Well, between watering down the health care reform to an insurance scheme, messing up the repealing of DADT, maintaining a soft stance on gay marriage, and extending the tax cuts, I think you will find that most leftists are disappointed at Obama's right-leaning centrism. I'm sure many would readily admit he's pandering too much to the Republicans.

I haven't heard all that many praises being sung; however, calling him an "utter failure" seems a bit extreme, and I think this is a position you'd have difficulty defending.

..

Considering that the GOP has fillibustered over 150 bills in the Senate this year, I'm not sure how Obama can take the blame for his agenda failing to pass.

This is getting to be almost surreal.

The Bush tax cuts get extended for two years. Democrats and Obama have been saying the Bush tax cuts primarily benefited the "rich". They said there is no "trickle down" benefit for the economy. They said the tax cuts were not paid for and therefore harmful to our future. They win the WH, they get a super majority and they extend the Bush tax cuts???? Then, now this takes it over the top for me, the spin is how much leadership Obama showed by getting the deal done. Obama is taking credit for the Bush tax cuts after spending the last 6 years talking about how irresponsible they were.

Am I in the Twilight Zone, have I fallen through a rabbit hole, does Scotty need to beam me up?

I think your world is so surreal because you don't seem to acknowledge the existence of the republican party and the ease with which the senate can be brought to a standstill by a minority of its members.

His world is also so surreal because he doesnt believe in the concept of political compromise....unlike one of his heroes, Ronald Reagan:
Oh, and Bush compromised on the 03 tax bill....he only got half of what he wanted, threatened to veto it, but of course, signed it.

It's so surreal because I thought Obama was a leftist....

I fully recognize that Democrats and the President yielded to the Republicans - what I find amazing is the spin being put on it. I also have a basic understanding of the Senate rules, and generally the same rules were in place when Bush passed the tax cuts to begin with.

The Republicans, who nearly unanimously opposed extending unemployment insurance and expanding the earned income tax credit, yielded as well.

You still dont understand the concept of political compromise.

As to the Senate rules, the Democrats when in the minority during the Bush years honored the long-standing tradition of limiting filibusters rather than abuse the privilege to block nearly every piece of substantive legislation.

I'm not sensing the spin. Can you point to what the consensus is?

It's my understanding that many Democrats are giving flak for Obama, considering he and others were saying awhile back that America couldn't afford to continue Bush-type tax cuts. There are Democrats who are upset about this and look at it as Obama giving in to the Republicans.

I understand compromise, what I won't do or support is compromising my core values and beliefs. If that is what you do, or if you think that is a good thing, I am guessing that you are routinely compromising on those things you think are most important. I suggest adopting my approach for about 6 months, just as a trial, and see how much better your life will be.

I "compromise" on trivial matters all the time. In fact I will go into a negotiation with a long list of things, most trivial. At the end, if "compromise" is reached - it is only "compromise" in the mind of the other party or we simply reached a fair agreement meeting both our needs.

My view was that he was sell "snake oil", that he would say what people wanted to hear to get elected.

That's why most people don't actually think he's a leftist.

Its easy to stick to your beliefs when they dont manner in the grand scheme of things and have no impact on policy making. I would describe it as hard being a hard core ideologue.

Reagan understood that and compromised on his core belief and raised taxes (twice) as did Bush, on FISA, taxes and other issues.

And, my life is just fine, but to be lectured on compromise by a hard core ideologue is good for a laugh!

Yea, right.

There is a difference between what I understand and what I agree with or will accept. Feel free to politically compromise or support those who do, all you want. I won't.

Short version of the above: they got gamed.

Urban Dictionary: gamed

If you say so, ace.

But of course, you admittedly see things only in black and white.....a very rigid and myopic view of the political process and the world in general...which pretty much explains it to me.

Now it appears that there are things you don't understand.

A person's core beliefs or a strongly held views can change-but that is not compromise that is a change. Through persuasion I may be able to convince someone to adopt my core beliefs or a strongly held view, but if I do then they would communicate accordingly. Democrats are not doing that on this issue, are they?

For the record, I do not have a core belief that there should be no taxes. I like many conservatives can easily support fair taxation, and in some cases that may mean an increase for some.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

I calls 'em, likes I sees 'em.:thumbsup:

Good luck with the compromise thing, I live to deal with folks like you.

I'm sure America was built on compromise.

The inability and/or unwillingness to compromise is a feature of dictators.

Ace, what you're hinting at with regard to compromise suggests that Democrats shouldn't stop being Democrats and Republicans shouldn't stop being Republicans. That's pretty simple, I think.

