The problem isn't an "arrogant far left."

[TheWraith]

I would probably qualify as "far left," since on economic matters I'm a borderline socialist. (In case anyone's wondering, on social issues I lean populist.) A lot of my friends would also be flagged as "far left." The problem is that some people were expecting that we would get a liberal version of George W. Bush--somebody who just did whatever we wanted, flouted the law, ignored the political process, and served only a small constituency instead of the entire country.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that desire completely. To have a president governing that way would be extremely satisfying--hell, I would probably give in to that temptation myself if I were in office.

The problem with that is fairly simple: it's wrong. It's wrong legally because you can't change laws by executive fiat to do what you'd like instead of what's approved by Congress. It's wrong politically because it's not the way Americans want their government to work. And it's wrong ethically because it contributes to the decay of the democratic process.

Obama chose to do things the right way, which--as usual--is also the slow, painful, arduous way. It shouldn't surprise us that Bush and company did enough damage to this country and the government itself that it's going to take at least a decade to recover, if not longer.

[dionysus]

1. +1

[TheWraith]

2. Thanks. At least somebody read it.

Meanwhile the flamebait threads accusing Obama of being a sellout and saying the people who want to destroy him are the only true liberals get a hundred recs. :eyes:

Edit: typo.

[truthspeak]

10. Perhaps a better title?

Good post though...the hypocrisy of some on the left is staggering...

Bashing Bush all those years, yet want Obama to use those same tactics to achieve their needs.

[Empowerer]

3. Bingo, Bingo, Bingo!

Although they claimed to want change, they really didn't want to change how business was being done in Washington. They just wanted to change the beneficiaries of how business is being done in Washington from the far right to them.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Alas, the unrec crowd has been here...

reasonable positions seem to be anathema to them.

[Unvanguard]

5. The problem is that the Republicans have changed the rules.

Their gross abuse of the filibuster have made the "right way" of doing things deeply wrong and ineffectual.

Obama needs to retaliate in kind--just as the Republicans did back under the Bush Administration by threatening to use the nuclear option. Use of procedure to obstruct should lead to the evasion of procedure--not to legitimize executive dictatorship, but to force some new accomodation that prevents more Republican obstruction. This way just rewards it--so it will continue, forever.

[rurallib]

6. I am old enough to remember Kennedy, Johnson et al.

And at least one thing I remember is that they would take stands and then negotiate with the opposition from there. Both sides would move.
With Obama we have seen him take a stand and then almost immediately give it away with little give from the other side.
I fully understand that there will be compromise. But from what I have seen most of the compromising seems to be going one way, apparently in an effort to get a check mark in the 'done' column.

I could damn near write a book on what has been going on. I would love to see some of the transcripts of negotiations on health care, on the stimulus, on bank regulation.
If there is any issue that you hold sacred that has not been bartered dramatically already be fearful if you find it on the negotiating block. SS and medicare have always been that for me. They have already been compromised in this deal and by the cat food commission. Let me remind you that the cat food commission never had to be instituted.

[TheWraith]

7. Your underlying assumption is that the Republicans are reasonable and want to cooperate.

That they have the best interests of the country at heart--that they just think their way is better, but are willing to see things our way.

The reality is of a Republican Party hell-bent on stopping any an all activity, where the only means to get anything done is to find a deal which fractures off some of their moderates. The idea that Obama simply caves in without getting anything back is at best a misperception.

[displacedvermoter]

13. But that seems to be Obama's underlying assumption and it

is stupid for a Duer to assume this, and even more stupid for the President to assume. And really annoying here after two years of you guys yelling at us how he is being impeded in his work by the GOP!!!

[grasswire]

8. "some people" you say

But your notion that many liberals and progressives wanted their president to flout the law, ignore the political process, and serve them is -- on its face -- wrong.

Liberalism and progressivism are rooted in justice and equality. I have never known one who wanted his/her politicians to flout the law to achieve even noble goals. Maybe "far leftists" seek that kind of change. But those "far leftists" are not the rank and file of the Democratic Party and progressives -- who make up the base.

I fear that you don't know much about liberals and progressives. Not much at all.

[niceypoo]

9. "did enough damage to this country and the government itself"

They did that damage with their supply side tax cuts. Do you see the disconnect here?

[wndycty]

11. K&R

:kick:

[Union Scribe]

12. By serving our constituency, all would benefit

I see that argument sometimes, about how he's "everyone's President." And that by itself is true, but the assumption within the argument is that he somehow owes anything to the right-wingers who didn't vote for him, and whose whims would hurt everyone but the richest and most powerful. By compromising with those people so that they get some of those harmful whims, he isn't being fair, just even. They aren't the same thing.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. what a calm, reasoned thoughtful post. I'm so relieved

to have opened this post.

Thank YOU.

K&R