicans have turned to the 19th century for their new approach to the economy, but it doesn't excuse Obama for agreeing to their terms of debate. And, considering the fact that conservative economic policy helped get us into this mess, he has been a huge failure.

Stimulus - let's talk stimulus. Instead of promoting a $1 trillion employment-centered stimulus, Obama outsourced the bill to Congress who instead took the easy route of payroll tax cuts and contractor-friendly pork projects. Tax cuts may be stimulative (at about 1/3 the effectiveness of public works spending dollar-for-dollar), but they're not progressive. The progressive approach wasn't giving middle-income people more tax cuts; it was stimulating demand by putting people back to work. Obama has been not only MIA on the home mortgage issue, he is actively seeking to shield banks from liability for the bullshit foreclosure practices.

On health care, Obama made some improvements to current healthcare policy around the edges. But the centerpiece of his bill is the most massive and unconstitutional piece of corporate welfare in American history - mandating American citizens under force of law to purchase insurance from private companies. George W. Bush would have never pushed for that because even he wasn't that shameless. Ticking a box called "healthcare reform" is not in and of itself progressive. Obama did not tackle the perverse incentives within the system nor did he significantly improve access to care for the poor. It may have been reform, but it wasn't progressive or particularly effective in my opinion. It was certainly far, far to the right of anything Nixon or even Clinton could have gotten through in the 90s. And of course it was to the right of the GOP alternative proposals from the same era.

DADT could have been passed and signed within a week of Obama being in office. 70% of the public supported it. There was no political cost to voting for it; Obama only held off because of some irrational fear that it would effect Dems' chances in 2010 negatively. That worked out well.

Compromise is a part of leadership, but Obama does not compromise. He capitulates. He does not articulate an alternative vision for the improvement of America's economy. He accepts the Republican premise that austerity is inevitable even if it hurts economic recovery. That is bullshit and it's a dereliction of duty on the part of the leader of the free world. It's having an effect not just in the US, but in the UK and the rest of the EU where conservatives in that region are inflicting austerity measures on their own respective nations and suffering negative growth as a result. We are in a crisis; it's not a time for Clintonian triangulation, it's time for bold leadership that challenges the conventional wisdom of what's politically possible.

comment #32

BobbyLupo says ...

"The problem is that he always seems to compromise and some things simply cannot be compromised."

The problem with this argument is that the same people who are making it would be criticizing him even worse if he had stood his ground, accomplished nothing, and let people get even poorer.

Like, "You should've stood your ground and not allowed them to extend the Bush tax cuts for rich people." Brilliant, then people get their unemployment cut off even sooner and the economy is even worse.

Like, "You should've closed Gitmo." That really shows that you've been paying attention to both the reasons that it wasn't *quite* that simple as well as the growing prison population in this country. Sure, just cram a few terrorists into the overcrowded prisons.

I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, and I'm sure not going to pin 100% of it on the Republicans, but gosh it must be nice to live in an overly simplistic world where presidents have dictatorial powers to impose their fiats on everybody but only use these essentially fascist powers for truly liberal causes.

(Well, no, whatever world DZ lives in can't be all that nice.)

comment #33

bluetide says ...

BobbyLupo,

I would argue that Obama's policies before the 2010 were disappointing but at least in the realm of what he talked about (stimulus was mediocre at best but still a stimulus, same for HCR). Since 2010, Obama has not done a single thing that a Republican president would not have done. I would argue that the deal Obama agreed to on the debt ceiling was more crippling to the poor than any single Bush policy. Obama's problem is that he has failed to realize that Republican opposition is to him and not his policies. O could propose nothing but tax cuts and they'd still oppose it. The idea that this jobs program will be different is ridiculous.

So what do you do? You actually advocate for what you want and make them take ownership for opposing it. You be the guy fighting for jobs and let them be the guys fighting against jobs. If you're worth your salt, the political pressure will ratchet up on the GOP and their party line will begin to weaken.

If the current political climate doesn't allow you to break the GOP logjam, you have to change the political climate. It's not impossible. Hell, they did it in 2009 after the conventional wisdom was that Democrats were getting ready for a 40-year majority.

comment #34

BobbyLupo says ...

"Since 2010, Obama has not done a single thing that a Republican president would not have done."

I understand the point that you're driving at, but when you express it hyperbolically, it becomes easy to counter -- he repealed DADT.

