If Obama really wants to keep his base, and retain his Presidency.

[Scuba]

If President Obama reallywants to keep his base, and retain his Presidency beyone 2012, I recommend he make the following speech:



I’m announcing today new direction for America, including:

Within 10 days I want Congress to pass new tax laws that spread the tax burden fairly across the economic spectrum, with those benefiting most from our society contributing commensurately.

Within 20 days I want Congress to pass laws that protect the right of workers to organize and have a voice in the operation of US businesses. This will include raising the minimum wage to $20.00 per hour to ensure a reasonable standard of living for all working families.

Within 30 days, all US military, diplomatic and contracted personnel will return from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives being wasted on these wars, we will instead provide aid to these countries, and to other depressed areas where atrocious conditions breed terrorists.

Additionally, I am ordering the Department of Justice to investigate those who led us into these wars to determine if war crime charges are warranted. If so they will be prosecuted with vigor and any ill-gained profits shall be returned to the people.

Within 40 days I want Congress to pass a simple plan to provide Medicare for All so no American is denied care or has to suffer financial hardship because of health problems, and no American businesses are saddled with health costs that keep them from competing fairly with foreign competitors. This plan will include a “safety net” to guarantee every citizen is provided the food and shelter necessary to survive difficult challenges in their lives.

Within 60 days I want the Commerce Department to present a plan for maintaining and improving the infrastructure of our great country.

Within 80 days I want the Secretary of Education to present new plans to guarantee all Americans have access to our public schools, from pre-kindergarten through advanced degrees.

Within 120 days I want Homeland Security to present a new plan for securing our borders from those who would do us harm while allowing appropriate travel and visitation to our many friends around the world. This plan is to include a path to citizenship for those who serve in the US military, or who came here as children and are now productive members of our society.

Within 150 days I want a Constitutional Amendment passed prohibiting political spending by corporations or any other entity or individual not qualifying as a person with citizenship in this great country.

Within 180 days I want the Department of Energy to begin another “Manhattan Project” to enable us to cease our dependence on fossil fuels. As this effort will no doubt take time, I am announcing the nationalization of all US oil and gas reserves, as well as other reserves owned by the citizens of the US that are currently being extracted from our soil for private profit without regard for our environment.

I am also ordering the Department of Justice to begin immediately to root out crimes of corruption within our government. In concert with this, I want Congress to pass term-limit or other laws to ensure elected officials are serving for the benefit of the American people as a whole, not to gain wealth or power for themselves or their friends.

These and other policies we will put in place will cause a sea-change in how our country serves the citizens - We the People - rather than a tiny handful of super-wealthy who would subvert our democracy and plunder our wealth while denying even the most basic services for our citizens. Thank you for your support and thank you for standing up for the rights of all citizens.

[global1]

1. One Other Thing I Would Add Is New Regulations To Keep The Banksters & Wall St.......

from ever causing a financial meltdown again.

Note: I clicked recommend and realized that somebody before me actually unrecommended this post. I just can't believe that somebody here on DU would not support Scuba's post.

[Scuba]

2. Thanks Global. n/t

[obxhead]

3. That would require use of the bully pulpit, something he is

terrified to use.

[LWolf]

4. He's not terrified to use it against the left wing of his own party. nt

[obxhead]

45. Extreme edit.

Original text for posterity:

So inform me of the proper excuse please.
He has failed at EVERY opportunity to use it. There must be a reason.

I misread your post entirely. You are absolutely correct. Obama has ONLY used the bully pulpit to destroy left of center values. Every single thing that the left has gotten (breadcrumbs) has been attached to a GOP handout of magnificent proportions.

[LWolf]

47. It's beyond frustrating, isn't it? nt

[obxhead]

53. Beyond is a kind word. nt

[LWolf]

58. Yes. I can't think of a word that really nails it.

:grr:

[SusanaMontana41]

73. Yup. Doesn't take him long to make up his mind on THAT. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

27. I don't think he even knows what it is, or where GWB left it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

5. Well thought out.

[Scuba]

6. Thank you. n/t

[JoePhilly]

7. So after the first 10 days, when Congress doesn't pass tax reform, then what?

[BklnDem75]

8. Wow...

If the President said any of that, he would be drug tested before he left the building. The actual base is reality based. This is pure fantasy land stuff. These sound more like decrees. Do you really think Obama's a king or dictator?

