What progressive policies is Obama suppose to have with the current situation in congress?

Really? What the hell is he suppose to do. It seems that many still haven't realized that if you want real change, you need to focus on getting as many progressives in congress as you can. Blue Dogs have dragged the party down.

I blame the Democrats in the house for not repealing the Bush Tax cuts when they had the chance. There didn't seem to be political will from a lot of people not named Barack Obama, but the focus remains on him.

What is he suppose to do to Wall St when they claim he is already doing too much already to them? And apparently the majority of the population agrees, because they went out and elected Wall St friendly republicans to gut or stap any policies directed at regulating the Oligarchs on Wall St.

I just want to know, what exactly is Obama suppose to do?

You have a point: there's probably nothing he could do even if he worked hard at it. So unpersuasive.

Unilaterally creating a commission designed to recommend savage cuts in Social Security was a good move. And of course, there's this stuff:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

OK.

And you're specifically holding him to a higher standard due to his race!

I believe that what he wants is reform in the form of an increase on the CAP. He has stated many times that he doesn't agree with everything that the commission has proposed. And he has never used the word "cut." And NO! "Reform" does not equal "Cut"!!!!!

I often think that the DU sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome are so thick-headed that they begin to believe their own delusions.

What a convenient excuse. Piss on progressives when you have all the Senate, House, and the White House, lose the majority in the house then complain you can't get shit done because the Republicans are in charge.

Pathetic.

liberals(forget progressive for a minute) in the senate to pass that.

Which would have passed by reconciliation, just like the current RomneyObamaCare bill did. But it violated Obama's deal with Big Pharma, so, phht!, it disappeared.

threatened to filibuster it to death if it had been brought up

Just like RomneyObamaCare was.

not the actual HCR law. If I recall correctly, there was some reason (or rule) that the Medicare Buy-in and/or PO couldn't be passed via reconciliation.

:(

the republican column and see how the numbers lines up

That should answer yer question on 'having' both houses

You act as if Democrat=Progressive. We all know that that's bullshit!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Reacting to the RW noise machine and polls is just a lot of drama.

our time at bat is over, now we're just fighting to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and fighting a bunch of wars.

Oh sure, for two years in the House he had enough progressives to get very progressive legislation passed there, only to have nearly every one of those bills languish and die in the Senate, which is historically usually more conservative than a President or House.

Bridge burning can't be done at every pass. Then there wouldn't be any good will left for further progressive goals.

Arm twisting can take many forms, and does not only consist of bridge burning. It is called politics and the exercise of power through both carrots and sticks. LBJ and FDR, for example, did a lot of it.

And, we are talking about more moderate, even liberal Republicans during those times. Please understand how history works. The environment that we live in now is NOT the same as it was during FDR and LBJ eras. I wish progressives would stop trying to act as if we live in that kind of society. We don't!!!

Because the Democratic Party political class sold out liberalism and ceded the field to the GOP.

IT is not that liberalism is unpopular with the general public. Rather it is that the Democratic orthodoxy expresses similar views that you are expressing.

With such a defeatist attitude, CONservatives will continue to ride roughshod with only token opposition.

effort to propagandize against the government, Watergate...all these historic factors that have contributed to the political climate that we face now.

We need MORE liberals/progressives serving in the halls of government. The problem is that many of the so-called progressives are shut down and out in the political process. How do you create an environment where liberals/progressives are welcome and free to express their true beliefs? How do you get the general American public to stop demonizing liberals/progressives, the role of government?

These conditions were in fact long before Obama arrived on the scene. To blame him for these conditions is incredibly naive.

I'm convinced, however, that if we try to elect MORE progressives at the local level and in Congress, we will get the progressive policies that we want. One man cannot do it alone. He needs our help. If all we do is sit on blogs and complain about what he's not doing, it's only counterproductive. We need to be out there just like the wingnuts are, mobilizing the electorate, convincing people that liberals are not bad. Most important, it is WE who have been right all along. We were right about the wars. We've been right about the economy and our political/economic philosophies. And we've been right all along about social issues.

The problem is that 30+ years of anti-government/anti-liberal propaganda has convinced the average American that liberals/progressives are wrong. Even Democrats and many liberals themselves have fallen into this trap. That's how we got the Reagan Democrat; that's where it comes from!

How do we change it? Not by complaining about Obama, but getting out there and working like Bernie Sanders does to elect more progressives at the grassroots level like we used to. Now we have ceded that job to the wingnuts, and they are kicking our asses up and and down the street at the local and state level.