Second off, though, you're making it sound as if Obama is the one passing legislation, and that's obviously untrue. Legislation has to get through the House. There's a reason the legislation is skewing Republican.

"You actually advocate for what you want and make them take ownership for opposing it."

The problem with this is that you're acting as if these things happen in a vacuum. You have to give the Republicans credit that they manage to avoid this as a real possibility by tying what they want in with things they have nothing to do with. For instance, saying "We will fillibuster all of your nominees for every position until ____". Or "We will not lift the debt ceiling until ______." In the former case, he has stood his ground, and the result has been that no new judges get named and there's a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with no start date because there's nobody in charge. This helps nobody. In the latter case, not raising the debt ceiling would've been financially catastrophic. At the point when the world economy gets fucked and 80% or more of the country has already decided who's to blame (ie, the "other side"), who is benefited by standing tough? It would benefit nobody in this country.

And that's the problem with the argument you're presenting; it's basically "He should do whatever he wants, regardless of consequences, and try to force them to change." Somebody has to be the adult in the room and accept that, when you're offered two shitty options, you take the least shitty one.

I don't think he has many realistic options at this point. I think that, to the extent that he can, he's done what you're saying. He's repeatedly shown that the Republicans have no interest in job creation. If people don't get that now, it's because they aren't paying attention, because they've already made their decisions. If people want to ignore the simple fact that he has created more jobs in any one year of his term than Bush did in 8, they're not going to listen no matter how he explains it to them.

I think the Republicans made a pretty big misstep with the whole "you can't give a speech during our debate thing." Everybody said it made Obama look weak to back down (everybody besides the undecideds who claim to want bipartisan compromise, anyway). But it seems to me that what he did was allow them to once again spend three hours arguing without ever once mentioning anything about how to create jobs, and now he can go on television while that's fresh in people's minds and say, "Look, they don't have an ideas or even thoughts on the subject, here are a few of mine." Then, they'll shoot it down even though it's neutral-deficit.

At that point, by your logic, he should do nothing further... in other words, do NOTHING to create jobs. How does that help anybody? Instead, he'll compromise, and continue to create *some* new jobs.

comment #35

eddie mars attacks says ...

In reality, if it wasn't Obama then it would be Mccain. Anyone really think America would be in a more progressive place if he had won? You guys get two choices. It's not a fantasy contest between your imaginary super liberal and Obama. It was Obama or Mccain and if you think it's the same difference. You are an "uninformed voter." Also know as a "low information voter" or Kakiharatard.

comment #36

bluetide says ...

Bobby,

Obama passed DADT in a lame duck session of the 2008-2009 Congress. He did not usher that through the GOP house. It just further proves my point.

On jobs, there is no compromise to be had with the Republicans in the current political climate. There was no compromise to be had on the debt deal. There's a good case that negotiating with the Republicans only pushed their final offer further toward austerity. Obama would have been better off not negotiating at all and just signing the first thing they sent to him.

The only things that Obama could conceivably get through - another payroll tax cut and unemployment extension - will not fix the economic crisis. They might dull the pain temporarily but no serious economist believes that either would provide the tipping point to address the structural demand crisis. And to get those things, Obama would more than likely have to agree to medium term cuts that, if the economy has not recovered by that time, will do exponentially more damage than the short time stuff will do good. It's the equivalent of cutting off your legs in exchange for a tylenol. It's bad economic policy and it's worse politics.

So, in light of that fact, you have to begin chipping away at the long hard work of making the philosophical case for why a jobs program is necessary in the first place. Republicans will reject any plan Obama submits no matter how conciliatory or conservative; therefore, you submit a plan for which you could actually drum up public support and then put the pressure on them to oppose a popular plan. Make the Republicans oppose a clean $300B jobs bill. Don't water it down with tax cuts. Replace the unemployment extension with actual temporary employment for the unemployed.

comment #37

otto says ...

Defending Obama by saying that he has a hard job, or that the political climate forces him to do the things that he himself says are bad for for the country, is setting the bar way too low for any president.

When Kennedy & Johnson pressed civil rights legislation in the 60s, they faced huge opposition from Southern representatives in their own party. And if you think Johnson had the public will behind him when he pushed through the major Civil Rights Act in 64, you're delusional. Obama caved when he had majorities in both the House and the Senate. If Obama were President in the 60s, he'd be making speeches in front of whites-only water fountains and preaching that this evinced progress by compromise.