[Scuba]

9. What couldn't be accomplished....

...with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate (besides the Constitutional Ammendment)?

[BklnDem75]

12. Do we have that now?

Did we have that 2 years ago? Despite having a Democratic majority in the Senate, it's still a conservative majority. Having more Dems isn't enough. If that list is to become a reality, we need more Progressives and we need to recognize that we don't have that right now.

[Armstead]

17. There will never be more progressives if the "reality based" excuse is always used

The reality is that our country's economy, political system and social contractions have been undermined in part by the fact that the Democratic Party has assisted in that assault. (Not all Democrats. There are some great progressive democrats.)

That will never change as long as those at the grassroots assume that will never change, and insult those who try.

[BklnDem75]

22. And demanding decrees are helping in what way?

FDR and his super majorities in Congress wouldn't be able to meet those demands. Do you think the act of saying he wants those things will make it so? For some reason, the pukes are going to roll over if he decides to thump his chest a little more? The truth is there's never gonna be more progressives if we keep up with this fantasy stuff.

[Armstead]

25. Proposing ideas is not the same as "demanding decrees"

Even I don't necessarily agree with all of the points or timelines in the OP.

However, it is a sincee attempt to propose ideras on how Democrats can do better.

It would be a lot more useful to actually discuss the actual content of the post, instead of the usual "There goes the 'left' demanding ponies again" kind of blanket dismissal based on "reality."

[BklnDem75]

28. It becomes less of a proposal...

when you add things like 'if you want to keep your base' or 'if you want to retain your presidency', but that's just me. Believe it or not, even criticizing a 'proposal' is part of an honest discussion.

[Armstead]

31. Here's a suggestion:

Rather than make aspersions about the poster, how about just saying something like: I believe that would not be a successful sdtrategy because......"

I'm not trying to be the Civility Patrol. (I'll admit to being as uncivil as anyone somtimes). But i do believe that if we focus on the content of our differences, instead of just slinging hash at each other on a personal level, it will be a lot more likely we will be able to pull together on the basic goals we share in terms of beating back the GOP assault.

[BklnDem75]

34. Here's a better suggestion...

How about you quit with the accusations? If you're really being honest about having a more fruitful discussion, you're going about it the wrong way.

[Armstead]

35. maybe so...but it is possible to disagree constructively

I've had many productive discussions and debates with people here, despite either general or speciufic differences of opinion...And at times they have even caused me to re-think my own opinion about the subject.

But those seldom involve dismissive empty nonsense like claims of the other side not being "reality based" or similar stuff.

[BklnDem75]

37. Except when someone's listing accomplishments

Those are ok to dismiss and unworthy of discussion, right?

[Armstead]

42. Those are okay to criticize -- as are progressive proposals

The point is that rather than insult or belittle the poster, it seems like we should all keep it focused on the issues instead of just tossing off personal insults.

(Yes I realize I am guilty of it too sometimes.)

In other words, seems fine to defend Obama, but not to imply that everyone who criticizes him is part of the "professional left" or "Not living in reality" or all of the other stuff that gets tossed around here.....Just as it's fine to criticize Obama without saying that the person defending him is a nitwit or an Obama worshiper, etc., either.

[vaberella]

61. You got it right! n/t

[Armstead]

10. Personally, I'd change some things in that, but I like the idea

I won't quibble about how I might change that, but I agree with your basic point, that Obama could (should?) set out a clear set of principles and goals that are clearly liberal/progressive in ways that most average people could agree with.

I also think it's great that you spelled out an alternative in specific terms. It would be more constructive, in terms of the quality of discussions here, if the actual issues were the starting point rather than the nebulous terms we often fall back on.

[ProSense]

11. What are the chances

that Congress will pass the President's actual budget?

[ClassWarrior]

13. Wow, unrecs for a post chock full of Democratic values?

NGU.