Mondale lost 49 states in 1984 which is a pretty good indicator that the public was buying into Reagan's greed is good mentality. Maybe it would have helped in the long run to not move to the right, but in the short term it seemed like the viable solution. And politicians generally don't plan too much beyond the next election.

I've yet to see a concrete example of this.

I've asked many times how Obama was supposed to get Lieberman to support the public option. What arm twisting? Of what does it consist?

Believe what you like, but POTUS Obama pissed away his political capital and Democratic majorities in Senate and House.

POTUS Obama retained many Bush administration Federal appointees.

I am surprised by how much POTUS Obama likes war.

I have yet to see some posters make other than an apologetic post regards to POTUS Obama.

I may be critical more often than not but that is because one can fix one's own home or Party and is a necessity at any level prior to facing an opposition.

POTUS Obama is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals are every bit a cause of USA foreign and domestic problems.

Far too often in the current administration, policies have not supported the basic needs and wishes of the People.

Better than GWB.

I expect to vote POTUS Obama in 2012 regardless

even if he knew they couldn't get passed. It would have been a start.

He could fill his whole administration with progressives - instead he chooses moderates, CEOs, and lobbyists.

Can't blame that on current situation in Congress.

probly Rahm's doing, come to think of it. You know, the guy who called us progressives "fucking retarded" and then proceeded, genius that he was, to help lose the House in 2010.

Have you seen the polls? You have it backwards. Obama got trounced in the midterms because he implemented 'Republican ideas' into everything.

It was due to a poor economy, no jobs!!! The economy was #1 on people's minds. Sure, there were progressives who behaved like little children because they didn't get what they wanted WHEN they wanted it. So, they stomped their feet and went home crying, refusing to vote. But the main reason for the anger at Democrats was the economy. The Blue Dogs got their asses handed to them and rightfully so!

Many of these independents had voted DEM in the general, hoping DEMS really were going to end the wars and hoping DEMS would give "Koch Brother" style tax breaks to the middle class.

When the "change" did not happen-they stayed home, or went back to the devil they knew.

Yes- voters were mad at the way centrists in our party handled the economy- we agree on that much. How that is the fault of powerless liberals who DISAGREED with centrism AKA economic conservatism, I have yet to see.

All the Liberals I know of voted DEM.

The way it really went down was the DEMS did everything they could to alienate their own base in an effort to attract independents, pro-Wallstreet types, etc.-and that strategy FAILED.


Typical, the centrists in our party refused to take personal responsibility for their failed "distance the party from populism" strategy, and so they blame VOTERS in their own party, not elected politicians and their hired strategists who failed to attract independent or populist votes.

Trying to blame cry-baby liberals discredits you- the real problem was that our party failed to keep the populist independents on board.

But, there is no denying that enough young people didn't vote and not nearly enough black Americans (I am from this community) voted. That's just a fact. Look at the numbers.

And yes, there were plenty of cry babies out there calling themselves liberals who stomped their feet and declared that they were not voting.

By the way, I AM a liberal. And thankfully most liberals still support Obama and the Democratic Party.

I don't know about you, but I don't have time to sit around crying on a message board; I'm out there working to elect more progressives to local, state and congressional offices.

At first it looked like you were saying that "cry baby" Liberal activists were the ones staying home. Not true- we voted DEM as always.

You just want to blame someone else for everything that centrists and moderates screw up.

Centrists in power, not Liberal activists, were the ones who failed to keep the young & black voters coming back.

Those same young and black voters were gang-busters for DEMS in 2004- if they were not so into us by 2008- is that a reflection on elected DEMS, or the voters themselves?

It was the job of the party structure and elected DEMS to hold onto those voters- and Liberals in and outside of this structure tried to tell the "centrists" how to do it. Instead, you guys just accused us of "wishing for ponies" and all that crap.

Then we lost.

Just b/c Liberals PREDICTED that centrist polices would be unpopular and lose the midterms for us does not mean that the loss itself was the fault of Liberals. We BEGGED you guys over an over not to go that route.

We need to stop blaming citizens and voters for our party's failures and and start looking to the people who hold power and call the shots.

towards a more progressive movement. I blame those who sit back and expect one man to do everything for them and not get out there and push for more progressives at the local level.

