Whoa, the kids f'ed up, he didn't.

Post #346,897 by crazy 8/29/11 10:47:40 AM Reply	Whoa, the kids f'ed up, he didn't. If they paid attention to the mid terms and gave him a base in the House to work with, he'd be able to actually move in the direction you want. The moment he didn't give them everything they wanted, and started making deals (because he had no goddamn choice, everything is pure posture when you don't have the votes in congress), they turned on him (and when I say they, start looking in the mirror). You aren't in that age group, but you are a poster child for what happened. But they didn't give him the House, so he can't give you what you want. Of course your inability to recognize the simple math facts of the situation makes you almost as bad as the flat-earthers. When given straightforward numerical facts, you go for the distraction.
Post #346,899 by mmoffitt 8/29/11 11:14:21 AM Reply	I have a Master's in Math. Where to begin? If they paid attention to the mid terms and gave him a base in the House to work with, he'd be able to actually move in the direction you want. The moment he didn't give them everything they wanted, and started making deals (because he had no goddamn choice, everything is pure posture when you don't have the votes in congress), they turned on him (and when I say they, start looking in the mirror). You aren't in that age group, but you are a poster child for what happened. He had a Congress to his Left and a 59 (arguably 60) seat majority in the Senate for the first two years and rebuffed almost completely the Congress (remember it was O himself that said "No Public Option" after the Congress had passed it). So, he did have a "goddamn choice" in the first two years and what did we get? Bumpkis that wasn't Wall Street/Insurance Industry/Big Pharma approved. Second, I've never deluded myself about whether or not he would "move in the direction" I want. He is now what I recognized him to be in '08: YAN tool of Wall Street. There, all caught up now?
Post #346,905 by Another Scott 8/29/11 11:29:08 AM Reply	Here we go again. The PO couldn't get through the Senate. End of story. Has Obama vetoed any progressive policy? Even one? No, he hasn't - http://en.wikipedia....toes#Barack_Obama http://uepi.wordpres...-huffington-post/ Obama isn't the problem. The House and Senate are the problem. Until there are votes for policies you advocate, beating up on Obama only helps his opponents. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #346,916 by mmoffitt 8/29/11 3:47:28 PM Reply	Single Payer doesn't count as progressive? President ObamaÂs White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table. Obama doesnÂt even want to discuss it. Take the case of Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan). Conyers is the leading advocate for single payer health insurance in Congress. Last week, Conyers attended a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Obama at the White House. During the meeting, Congressman Conyers, sponsor of the single payer bill in the House (HR 676), asked President Obama for an invite to the PresidentÂs Marchy 5 health care summit at the White House. Conyers said he would bring along with him two doctors Â Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young Â to represent the majority of physicians in the United States who favor single payer. Obama would have none of it. This week, by e-mail, Conyers heard back from the White House Â no invite. http://www.pnhp.org/...o_single_paye.php Note the date: 2009. Can't blame the 2010 Congress for that.
Post #346,919 by crazy 8/29/11 3:58:45 PM Reply	Of course if was off the table It was on, he found out he could not get the votes, he took it off.
Post #346,922 by mmoffitt 8/29/11 4:05:05 PM Reply	Point == missed. It never was on the table. Obama wouldn't have it. Take a look at the history starting with Baucus. Jeez, man, do try to keep up.
Post #346,928 by Another Scott 8/29/11 5:02:51 PM Reply	He doesn't propose things that he doesn't think can pass. He was in the Senate; he knows how it works. You count votes before pushing legislation. A lot happens before we hear about it, and certainly before preferences are leaked to the press. It doesn't make sense for him to send a proposal up to the Hill, or send out feelers that "I want X" if he knows he doesn't have the votes to get it passed. Or say "Sure, I'm for Single Payer" when he knows the votes aren't there. (He said as a candidate that if we were starting over that Single Payer would be the way to go. But he also said (and he's right) that we can't simply start over. We can only make incremental changes until there's enough support to make larger ones.) It would be a rallying point for opponents to kill what might make it through. A better example is the DOMA, DADT, and gay marriage. He's pushing things forward where he can, and taking incremental steps that can make it through both Houses. Has he made statements against gay marriage in the past? Yes. But what has he said recently, after DADT has been eliminated? http://articles.cnn....ey?_s=PM:POLITICS If a DOMA repeal were to show up on his desk, I'm sure he'd be happy to sign it. Would McCain do so? Would Bush? Not in a million years - they wanted a constitutional amendment on DOMA.... Another example is gun control legislation. Another is the "fairness doctrine". I imagine that he would want legislation passed to tighten gunshow loopholes. I imagine he probably wants more access to diverse opinions on the airwaves. Is he going to propose any such things when he doesn't have the votes? No. What would you do in his situation? Send up bills that you know don't have a chance in a million in getting passed? One loses power if one's bills get defeated.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #346,932 by hnick 8/29/11 5:53:45 PM Reply	Ok. He's a powerless drone. Gotcha. So it doesn't really matter who wins next. I gather this means that I don't have to feel guilty about staying home on election day. Doesn't matter. Curiously enough though, the previous shitweasle got pretty much whatever he wanted, when he wanted it, and no fucking back talk. One hypothesis is that the president has a lot of power to influence and the platform to present his case. Of course, the president would actually have to do it, and it might ruffle some feathers. I suggest that the current shitweasle is getting exactly the deals he wants. If he was willing to get into the fight and go for it, he could make things happen. He's either a total coward, or he's getting what he wants. Fuck him where he lives.