From the Democrat (or at least, my)perspective, the good in the bill:

keeping the tax rates for middle class and working families (the lower three brackets) at the current rate

a one-year payroll tax cut, benefiting those making under 100K

extending unemployment insurance

increasing the standard deduction for married couples

a more generous child income tax credit and a more generous earned income tax credit, benefiting working families.

interest deductions and tax credits on student loans (and on other college expenses), another benefit to working families.

a business tax credit for r%d

increased depreciation and expensing for capital investments by businesses

From the Democrat (my) perspective, the bad in the bill:

keeping the top tax rate at 35% instead of returning it to 39%

imposes a lower estate tax for the next two years, allowing couples to pass estates as large as $10 million to heirs tax-free

Objectively? IMO, not perfect...I would have preferred those bad provisions to be excluded or reversed....but I understand political realities.

Overall, not a bad deal for the Democrats..they got as much or more of what they wanted than they gave up.

---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

It would be fun.

You would be out on the fringe (say hi to Sarah P for me)...sticking to your extremist ideology and getting nothing in return because you could never get the votes needed....starving, but patting each other on the back that you refused to compromise.

And I would be more pragmatic, accepting the fact that I might not get the whole loaf of bread that I want, but enjoying the benefits of the half that I can get.

There was no compromise with the British. America was founded based on a core belief of independence (general on purpose) and went to war for that belief.

I don't understand your point of view. Can you share some real examples of core beliefs worthy of compromise? I can not think of any, but I can think of many that real, honest, non-dictators have been willing to risk everything for, including life.



I rarely hint at what I try to communicate. I think Republicans should fight for what they believe in and Democrats should do the same. Finding common ground is not compromise. For example if I have a price range in mind for buying a car, and you have a price range in mind for selling it. If our ranges overlap, we have a deal. If they don't overlap, you compromise and we have a deal.

If you don't compromise, in the example above, I walk, but if you can convince me of some value I did not see or understand - I would change my price range. I don't see that as compromise, I see that as changing my belief based on new information.

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

Like Sara Palin, I would go to the negotiation table expecting to win. I would go to the table with a strategy to win. I perceive Obama's problem and your problem is that you go to the table expecting to compromise. With that knowledge, people like me and Palin will get what we want. I understand that you don't see this the way I do, that is not my problem. However, Obama represents this country on an international scale and he represents government to the business community. His perceived weakness and lack of conviction is my problem. Put this issue in perspective - was it all over a top tax rate swing of 4% points? It was not. I doubt you get what it was about and I doubt Obama does either.


Look at it this way if your resolve is 100 and mine is 100 and we have equal power and conflicting views of a point, the breakdown of those resolve numbers will determine the outcome, regardless of your pretense regarding compromise.

{added} I was just re-reading some of this stuff, and I am happy for the opportunity to interact with the line of thought some of you have here. I am going to have a conversation with my son on these issues, my fear is that he may get corrupted with this over-zealousness and fantasifull view on compromise. Thanks

Hmm... I kind of find myself agreeing with Ace's last post here. It all relates back to my first campaign boss and what he called his Grand Unified Theory of American Politics: "We like winners and don't like wussies. Act like a winner."

Now I can't go so far as to say any "give and take" is wrong. Negotiating has its place - politics isn't as simple as a price range, but is instead more like a prioritized list of demands. Conceding one demand in order to get support for the other, more important, demands can be an acceptable practice.

My problem with Obama (and Democrats in general) is that they don't act confident while making these negotiations with Republicans, even when they are the ones in power, and even when the polls show the American people support their agenda (despite Fox News' assertions otherwise). Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party currently represents a much wider range of political philosophies than the Republican party, so I get that it's not so simple as saying all the Democrats should vote for the Democratic agenda. Nonetheless, when you have the presidency and a majority in chambers, you need to act - as a party - like you have that power. Yes, the filibuster rule is totally broken, and it's absurd that Republican obstructionism has forced a de facto requirement of 60 votes in the senate to pass most bills, but a party with as much power as the Democrats had should embrace that fight and highlight that obstructionism. Instead, they mentioned it infrequently and without urgency, making it look like they were complaining instead of shedding light on abusive practices of the opposition.

Even now, as Obama says he's "itching for a fight" with Republicans, he and the Democrats are failing to make an issue out of Republican obstructionism of the 9/11 first responders bill. A party that embraces power and uses it effectively could cause real embarrassment for the Republicans over that issue.