I only blame those who whine and bitch. Yes, I am disappointed in many things Obama and the Democrats have done, but I'm sorry. I cannot agree that it has been all bad, and I don't suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

I'm ready to work towards a better, more progressive reality. Are you?

You blame the people who "whine & bitch" (AKA factulally point out that failed centrism lost the midterms).

I actually blame the powers that be who called all the shots, distanced the party from populism & liberalism, then lost the midterms.

Fair enough.

BTW- I am certainly always ready to work for progressive causes, etc. You are only one year older than me, so I've likely done just as much or more than you have, in fact.

other than "I'm mad at Obama because he's not progressive". It makes no sense. People wanted to punish Obama in 2010 by doing what? Staying home? Refusing to vote for Democrats at the local and state levels? It makes no sense! Now we have state legislatures dominated by right wing Republicans--who, coincidentially will control the redistricting process. We now have judgeships controlled by Republicans, and three-fourths of all state governorships in Republican hands.

People wanted to "punish" Obama and the Democrats by staying home, then turn around and question why we can't get MORE progressive policies. Again, it makes no sense!!

Yes, what is Obama supposed to do other than make a speech? And please, I don't want to hear any bullshit about how he should behave like FDR or LBJ. Those are illogical points due precisely to the environments that both parties operated under and the political conditions of those times. I've gone down that road many times, and each time, the responses become more illogical.

B/c all the stats I've seen show that Liberals voted DEM in the midterms- and it was those precious "centists" and "independents" who either stayed home or went back to the GOP.

For many people Obama is just the latest symptom of the long tendency by the Democratic elites and their apologistscto continually sell liberal principles down the river in pursuit of "centrism" that is more aligned with the corporate elites than with the needs and desires of the of the population.

long before Obama got to the scene. To act as if Obama is some kind of harbinger is naive and it lacks respect for history. I've already explained myself above, so no need to keep beating a dead horse. The bottom line is that the political climate that FDR/LBJ faced is NOTHING like what Obama faces. Read upthread for more.

I'm on your side; I just think you are arguing based on faulty logic. Give me more, not LESS progressives and you'll have the progressive policies that you want. Complaining about what Obama is and is not doing will not bring about the change. Allowing more Republicans to get elected to Congress will make things worse. Electing more BLUE DOG Democrats to Congress will make things worse. But working to elect progressives at the local, state and congressional levels will only make things better.

We probably do agree on many things, including the need to elect more liberal/progressives. Here's what I am reacting to in your posts. If it is misinterpretation, I apologize, and am open to clarification and correction. It may be less a personal response than a reaction to the general memes that are tossed out against those who criticize President Obama.

Many of us who are cast as critics of Obama are not necessarily just angry/frustrated with him as much as we are with the larger context and how he handles it. I, personally, have been frustrated and angry with the "centrist" (economically conservative) dominance of the Democratic Party since the 80's as the Democratic Establishment either ignored or actively suppored such trends as the growth of monopolistic mega-corporations, the con-job of "free trade" and outsourcing and the general erosion of social values. Also the Democratic Poo-bahs' dismissal of the very legitimate objections and accurate warnings from liberals and progressives in the 90's about what was happening and where it was leading (financial deregulation, media consolidation, job losses, concentration of wealth etc.)

And too often, when progressive candidates were running in primaries, the Democratic Establishment has too often thrown its support behind the more "centrist" corporate candidates, thus undercutting efforts to work within the system.

Although we didn't expect President Obama to change this overnight, many of us did take him at his word when he talked about reforming and moving the nation beyond the entrenched status quo and "conventional wisdom" that got the nation into this mess. But once elected, his actions too often seem to reinforce that status quo.

THAT is the frustration. Not that we (at least I) think Obama caused the problems we now face. But we are frustrated that he is not doing the reframing that is necessary to start moving in a better direction.

Blaming voters is about the most bass-ackwards way of looking at an election that I can think of.

"The voters voted wrong! Cry baby voters did not understand our ultimate strategy!" So that is how you get people on your side? LOL!

Besides- it was not even the liberals who were the ones who stayed home or went GOP- that was the so called moderate or independent voters.

Yes- the independents, etc. who voted DEM in the general did not show for the midterms- Even after we did all of those wonderful "centrist" things to impress them! Liberals actually predicted this- noting that we could keep those independents via populist economics and ending the wars in a way that people can see and feel it ending.

Centrists decided that a diff. strategy would be better.

It failed.

