President KNUCKLES-UNDER again.

[Steve_I_Am]

It should come as no surprise that President Obama just "knuckled-under" to the Republican on extending the Bush tax cuts. Knuckling-under appears to be this President's "M.O."

He knuckled-under on FISA when he was in the Senate. He knuckled-under in NOT fighting for the Public Option. He knuckled-under in NOT closing GITMO. He knuckled-under in NOT ending Bush's Domestic Surveillance programs. He knuckled-under in NOT attempting to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their Torture policies. He knuckled-under in NOT nominating a true progressive to the Supreme Court. He knuckled-under in NOT appointing Elizibeth Warren to be the head the new Financial Consumer Protection Agency. He knuckled-under in his very conservative appointments to the "bipartisan" Debt Reduction Commission. He has already promised to knuckle-under, proposing deep cuts to discretionary spending, when he proposes his 2011 budget.

The GOP has Obama's number. When push comes to shove, he can be counted on to knuckle-under. What in the world makes ANYONE think that, in 2012, when the GOP starts demanding that the Bush tax cuts be made permanent, that this President, facing re-election, is NOT going to knuckle-under, again?

[niceypoo]

1. He should have made it a very public fight with lines drawn in the sand

Not more behinds the scenes capitulation. This makes him look like milquetoast.

[BeyondGeography]

2. My concern is whatever he says about the Bush tax cuts in 2012 will be laughed at or ignored

How anyone can take promises to dig in and rescind those cuts in 2012 (which, I'm sure he will make a centerpiece of his campaign) is beyond me.

[Ikonoklast]

3. You do a better job with the Senate we have, then.

Unrec for right-wing talking points.


The votes weren't there, simply put, and you don't waste political capital fighting a foregone conclusion.

[Steve_I_Am]

6. B.S.

I spoke to legislative assistants for both of my Democratic Senators, and was told that there was NO REASON a middle-class, only, extension of the tax cuts could not have been brought to a vote using the Senate's RECONCILIATION rules.

The President could have TOLD Harry Reid to pass the bill with 51 votes, and send it to him for signature; and, he could have threatened to veto any bill that comes to him that did not let the tax breaks for the top 2% expire.

Those are things that a STRONG President would have done.

Instead, this President said, "well, it looks like the Republicans really, really want this. I better give it to them."

[Ikonoklast]

14. And then they would have filibustered unemployment.

The unemployed would have got jack, and that would make you happier?

[last_texas_dem]

23. I had thought of that, too, but

isn't there some restriction on using reconciliation only once a year- and we'd be thus barred from doing so since we already used it to pass HCR?

[Steve_I_Am]

32. We didn't use Reconciliation on HCR . . .

We found 60 votes for cloture.

[last_texas_dem]

33. I honestly couldn't remember.

I was thinking we had used it at some stage of the process, if not for the final bill.

If it's an available option, I agree with you completely and I'm not sure why we didn't use it.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hepburn]

10. We have the Senate and House (new one) we have because....

...he did NOT do a better job. Caving in all the time gives them the power and takes it from us.

[jaxx]

4. Why would the unemployment extension be ignored in this tale?

And why would anyone be slapping the GOP on the back when they lost their dream?

[Steve_I_Am]

11. And how many of thoee unemployed people are going to remember . . .

and give Obama credit in 2012? How many remembered, or even knew, that Obama gave them tax cuts in 2010?

What Obama has done has taken away his own ability to run on the Platform of "Democrats will restore the unemployment benefits that the greedy bastards in the GOP took away from you" in 2012.

[jaxx]

13. I call bs on that.

No Democrat ought to be willing to sell out the unemployed. What do you think they would do between now and then? Starve for a freakin political point? That's the coldest thing I've read yet.

[Steve_I_Am]

17. This is Politics, JAXX,, not patty-cakes . . .

Democrats didn't "sell out the unemployed." It was the GOP that voted NOT to extend their benefits.

Obama's "compromise" is a "lose/lose" for Democrats and for America. The President traded away a core Democratic values in an effort to blunt the painful impact of irresponsible Republican tax policies. As a result, he has, both, given up the "moral high ground" (Democratic values ARE superior to the Republican "trickle down" values that the President appears to have adopted), AND, he has taken away the incentive for the voters at the lower end of the economic spectrum to turn off Rush Limbaugh, and turn off FOX, and to stop voting against their own economic best interests.