Yet - and I feel this must be said - for all these criticisms, I must return to the simple fact that none of these complaints signal that I would be any happier with a President McCain or Republican controlled Congress. I'd rather be perpetually frustrated by the Democrats lacking assertiveness for an agenda I mostly agree with than be impressed by the Republicans effectively implementing an agenda that I am largely opposed to.

My first political boss was Sen. Jennings Randolph of WV. A tough old southerner and man of principle who know when to compromise. I worked on his staff in his last two years in office and learned more about politics and being an effective legislator than ace will ever know.

He was the the leading force behind the constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. He fought for it through 10 sessions of Congress, horse trading each time until he finally had the votes.

As I pointed out earlier, Reagan compromised (caved?) on raising taxes.

And yes, despite ace's blindspot to the truth, the framers of the Constitution, those from the north, compromised core beliefs on slavery in order to form the union. There would have been no union w/o that compromise.

I do agree that the Democrats have not been forceful enough in calling out Republicans for their obstructionism and hypocrisy, despite the fact that the Senate Republicans had the votes to block any meaningful legislation.

And the fact that the bigger tent of the Democratic party makes it much more challenging.

Extreme ideologues (on either end) are great for political debate, but rarely achieve their political objectives....without compromise.

I'm not talking about the British, ace, I'm talking about the building of America. You know, after the British.

And I doubt much of that required compromising on core values. Few people do that with regard to these things. It's the practical stuff that people compromise on; it's the methods, the pathway to achieving your goals (you know, based on your core values).

I assume many Americans share the same core values anyway. They tend to differ on the details.

I don't know how the next two years are going to go, but there could be a serious contender for the democratic nomination from the left. An anti-war, higher taxes, healthier and safer lives type of person.

Well, the vote to raise the debt ceiling in the next house should be really interesting...

Realistically, I don't think there's much risk for challenge from the left. Keep in mind, people were seriously discussing a challenge from the right before Reagan's eventual reelection landslide.

I think a far right challenger to the republican nominee is more likely than a lefty challenger to Obama.

I am guessing that you don't see the conflict in your position and the two points above. Your first point illustrates than fighting for convictions is a marathon not a sprint. If you feel strongly enough you never give up, you do what it takes. Your second point illustrates that the appearance of compromise is not really compromise. You open the suggestion that Reagan may have caved, it is clear to me that he did not and that he achieved his objectives.

You don't know what the result would have been if those against slavery stood firm, all anyone can do is speculate. We do know that the cost of that compromise was enormous. The issue for those against slavery is that they thought the institution of slavery would die on its own forces and that they did not have strong enough convictions against the institution of slavery. The trend of the death of slavery was in place, that is until the explosion of the cotton industry and the invention of the cotton gin. That turned the course on the declining trend. With the explosion of the cotton industry the value of slaves went up 4 to 5 fold in a short period of time. The US stood as the only modern nation sanctioning the institution of slavery at the time of the Civil War. Given hindsight there is no doubt the slavery compromise was the wrong thing to do.

I am curious. If I help you get something you want and you help me get something I want, I assume you think that is good and even perhaps a form of compromise. But what if the thing I want is not in your best interest and will harm you, do you help me, does that make you an extremist if you don't? What if you are in a group of 1% that will be harmed and 99% won't be, does that make you an extremist? Where would you draw the line and fight for what is in your interests?

Also, I am curious - you seem to suggest that being an extremist is a bad thing, is that your view? I am very much an extremist on somethings, and I don't see it as a problem or an insult. I like living in a world where there are extremists, I think it adds color or texture to life. Do you really want a bland world of nothing but middle of the road conformists on every issue? Is there any aspect in your life where you see yourself as an extremist? Even if you give me a flip response, consider it food for thought.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

Like taking land from native Americans? Mexican/American war? Or how about the resolution of conflict between the free range folks and settlers? Suffrage? Prohibition? DC v. AC in the electric grid? VHS v. Beta? Every key point in American history where there was conflict, it resolved with a winner and a loser. One force prevails

ace, what about the socialism ingrained in American society despite the Red Scare? What about liberalism despite conservative politics? Is conservatism just ceremonial? What about a market that is regulated rather than purely free? Why isn't America a purely capitalist society? Why are there two political parties?

The country had a paranoia regarding certain forms of socialism that culminated in a major military build up, war, various military events, and unjust political persecution. Other forms of socialism resulting in things like social security grew from the trauma of the Depression. I don't see compromise when the two meet, what I see are like two opposing fronts, like a weather system, where those fronts meet there is conflict or thunder/lightning/severe wind/hail/etc. I also see the nation as one that grows, evolves and learns from its past, that is not what I would consider compromise either.