Fair or not, indy voters apparently did not see the change they thought they were promised. Same for many Liberals, except we voted DEM in the midterms, still hoping for the best.

progressives, perhaps we can take out the so-called Centrists/Blue Dogs/Corporatists.

My only problem is the whining. Why not get out and make conditions better? The Republicans/wingnuts/Teabaggers are kicking our asses at the local and state levels. Grassroots politics used to be the cornerstone of the Progressive Movement. Now the wingnuts are totally destroying us, taking over local government offices, state legislatures, governorships, judgeships. We can't expect anything good or progressive to occur at the federal level if our local and state level governments are all fucked up with wingnuts.

I dont beleive that reminding people of the facts and learning from history, calling out centrist FAILURES so they do not happen again, etc. is "whining" per se.

of the current state of public opinion. If a President really believes in something, he has to change people's thinking on it. He has to be willing to take a stand and make the argument to the people. For example, on re-negotiating trade deals, as he promised. Or on the necessity to reduce defense spending to keep the safety net from disintegrating. Or on the necessity for ending the wars. He simply refuses to take a stand or make the arguments. As a result, the Republican lies dictate public opinion.

Obama doesn't strike me as feeling strongly about a lot of these issues. Instead, he seems to be in campaign mode most of the time, caving to Republican under the guise of compromise. On the wars, for example -- one politically motivated move after another. As a result, we're not getting the changes we need. IMO the people are ready for substantive change, but first someone has to propose it and then make the arguments for it. Obama hasn't done any of that.

Back when we had the majority, we tried to tell the Liberals we did not have the votes.

Liberals said "We dont beleive you- twist some arms- dont just count the votes-FIGHT for the votes. Go on TV and call them out- fight for it like you really do support it..."

WELL- thanks to that Far Left attitiude, that excuse is now FOR REAL- we really and truly do not have the votes this time.

What part of we did not/we do not/we will not/ have the votes for Liberal stuff does the far left not understand?

The job of the President and the Democratic party is to COUNT VOTES, not to fight for them. It's called pragmatism. We are not in the pony wishing business here.

Let's see. Progressives could not deliver Ted Kennedy's seat to the Senate. Progressives could not get Alan Grayson elected. Progressives could not get Russ Feingold re-elected.

Yet, with that poor showing at the polls, they insist that Obama be more Progressive.

Let's see. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY could not deliver Ted Kennedy's seat to the Senate. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY could not get Alan Grayson elected. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY could not get Russ Feingold re-elected.

Seems arguable that some so-called "moderate" voters just failed to trust THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and it's centrist record.

It was not just progressives who lost in the midterms- but many Blue Dogs, DLCers, etc. as well. Look at Arkansas, etc.

The so-called moderate & independent voters who swung the election to the GOP were disappointed with elected members of the DEM party (who they supported in 2004) not progressive voters.

All progressives did was vote the way they always vote-DEM.

It was unpopular, wishy-washy centrist policies that drove so-called moderates & independents back to the devil they knew, not anything progressive voters did or failed to do.

When it comes to our election failures, I dont see how we can blame DEM voters over the unpopularity of elected DEM voting records.

HIS policies and political program need not be subject to the whims of the current Congress. That's a recipe for status quo.

Most importantly don't proactively add to the nutbar agenda. Don't appoint hacks. Don't play bi-partisan bullshit. Do call the opposition out on their wicked shenanigans early and often. Do not give cover to the TeaPubliKlans. Do not fear being despised but rather welcome their hatred. Do use the discretion of execution of law to the best advantage. Do not continue to disregard and run roughshod over civil liberties.

I'd also feel obliged to cease and desist with recycling shitty Republican policy and utilizing Republican operatives in all but the most token fashion and I'd be seriously shooting for zero wars and going 0 for on occupations as well.

I'd say utterly failing to cede command and control of US territory and regulatory policy would have been the way to go too.

I agree that we should have rescinded the Bush tax cuts as a first line of business but failing that they had to be allowed to expire. That is bullshit, especially in the face of losing the making work pay credit too. Not that it was worth it either but it is pure sham when in the exchange the people with the very least have to pay more.

There will be more hostages when that time comes. You can't give terrorist weapons.

...in this process two parties with different ideas come together to find a compromise. Most times, it's best to negotiate from the extremes. That way a true middle ground is found. In Obama's case, he starts from the center and ends up on the right. This is the frustration some of us have.

to positions where they can effect policy?

Like NOT have Baucus head the health care team?