[Armstead]

15. Hey....Them liberal ideas are dangerous, doncha know?

Can be discussing liberal and progressive ideas on a Democratic discussion board. That's "Obama bashing."

[Ignis]

29. ...And expensive!

Because now we're running government like a business, remember? :puke:

[obxhead]

46. Liberal? HA! These are Democratic ideals.

Liberal goes so much further.

[Armstead]

63. Depends on how one defines liberal and Democratic ideals

Technically, the traditional definition of the word "liberal" is the opposite of how we use it in the US.

Liberal originally "liberal" meant very free market and conservative, more like what we now consider libertarian. It was used originally to define freely operating private ownership and entrepreneurial as a contrast to feudal and the monarchical caste systems that once dominated the economy. So, if one is using traditional definitions, liberal would actually be libertarian.

However in modern American politics, its usage was flipped to refer to the belief that government has a role in regulating and augmenting the free-market economy -- or what we think of as Democratic ideals. That is how we generally use it today, and it has evolved to be the opposite of conservative libertarian.

The stage beyond our definition of liberal would be progressive populism and socialism. It's not cut and dried, but that is how the spectrum moves from conservatism leftward these days.

But that's all splitting hairs. But, in the way I was referring, liberal/progressive populism are Democratic ideals. They are further to the left than the corporate conservatism (DLC centrism) that defines too much of the actual practice of the Democratic Party today.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Email the WH with your pearls of wisdom.

[Armstead]

16. How about talking about the content, rather than blanket insults?

[AtomicKitten]

18. How about emailing this to the White House?

If you don't think it's up to par, it's you casting aspersions.

[Armstead]

19. ?????

I have no idea what you just said.

My post was referring to your dismissal of an attempt in the OP to present a possible agenda based on actual issues. Whether you agree with it or not, your blanket dismissal of the "pearls of wisdom" is what I was referring to.

[AtomicKitten]

21. I'm sure the White House welcomes free advice, there being such a paucity of it and all.

[Armstead]

23. So posting ones ideas on a message board is uselessly adding to that?

Might as well shut down DU and every other Democratic discussion board then.

[vicarofrevelwood]

20. Expand the Size of the House,

To it's constitutional level. http://www.thirty-thousand.org

[elias49]

24. This is the first time I've seen this. Interesting.

Gonna require some thought.

[stevenleser]

41. Oh my god. Trying to get 435 people to move in a certain direction isnt enough, we have to

go for 30,000? And of course, we will have to pay those people. Congress' payroll would go from about $90 million a year to near $6 Billion per year. (I rounded salary to an average 200K, I am sure there is a slight error).

If the President wants to get something passed, his team would have to try to ensure 15,001 votes in the house. No thanks!

[pipoman]

60. It would severely hinder

lobbyists and corporations from buying and influencing elections. Also by making the salary, say, $20k annually it may weed out some of the stagnant pros we all get so sick of seeing on the teevee. I would bet the result would be legislation which would match the opinions and priorities of the populace instead of the corporations as it is now.

[grahamhgreen]

26. My God! Obviously, the military already has an 'unrec bot' patrolling this board -

with your speech, he would be a shoe-n in 2012, regardless if any of the items got passed.

[boppers]

50. None of the items would pass, and the board would be upset about broken promises.

SSDD.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

30. He's never lost his base. and the Fringe does not decide Elections

[jefferson_dem]

32. So true.

The base does not equal a handful of serial malcontents who post illogical rants on an online discussion board.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

36. that's a good band name "the Cereal Malcontents"

[Armstead]

48. There's a lot to be serially malcontented about

[jefferson_dem]

33. Sounds neat and all but...

overly simplistic and unrealistic. Each of these "goals" is fraught with nearly insurmountable political / constitutional obstacles which would ensure they would never be fully realized, and definitely not within the time limits you express. What of that "bully pulpit" then?