Given the Judeo-Christian values most American have there are conflicts in what is considered conservative and liberal values. Am I my brother's keeper, well yes - but I don't want my Uncle Sam to force me.

No.

I do support regulated markets. The key questions involve how much and what is the purpose of regulation?

The two forces are at odds with each other. There is push from both sides, in 2008 there was a push to a more centralized controlled society, in 2010 there was a push back.

They represent the quintessential conflict on many issues in this country. They are mostly the same, but there are a few core differences. There is no compromise in these core differences.

Despite the core differences, very little would be accomplished if there were no compromise. The compromise is in the details, methods, practices, and pathways to reach certain goals or preferred conditions.

I've already pointed this out, ace, but I'm unsure whether you understand this.

it's curious to read ace's latest moving-around-of-words...at a time when the markety basis for conservative ideology has been imploded by reality and the right has opted for a reality-optional approach that enables them to maintain consistency at the level of statements (realilty be damned)----all very unwittingly implosion of empire stuff, frankly----it's not terribly coincidental that you'd see attempts to impute "substance" to the rhetorical form "value" and then see people like ace repeating--unwittingly no doubt, given the reality-optional thing---the moves of any number of western european neo-fascist political groups in grouping these make-believe substantives around white christian "core values" and using them to try to draw us/them lines.

it's all of a piece with making the choice to preserve fictions about the world in place of the world and to anchor them in place with a version of conservative identity politics. because in situations like this, what comes to be at stake is a matter of identity. and there's a high-priced ideological system that's been reinforcing this whole reality-optional space for some time.

after all, there's this:

40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism

and this:

Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study

which comes out of this:

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion

which outlines a pretty clear preference for fiction over reality that is specific to conservatives.

ace....i dont doubt that from your narrow black and white perspective on politics, that is exactly how you see it...by twisting and turning part of what I wrote and ignoring or dodging and weaving around other parts.

So the bottom line for you.....Obama demonstrated weakness of character or lack of conviction by compromising on taxes and Reagan demonstrated strength of character and conviction by compromising on taxes. :thumbsup:

IMO, both demonstrated that in real world politics in Washington, compromise is the more acceptable (in terms of legislative results) response than extremism.

No surprise about Fox News, with a clear and blatant political agenda and its viewers who arent looking for facts, but reinforcement of their firmly-held beliefs.

And then there is this from a CBS/NY Times poll, re: those self-identified as supporters of Tea Party movement:
If such stalwart Fox news commentators as Beck, Palin, Huckabee repeat it often enough, they believe!

The overlap of buying into misinformation between Fox News viewers and Tea Party supporters is no coincidence.

We live in the Age of Truthiness.

Not as good as Calvin Coolidge, but better than Joseph Stalin.

I predict that Obama will continue to blame big business for not being able to compete with the Chinese.

Of course, China doesn't have a president who created a hotline to the ABA so employees don't have to go to any trouble to sue their employers.

Yeah, damn those labour laws and those who uphold them!

Big business in America would flourish if only it would adopt more Chinese strategies.

I heard some jackass from the National Chamber of Commerce echoing this sentiment yesterday too. It's fucking nuts. As if the solution to our problems is to reduce compensation and safety standards in our workplaces. Hmm. Who will benefit if we do that? Will it be the workers who can't afford to support their families with their sweatshop pay? No. Will it be the workers who won't get health insurance, but will get sick more due to shittier working conditions and thus place an even larger drain on our healthcare system? No. Will it be society in general, who will have to shoulder increased social and financial burdens brought about by the widespread adoption of sweatshop-type labor practices? No. Will it be the newly created vast underclass of the working impoverished? No.

So the people won't benefit. Society in general won't benefit. Who will? I'm guessing the folks who will employ sweatshop labor. So that's nice for them, I guess. They get a healthy windfall, and only at the expense of most of the rest of society.

Good plan, Chamber of Commerce. Obama should spend less time pandering to these assholes.

Oh, Marv. It's always so nice when you decide to stop by to troll us. It's like a breath of fresh air wafting over the decaying sewage plant from an unexpected direction.

It's one thing when you're used to the smell, but something completely different when it comes by surprise. Maybe if you'd stick around we'd get used to you, but now I'm just thinking about buying some caulk.

Marv with another drive-by troll attack. So predictable

i'd like to cockpunch obama.

i voted for him. unless a real progressive or olympia (sp) snowe runs i will vote for him again.

i rather him break 90% of his promises than vote for someone whose issues i have no desire to support.