Make Me Retch: "Obama's 'try anything' bid to woo GOP moves from dinner to golf course"

[grahamhgreen]

In an effort to build support for his second-term agenda, President Obama hit the golf course Monday with two Republican senators – part of what White House spokesman Jay Carney said is a “try anything” approach.The White House acknowledged that the golf excursion was part of its outreach to Republicans in Congress, which also included a dinner with a bipartisan group of women senators and two dinners with Republican senators. The administration is trying to build support for Mr. Obama’s second-term agenda, which includes immigration reform and an agreement to deal with America's fiscal woes......


“He is willing to try anything,” Mr. Carney said at Monday’s press briefing. “And whether it’s a conversation on the phone or a meeting in the Oval Office or a dinner in a restaurant or dinner in the residence, he going to have the same kind of conversations."

...

The press pool accompanying the president was able to only briefly observe the golfing action. On the first green, Obama chipped his first shot past the hole and “later appeared to miss a putt,” said pool reporter Bartholomew Sullivan of Scripps Howard News Service.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/0506/Obama-s-try-anything-bid-to-woo-GOP-moves-from-dinner-to-golf-course

Willing to try anything except progressive solutions that have a history of working and are the solutions to our current problems.

[montanacowboy]

1. He is a fool

or worse

[blkmusclmachine]

12. Just hangin' out with his pals.

[Myrina]

15. ^^ This ^^

Sadly, yes.

[kardonb]

13. fool

is you , montana cowboy . Obama is a consummate strategist , always with the long view of results , no just the end of his nose .

[GeorgeGist]

2. Father Knows Best

Young has had a history of depression and alcoholism, and in previous interviews with The Times spoke of feeling guilty about portraying the steadfast, contented Jim Anderson of "Father Knows Best" when he was often unhappy.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-20/local/me-841_1_robert-young

[frazzled]

3. How does he get Congress to vote for "progressive solutions that have a history of working"?

Just wondering how the president magically does that, especially in the House, where batshit crazy Republicans who are hellbent on opposing absolutely anything he proposes are in the majority and can block virtually anything.

Do you propose fairy dust? Drugging them? Abolishing Congress?

I'm confused about these kinds of suggestions to just "do the right thing." As if the president were a despot or a magician.

[Doctor_J]

4. at least it has a chance to work

Unlike kissing the collective ass of a group dedicated to destroying him. One definition of insanity is repeating the same steps and expecting different results. By that measure Obama is as nutty as Bachman.

[frazzled]

5. What has a chance to work?

The fairy dust or the abolition of Congress?

[grahamhgreen]

7. Fighting for what's right. It WILL work. Just watch us.

[cliffordu]

10. Yours are enlightening and illuminating posts

Thank you for this. It is a blessing

[grahamhgreen]

6. FIRST, you have to make a case for it!!! Without that, your fighting for the wrong team.

I mean, how does he get them to vote for anything?

By doing what they want? When the American people don't want it?

Take the case to America. Let the people decide. It's called Democracy, give it a try.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. I hear ya; but the bigger question is ...

Why are Democrats ... well ... DUing "Democrats" looking to President Obama to get Congress to vote for "progressive solutions that have a history of working" that NO Congress person has proposed?

[grahamhgreen]

20. Actually, the entire Progressive caucus (largest DEM caucus) has

made numerous excellent proposals, including a real budget that actually works and is supported by a majority of americans.

We simply need Obama to step up and represent the people who he is supposed to represent to make it all happen, in other words, we need him taking the Progressive caucus to golf, not his enemies who laugh at his feeble attempts to reconcile differences, basically they are playing him for a fool (unless he's actually on their side already):

7 million new jobs in one year

$4.4 trillion in deficit reduction

We’re in a jobs crisis that isn’t going away. Millions of hard-working American families are falling behind, and the richest 1 percent is taking home a bigger chunk of our nation’s gains every year. Americans face a choice: we can either cut Medicare benefits to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or we can close these tax loopholes to invest in jobs. We choose investment. The Back to Work Budget invests in America’s future because the best way to reduce our long-term deficit is to put America back to work. In the first year alone, we create nearly 7 million American jobs and increase GDP by 5.7%. We reduce unemployment to near 5% in three years with a jobs plan that includes repairing our nation’s roads and bridges, and putting the teachers, cops and firefighters who have borne the brunt of our economic downturn back to work. We reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion by closing tax loopholes and asking the wealthy to pay a fair share. We repeal the arbitrary sequester and the Budget Control Act that are damaging the economy, and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, which provide high quality, low-cost medical coverage to millions of Americans when they need it most. This is what the country voted for in November. It’s time we side with America’s middle class and invest in their future.