[bornskeptic]

38. This wouldn't get him re-elected, but ought to lock him up a spot on Saturday Night Live.

Has it ever occurred to you that things like "Medicare for All" and free education at all levels cost money? Just providing Medicare for everyone not currently covered by Medicare or Medicaid would cost well over $1 trillion annually. If you doubt that, consider that Medicare currently spends about half a trillion covering 15% of the population. Saying we pay for it with the money currently spent on healthcare is meaningless until you explain how you intend to get that money from the hands of the people and corporations paying it now into the government's coffers, as in tax increases. Even if you manage to work it out, it would mean that Millions of Americans, including every Federal employee, many state and local government employees, including myself, and many employees of large corporations would be forced to exchange the good insurance they have now for inferior insurance-Medicare.Why is Medicare inferior? First, because of the ridiculous prescription drug program which requires choosing from 30 or so plans, and hoping the one you choose will cover the drugs that you need, and that you can avoid the donut hole. Second, because of the fact that neither Part A or Part B has a limit on coinsurance, which means Medicare haws no effective limit on out of pocket costs. If I need expensive heart surgery, I know its total cost to me won't be over about $5000, but if I were on Medicare it might be $50,00, $100,000, or more. If you have the notion that Medicare is cheap because of the low administrative costs, you're overlooking the fact that Medicare suffers losses from fraud estimated at $60 billion or more annually.$60 billion is about 12% of Medicare spending. When you figure that in, Medicare comes out being about as efficient as most large group insurance. Don't get me wrong. Medicare is a great program, and when I retire I'll be very glad that it's available, but I know that barring major changes in Medicare, I'll have to either purchase a Medigap policy or enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan to have coverage similar to what I have now. If you want government to provide that coverage, then the pricetag goes up over $1.5 trillion annually, or maybe as far as $2 trillion.

Sure, t's easy to think of nice things the government could do, but at a time when deficits are running about $1.5 trillion already, making sweeping demands without presenting a viable way of paying for them is useless and irresponsible. Fortunately President Obama is far smarter than that.

[Armstead]

44. No healthcare system is going to be very efficient

It's a physical impossibility because of the nature of healthcare. If everyone were healthy throughout their lives, and sickness or accident were rarities, it might be possible to create a system that is cost-effective and efficient.

Given that -- and recognizing that there is room for improvement in Medicare, it seems to be we'd be a lot better off offering that as an option for people who choose to make payments into that system rather than the highway robbery that healthcare companies gouge peope for while making obscene profits. Nobody is suggesting that everyone get a "free ride" without paying i9nto the system...In fact, just as health care companies prefer to iussue policies to young healthy people because money comes in without going out as much, that Medicare could benefit financially with an additional pool of young healthy payers into the system.

I would also refer you to numerous studies that have proven that a single-payer system would be cheaper for everyone.

Why reject it out of hand?

[bornskeptic]

55. Certainly there are arguments for a single payer system.

I don't reject the possibility of a single payer system being implemented eventually, but I do recognize that immediately transitioning to a single payer system is logistically impossible. If we're going to get there in the future, it will come through the implementation and expansion of a public insurance option under the Affordable Care Act.

The success of any healthcare system will depend on how well it is implemented. A study which concludes that an abstract single payer system is more efficient than an abstract market based system is not very helpful. I put more credit in the results of real world examples, especially in Europe, where a variety of healthcare systems can be observed. There is no evidence that the market based systems in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium are less efficient than the single payer systems, or provide an inferior level of healthcare. In fact, if anything, the reverse seems to be true. Health Consumer Powerhouse, the respected European healthcare rating organization, puts out comparative ratings every year, and Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands always finish near the top of the ranking.

[Armstead]

59. Well, IMO the idea of beginning to allow peopoe to buy into Medicare seems to me to be...

one way to transition into a better system.

The big problem, from the standpoint of impacts on real people, is the exorbitant costs and limited options for private health insurance. The people who are really getting screwed are the millions of average families who are financially self-sufficient and would not qualify for existing public health programs, but who can't afford hundreds of dollars of monthly payments for basic private health insurance.

Either the markets have to be forced to be more affordable and give people options they can afford based on their income or they have to be supplemented and/or replaced by a system of public coverage and social insurance.

The kind of nebulous "We're going to force you to buy insurance but we're not going to control what it costs you or offer new affordable options" approach of the current "reforms" will IMO end up making an overly complicated system more complicated with little benefit, and will also poison the well of public opinion against any reforms.