You may consider it "cold." I think of it as political "tough love."

[karynnj]

5. Actually, this is a deal for a fragile economy to get stimulus and to help people most needing it

You have to live in the real world of what can be done.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capt. America]

9. Quitness

[WI_DEM]

12. So Steve, how do you get unemployment extensions for 2-million people

who need them and extend the middle class tax cuts when the GOP will block everything unless they get the extension of the Bush Tax Cut. Explain, please how YOU would do it. And give something more concrete than using the bully pulpit.

[Steve_I_Am]

15. You fight for what you believe in . . .

what you don't do, is negotiate with the "economic terrorists" who are holding your people hostage.

[Ikonoklast]

16. And the votes get pulled out of thin air.

You got nothin' but platitudes.

[Steve_I_Am]

18. People will follow a LEADER . . .

who fights for them, Ikonklast. Even if it hurts in the short run.

People will not follow a push-over who doesn't stand for anything.

[Ikonoklast]

19. Senate Republicans WON'T.

No matter how many times you click your heels together.


Reality.

[BklnDem75]

20. People will follow a LEADER...

who gets results, not fiery rhetoric that results in nothing getting done. The people you demand are the ones who never get elected. Now why is that?

[treestar]

22. self delete

[Steve_I_Am]

25. Obama RAN as a Leader . . .

and he was elected with a HUGE popular mandate. During his first 2 years, he COULD HAVE pushed for a truly progressive agenda, similar to FDR's New Deal, and gotten just about everything he wanted.

Honestly, how many Democrats in the Senate do you think would have voted AGAINST a public option in health care, if the most popular Democratic President in recent history would have stood up and said . . . "Do not send me a health care reform package that does NOT have a robust Public Option in it. The American people really need it. The American people really want it. And if you send me a bill without it, I will veto it? That is what I meant by 'Change you can believe in.'"?

Instead, he immediately bent over backwards in his stupid, destined-to-fail, attempts at bipartisanship, and look where it has landed him - He will get primaried from the left in 2012, and the ONLY chance he has of getting re-elected is if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate Sarah Palin.

What a pathetic waste.

[BklnDem75]

27. Now that is a fantasy

If you ignore blue dogs and a stone walling opposition, would you have a point. Sorry, comparing Obama's dilemma with FDR or even LBJ is just not dealing with reality. If you actually paid attention, most of the compromises INCLUDING the public option was all made with other DEMOCRATS.

[treestar]

26. "we the people"

?????????????

We vote in Senators, Representatives and a President, NOT a leader! We are not sheep! We do not want a leader in the sense you describe! Quit making us into sheep, or saying that about your fellow voters. Why are you looking for someone who can mesmerize the rest of us into mere following? Do you really think that's what Senators of an opposing party should do?

[Steve_I_Am]

28. 66% of all Americans . . .

were in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 expire. Pretty clear that the President was NOT listening to "We, the People."

All he needed to do was to get out in front of that parade. Even if he lost the vote in the Senate, his approval ratings have gone up because "We, the People" would have known that we had someone on OUR side.

Instead, he caved-in to the Republican, as he always does.

[Arkana]

34. Yeah, "fight for what you believe in" isn't a concrete answer.

[treestar]

21. The Republicans knuckled under

They allowed that job killing extension of unemployment (in their view).

Quit pretending that one never has to make deals and can always get what one wants in life by some vague schoolyard images.

[GOTV]

29. You haven't been listening. The GOP has been saying they wanted UI extensions ...

... they just wanted to make sure they were paid for.

It's naive to believe they actually wanted to deny unemployed voters their UI benefits and that they weren't just holding out on teh UI benefits to get concessions from Obama, which they did.

They didn't knuckle under. It could hardly have gone better for them. It's like Obama got 10% the GOP got 90%.

[Steve_I_Am]

30. Glad you mentioned "the schoolyard " . . .

You know the expression "everything I ever needed to learn, I learned in Grade School," right? What I learned in grade school is that "when you stand up to a bully, the bully backs down."

Republicans are bullies.

[polichick]

24. Maybe he's not planning to run again - maybe it'll be "mission accomplished" by then. nt

[FrenchieCat]

31. Than plan on a Republican recovery......

at least then you will be proven right,
and that's most important, isn't it?