The Economic Policy Institute Policy Center provided technical assistance in developing, scoring, modeling, and analyzing the Back to Work budget. EPI’s analysis can be seen here: The ‘Back to Work’ budget: Analysis of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget for fiscal year 2014

Job Creation

• Infrastructure – substantially increases infrastructure investment to the level the American Society of Civil Engineers says is necessary to close our infrastructure needs gap

• Education – funds school modernizations and rehiring laid-off teachers

• Aid to States – closes the recession-caused gap in state budgets for two years, allowing the rehiring of cops, firefighters, and other public employees

• Making Work Pay – boosts consumer demand by reinstating an expanded tax credit for three years

• Emergency Unemployment Compensation – allows beneficiaries to claim up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits in high-unemployment states for two years

• Public Works Job Programs and Aid to Distressed Communities – includes job programs such as a Park Improvement Corps, Student Jobs Corps, and Child Care Corps

Fair Individual Tax

• Immediately allows Bush tax cuts to expire for families earning over $250K

• Higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires (from 45% to 49%)

• Taxes income from investments the same as income from wages

Fair Corporate Tax

• Ends corporate tax bias toward moving jobs and profits overseas

• Enacts a financial transactions tax

• Reduces deductions for corporate jets, meals, and entertainment

Defense

• Returns Pentagon spending to 2006 levels, focusing on modern security needs

Health Care

• No benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security

• Reduces health care costs by adopting a public option, negotiating drug prices, and reducing fraud

Environment

• Prices carbon pollution with a rebate to hold low income households harmless

• Eliminates corporate tax subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies GETTING AMERICANS BACK TO WORK

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/back-to-work-budget/

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Proposals are not ...

Bills.

And as much as I like (and support) the PC's budget ... we all know (though some wish to believe otherwise) that the budget was/is DOA ... regardless of what President Obama does. (Witness the gun control vote)

We need 218 votes AFTER getting the Speaker of the House spot (to even get it to the floor). That is the sad, sad political reality.

[grahamhgreen]

23. It IS a bill. If I prove it to you, will you start listening to us? Obama's budget was DOA, also,

but he presented it anyway. Why? Because he believes in starving granny?

His budget was mindless. Your entire wing of the party makes no sense to me.

Fighting for what you believe in, does.

Fact is, the majority of Americans support the progressive budget.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. You aew correct ...

the PC's Budget was in fact a bill ... my bad.

but he presented it anyway. Why? Because he believes in starving granny?

No ... He ... Doesn't. He knows, just like you, his Proposal including the CCPI was DOA ... the difference between the two DOA proposals is one gave the appearance of compromise, the other didn't.

I know my wing makes no sense to you, that's probably because you reflexively discount/ignore any and everything that you disagree with.


True, the majority of Americans support the progressive budget ... until it is termed the progressive budget. But beyond that, a majority of americans supported gun control ... the American people do not matter, so long as we have republicans (and a few Democrats) in Congress willfully ignoring us.

I'll try, one more again to explain what I believe is occurring (based on what has occurred over the course of the past 4 years ... the first 6 months taught President Obama a lesson that he has applied ever since):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022804188. See Post #84

[grahamhgreen]

25. The reason I disagree is because the proposals on the right have been proven to fail, and the

proposals on the left have been proven to work.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. You haven't addressed my point. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

34. Well, your link did not work, but let me address "He knows, just like you, his Proposal including

including the CCPI was DOA ... the difference between the two DOA proposals is one gave the appearance of compromise, the other didn't."

1) A progressive budget will inevitably pass, since it is the only solution to the countries problems. Shoving it down the R's throat is what the R's actually want.

2) Giving the appearance of compromise, will NEVER work work the R's because their brains are hard wired as Right Wing Authoritarians, in other words, they need to be told what to do by an authority figure, they also need to be punished when they do wrong (just look at how they interact with Obama, these are the only methods they use and understand). Understanding this concept is key to Obama's success, in my view. There is no compromise option, there never was, and never will be.

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. (note: this is who Obama must be to them, the alpha-male)

They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.

The concept of right-wing authoritarianism was introduced in 1981 by Canadian-American psychologist Bob Altemeyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. To your first point ...

1) A progressive budget will inevitably pass, since it is the only solution to the countries problems. Shoving it down the R's throat is what the R's actually want.

I, actually, agree ... progress will occur; but not because it is shoved down anyone's throat. Rather, progress occurs over time.

As the your second point:

2) Giving the appearance of compromise, will NEVER work work the R's because their brains are hard wired as Right Wing Authoritarians, in other words, they need to be told what to do by an authority figure, they also need to be punished when they do wrong (just look at how they interact with Obama, these are the only methods they use and understand). Understanding this concept is key to Obama's success, in my view. There is no compromise option, there never was, and never will be.