There are many possible ways to address this problem. But further entrenching the current system and conventional wisdom of health care being a market commodity rather than a basic human need and right is the wrong direction, IMO.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. Rec'd

:thumbsup:

[krawhitham]

40. He will listen to nothing that comes from DU

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Then he will continue to suffer political defeats like he did in Nov 10

Only this time it will cost us the White House.

Listen to your base Obama. We're right about the issues.

[boppers]

51. He's fine with that.

He's already said he's willing to be a one-termer if it means he gets some of his agenda passed.

[avaistheone1]

54. His agenda

You mean the corporatist agenda.

[polichick]

49. That would require fearless leadership...

...but it sure would be great!

[Hippo_Tron]

52. Term limits are undemocratic

They inherently say that voters can't be trusted to elect the right people. Generally Republicans are the ones who support them.

[olegramps]

62. Do you believe that the two-term limit on the presidency is un-democratic?

Aristotle in his "Politics" observed that one of the more serious threats to democratic governments was the lack of restrictions on the how long a representative could serve because it eventually leads to concentration of power.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Yes I do think they are undemocratic

Aristotle didn't exactly live in a time when mature democracy as we know it today existed. Most of Western Europe and Canada have no term limits on their Prime Ministers and you don't see any more issues with concentration of power than we do.

[Arkana]

71. I hate to be a wet blanket, but people as a whole can't be trusted.

A singular American citizen can be smart and engaged. Several American citizens can be smart and engaged.

But 300 million Americans? They're stupid, easily scared, easily distracted, and set in their ways. How do you explain Reagan? Bush II?

We don't like to hear it, but the sad truth is that American voters can't be trusted. They can't. That's why we have term limits--they acknowledge a hard truth about our citizens.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

56. That sounds great

and I agree with every one of those proposals and would be ecstatic if President Obama would champion them. However, unless he has a Congress that would be willing to enact any or all of them, then we'll pretty much be back to square one. Even if he were to hypothetically announce all of this, then fail to enact any or all of them, then we'll probably still be back here again (assuming he is re-elected) in 2013, 2014........etc. complaining about his "betrayal" and making snarky comments about "pretty speeches", and so on and so forth. We need to get organized (and stay organized) at the local grassroots level and get people in Congress whom can help advance these goals.

[Nancy Waterman]

57. This is awesome

I would recommend but I am too late.

[NorthCarolina]

64. I think the time for 'keeping his base' has long passed. nt

[FrenchieCat]

66. Why? Has the base turned to the Republicans for comfort?

and if so, how much of a base were they.....ever?
I'd say, not much of one....

[tledford]

67. Within 24 hours, he and Joe Biden would be dead and John Boehner would be President. eom

[cottonseed]

68. Right. Then he'd have to announce that he's going to dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court.

I wish I was 12 again. Everything was so easy then.

[krabigirl]

69. His "base" consists of moderates, corporate dems, and now, neoconservatives.

[Arkana]

72. You forgot Gallup's 87% of self-identified liberals.

Nice try.

[polichick]

77. I don't know any "self-identified liberals" who aren't very disappointed...

If the WH is taking comfort in anything Gallup comes up with, they're crazy.

[polichick]

78. At least that's who he plays to, assuming the rest of us will hang in there.

[Arkana]

70. And the Republican-controlled House will sit on their hands, do nothing, and whine

and you people will accuse Obama of being impotent because he can't force Republicans to bend to his will.

[LibDemAlways]

74. I would add, "I am issuing an immediate executive order to

shut down nudie scans and grab ass pat downs at airport security checkpoints because they serve no purpose other than to intimidate and harass travelers. I am firing John Pistole, effective immediately, and have already accepted the resignation of Janet Napolitano.

None of this will happen, of course, but any of it would be of help in earning my vote.

[ncteechur]

75. So if he doesn't make a speech of that sort or with those elements, you will not vote for him?

That is what happened in November. You don't need to look far to see the fucked up consequences of democratic voters not voting.

[vaberella]

76. Is Obama an emperor to get those things done for you?! n/t