The fact is, Obama is disappointing because he lacks the courage to stand up and do the things that he himself said were right for our country. He has failed not because of unrealistic expectations, but by standards that he himself set.

comment #38

Kakihara says ...

Still, I wouldn't say Obama's the disappointment of the century, though. That would have to be the Dems letting a coked-out retard start a war with a Middle Eastern country. Even if Dubya *had* been right about WMDs, he would've been too much of an incompetent dipshit for the job. And now they're taking it to the next level by letting rednecks run our economy. Even if the Dems are on the take, too, you have to wonder why they'd allow someone to destroy what would clearly be a good thing for them. I mean, look at the Repubs. They put up a fight over Third Rail policies.

Lupo: "The problem with this argument is that the same people who are making it would be criticizing him even worse if he had stood his ground, accomplished nothing, and let people get even poorer."

Uh, he's letting people get poorer, *anyway*. There is no fucking way he's improving things at this point. At least if he stood his ground, then maybe his voters could just argue that he was off his game in '010 and be motivated to give him another chance.

"Brilliant, then people get their unemployment cut off even sooner and the economy is even worse."

They've had their unemployment cut off for 99 weeks.

"That really shows that you've been paying attention to both the reasons that it wasn't *quite* that simple as well as the growing prison population in this country. Sure, just cram a few terrorists into the overcrowded prisons."

Well, he did say he'd reduce enforcement on the Drug War which contributes to our overcrowded prison system, and he lied about that, too. And the problem with your argument is that a lot of people at Gitmo *aren't* terrorists, just people who got illegally detained for being Arab and/or Muslim. It was a blight on our justice system, and still is.

"but gosh it must be nice to live in an overly simplistic world where presidents have dictatorial powers to impose their fiats on everybody but only use these essentially fascist powers for truly liberal causes."

Well, he certainly feels he has the power to bomb the shit out of Libya and Pakistan without Congressional approval...

"but when you express it hyperbolically, it becomes easy to counter -- he repealed DADT."

Only after he defended it in court. And he's still tried to get the ruling about it being unconstitutional overturned, which, if it happened, could allow him to bring it back.

"Legislation has to get through the House. There's a reason the legislation is skewing Republican."

And what was the reason when the Dems were running the House?

" In the former case, he has stood his ground, and the result has been that no new judges get named and there's a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with no start date because there's nobody in charge."

Uh, no, that has nothing to do with him standing his ground as much as him refusing to challenge the Repubs on their obstructionism.

"In the latter case, not raising the debt ceiling would've been financially catastrophic. "

And yet it's still been financially catastrophic to "compromise" with them.

"At the point when the world economy gets fucked and 80% or more of the country has already decided who's to blame (ie, the "other side"), who is benefited by standing tough? It would benefit nobody in this country."

So who's benefiting now? Except CEOs who are cushioned by taxpayer bailouts, I mean.
And that's the problem with the argument you're presenting; it's basically "He should do whatever he wants, regardless of consequences, and try to force them to change.""

Well, why the hell not? LBJ did on Civil Rights. Personally, I'd declare martial law and try these scum as the terrorists they really are.

"Somebody has to be the adult in the room and accept that, when you're offered two shitty options, you take the least shitty one."

Except he didn't have to settle for any shitty option. He could've invoked the 14th.

"He's repeatedly shown that the Republicans have no interest in job creation. If people don't get that now, it's because they aren't paying attention, because they've already made their decisions."

Yes, but the problem is *he's* not interested in job creation, just in making some vague political points which do not resonate with anyone but him.

"If people want to ignore the simple fact that he has created more jobs in any one year of his term than Bush did in 8, they're not going to listen no matter how he explains it to them."

Yes, but there are still a lot of people out of work, and he actually made the claim that unemployment would go down under his policies, when it went up.

"and now he can go on television while that's fresh in people's minds and say, "Look, they don't have an ideas or even thoughts on the subject, here are a few of mine.""

Yeah, and how helpful will it be to him if he suggests an idea in which people work for free, and are at the mercy of employers who will more than likely just get as much free labor out of people as they can, rather than hire *anyone*?

"Instead, he'll compromise, and continue to create *some* new jobs."

Slave labor does not count as a job.