I have no doubt this is correct about conservatives ... But the "giving the appearance of compromise" is not directed to conservatives; but rather, the 60+% of independent and republican voters (combined) that poll as blaming the gop for its obstruction.

Neither the far right (i.e., conservatives), nor the far Left (i.e., progressives) will be moved to vote any differently than they have historically. But a majority of Democrats, Independents and republicans are "swayable" to vote Democrat.

[grahamhgreen]

39. He's not running for office agin, ever. "giving the appearance of compromise" has not gained him one

thing.

People voted for him because the majority want an end to wars, taxes on the hoarding class, Medicare for all, and the rest of the progressive agenda.

His stance on Chained-CPI will hurt us a lot in 2014.

At least, this is my view.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Very true ...

President Obama is not/will not run for President again; but his appearing to compromise has the majority of the electorate seeing REPUBLICANS as the PARTY, unwilling to comromise. This certainly benefits EVERY Democratic candidate, especially when one looks at what those Democratic candidates are actually saying/doing on this topic ... to wit; we have Markey (in a relatively "safe" distrct) saying "Hell, no don't touch 'entitlements'!" (he doesn't need that Independent/semi-sane republican cohort). And we have every other Democrat (the majority of which are in the House and because of gerrymandering, DO need that cohort) is saying, "Okay, let's look at 'entitlements', BUT ONLY AFTER THE GOP GIVE MORE ON REVENUE."

And what are the people, including the target cohort, seeing ... republicans continuing to be unwilling to compromise. That is what the polls are showing ...

Do you substantively disagree with the argument? If so, what supports your disagreement, other than "this is my view."

[grahamhgreen]

41. His compromise on Social Security gives the REPUBLICANS an in to present themselves as the party

defending Social Security, even though they want to destroy it more quickly than Obama. This damages EVERY Democratic candidate.

Rep. Greg Walden, of Oregon, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the member in charge of getting other Republican members elected next year called CCPI "a shocking attack on seniors,' AND 'I think he's going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well," Walden said.

Since Social Security does not add one nickel to the deficit, the attack is either insane, politically naive, or demonstrates a true desire to make seniors suffer so that the wealthy can hoard more.. or what? You're suggesting he offers cutting SS as a way to bring the R's to the bargaining table???? I don't buy it one bit. Offering them the Progressive caucus budget would have done the same thing - with one huge difference - it would have mobilized his base and the American people to be on his side. Now he has no one but the billionaires who secretly hate him even though they give him money.

R's are RW authoritarian they must be told, forced, or cajoled into action. Prosecuting them for their crimes under GWB would be a good start. Prosecuting for bank fraud, and robo signing another. Prosecuting for the BP oil spill another. Etc.

The proposed change in how to measure consumer prices, a so-called chained CPI, would result in significant cuts in benefits. The average 65-year-old retiree would lose $658 a year in Social Security benefits by their 75th birthday; $1,147 by their 85th birthday; and $1,622 by their 95th birthday. Permanently disabled veterans who started receiving disability benefits from the VA at age 30 would see their benefits cut by more than $1,400 a year at age 45, $2,300 a year at age 55 and $3,200 a year at age 65.

The chained CPI also would amount to an across-the-board tax increase on working families. More than three-quarters of the new revenue raised would come from Americans making less than $200,000 a year. Those making between $30,000 and $40,000 would be hit the hardest.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. NO IT DOESN'T; but ...

I'm done discussing this with you. You are clearly ignoring what I have written on this topic; in favor of the unsupported "it'll hurt Democrats" strawman.

I have explained, time and again, why Democrats will not be hurt by, and probably will benefit from, President Obama's including the CCPI in his proposal.

But let's not let that stop "progressives" from doing anything they can to promote the strawman ... in the name of "saving the Democratic Party."

[grahamhgreen]

43. "Rep. Greg Walden, of Oregon, chairman of the National Republican Congressional

Committee, the member in charge of getting other Republican members elected next year called CCPI "a shocking attack on seniors,' AND 'I think he's going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well," Walden said."

You agree that the right will use this against us, don't you?

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. No I don't ...

And neither does the gop.

Walden call to arms lasted a whole news cycle before the gop made him stfu, right? Didn't you ever wonder why the gop would pass on such a vote stealing gift?

Might it be that any such claim by republicans only put them in a worst non-compromise light. Their reason for NOT going into conference to reconcile the House and Senate budget proposals is because &quot President) Obama hasn't touched entitlements" {J.Boehner/M.McConnel} and &quot Pressident) Obama proposal only tinkers with the (SS) formula." {P.Ryan just being a prick}

Even the rightisher side of cohort knows Walden's statement and the three stooge's statements cannot coexist in the same universe ... CCPI can't be "a shocking attack on seniors" AND "a (non-)touching of entitlements" that is "only a tinkering with the formula."

And why don't they want to go to conference? ... because when they fail to reconcile the two budgets, each item IN the budgets can be called to a vote.

And why is that a HUGE gop problem (and not a Democrat problem)? ... It'll force the gop to go on the record ... a yes on CCPI and Democrats attack from where they are, in voting NO, and use Walden's voice in the ads. A No on CCPI and they face a primary fight.

[grahamhgreen]

45. I think you're living in a fantasy land. They can and will use it against each and every Dem running

Wait for the robo calls and the ad blitz.

It will be highly damaging. To me, it's obvious.

How you guys can't see it is beyond me.

IN fact, it's so beyond me that I see Obama as a Trojan donkey.

Tom Kludt 11:58 AM EDT, Wednesday May 8, 2013

A pair of House Republicans have signaled to their constituents that they are opposed to the proposed cuts to Social Security and veterans benefits laid out in the budget offered by President Barack Obama, the Huffington Post reporeted Wednesday.

Reps. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) and Sean Duffy (R-WI) argued that the proposal was an effort by Obama to persuade Republicans to compromise, but they are opposed to the cuts.

The letter, sent in conjunction with Rep. Alan Grayson's (D-FL) "Citizen Whip" project, harkened back to remarks made last month by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee who called the proposed Social Security cuts a "shocking attack on seniors."

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. LOL ...

I noticed that you have not addressed a single point that I raised; rather, you accuse me of "Living in fantasy-land." So that is how you characterize arguments supported by facts? ... Fantasy-land?

And arguments based on pure speculation is the height of reasoning, right?

What should be obvious to you, as informed by your one and only bit of evidence ... the Walden statement ... is WHY your speculation won't come to pass ... the gop shut him down because they know it is a losing argument. Even the right knows Walden's statement and the three stooge's statements cannot coexist in the same universe ... CCPI can't be "a shocking attack on seniors" AND "a (non-)touching of entitlements" that is "only a tinkering with the formula."

Your lastest submission actually signals exactly the gop problem ... they recognize that the proposal was/is a negotiating position (that they cannot accept), despite basing their whole position on the Democrats not doing "entitlement reform."

It's there (everyone sees it) ... the gop is still saying "NO" (everyone sees it) ... and the cohort needed to flip the House is noticing (everyone sees it ... except progressives and other ODS sufferers).

But we shall see, huh?

[blkmusclmachine]

9. Obama is neither liberal, nor progressive, nor Democratic.

He likes him some GOP just fine.

Fooled ya!

[7wo7rees]

11. Just precious, "willing to try anything" I so love this Hope And Change Man!! Not--

Sick to death of it all. So sorry.

[Doctor_J]

14. anything except fighting the right

That is one place he won't go.

[santamargarita]

16. What a disappointment!

[n2doc]

17. The only thing repubs respect is power

If Obama spent more time making these folks fear for losing their cushy jobs, he might get some action. These sorts of "lets be friends" efforts have been proven to fail, repeatedly. Is Obama insane? Or does he just like to hang with folks who are dedicated to making his second term a failure?

[grahamhgreen]

19. Exactly. They are Right Wing Authoritarians, they want to be told what to do, under fear of

punishment, not talked into it. Think S&M mindset.

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them.

They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.[1]

The concept of right-wing authoritarianism was introduced in 1981 by Canadian-American psychologist Bob Altemeyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Too late now, but he could have started by prosecuting some war criminals.

[grahamhgreen]

33. It is late, but if he wants to be effective, he has to be their boss, not their buddy.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. Excuse me, but I sincerely think that he is effective.

He's working on his retirement plan. IMO, he started doing so from day 1.

[grahamhgreen]

36. Now that is hard to argue with!

[Addison]

18. Can he humiliate himself any further for their amusement?

[abelenkpe]

31. As soon as you think it's not possible to get any worse

Surprise....yes it can!


Ok maybe I'm just feeling a bit cynical...

[CTyankee]

21. hate to be the one to say it, but it is "retch" not "wretch" in this context...

to retch is to make the sound of vomiting (or to vomit)

wretch means a despicable or miserable person

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Although this is a wretched situation

Involving many wretches.

[grahamhgreen]

28. Learn something new everyday! Fixed!

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Time Magazine got it right.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601081124,00.html

[Doctor_J]

32. Your link took me to a bunch of pics that predicted in 2008 that Obama would be the new FDR

makes me want to retch thinking about what he's actually become.

[forestpath]

37. "Willing to try anything" - gee, I wonder what future betrayals are in store.