Post #346,935 by Another Scott 8/29/11 6:09:16 PM Reply	Hmm... Did Bush get his way in privatizing Social Security? Nope. The guy in the White House does matter. But he's not king. He can't pass his agenda without enough people to vote for it. Please tell me what Obama could have done to change the mind of Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and all the rest. I'd love to hear it. Cheers, Scott.
Post #346,938 by hnick 8/29/11 6:41:37 PM Reply	Re: Hmm... Talk to their constituents? Present an energetic, cogent, case for an objective? Embarrass the lower houses for their fecklessness? Get angry? Fight? I would bet that if he got on national TV and actually fought for a point, he might just engage all those people who got him elected. Might actually stir something up and make changes. I would also bet that he does not want to stir up anything or make any changes. But I may just be getting a little cynical... Sorry about the tenor of the previous post; I'm in a certain amount of pain and it's making me a bit grouchy.
Post #346,940 by Another Scott 8/29/11 7:09:43 PM Reply	There was an election a short time ago. He believes in giving elected representatives a great deal of respect. Even when it's inconvenient for his agenda. I expect him to do more of what you're suggesting in the coming months, but he's not going to change his spots. I don't disagree that it would be nice if he would push for his policies more. But he's playing the long game. Time will tell if he'll be more successful in 2012 in building a larger majority... I hope you feel better soon. Don't worry about being grouchy. J will tell you that I deserve it much of the time. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,016 by mmoffitt 8/30/11 2:25:14 PM Reply	That's interesting. Even when it's inconvenient for his agenda. Reading that the second time, I realized something. Aside from keeping his nose in the public trough, I have no idea what "his agenda" is. It turns out that it isn't what he campaigned on. Thus the disaffections. That is the problem in a nutshell.
Post #346,985 by mmoffitt 8/30/11 8:54:37 AM Reply	Careful. That's how I got slammed 3 years ago. So it doesn't really matter who wins next.
Post #346,934 by beepster 8/29/11 5:58:19 PM Reply	The ultimate rationalization of following instead of leading well done. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,936 by Another Scott 8/29/11 6:09:35 PM Reply	Non sequitur, as usual.
Post #346,977 by beepster 8/30/11 6:38:37 AM Reply	Your title said it. No leadership. He follows..only sticks his neck out when he knows it's safe. That's what " polling for votes" is... Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,980 by Another Scott 8/30/11 7:08:28 AM Reply	No leadership? http://www.nytimes.c...22text-obama.html The man knows how to get results with the hand he was dealt. Cheers, Scott.
Post #346,982 by beepster 8/30/11 7:42:15 AM Reply	no the man knows how to sway in the breeze and take credit for it. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,983 by Another Scott 8/30/11 7:45:48 AM Reply	Heh.
Post #347,009 by S1mon_Jester 8/30/11 1:20:11 PM Reply	If leadership is defined as starting wars for imaginary WMD, pushing for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (torture), and the creation of the TSA... I'll vote for following any day of the week.
Post #347,015 by beepster 8/30/11 2:13:23 PM Reply	Course you would and you did...and probably will again. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,022 by Ashton 8/30/11 2:56:15 PM Reply	Meaningless riposte as usual, begging the question of: which of the two gross generalizations tends toward --> the Wiser [??] (Except, of course 'wisdom' has nothing to do with black/white digital-think and the other cha cha cha.)
Post #347,030 by beepster 8/30/11 3:31:33 PM Reply	tit for tat. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,026 by mmoffitt 8/30/11 3:15:57 PM Reply	I've got your leadership right here. http://tinyurl.com/3tnvzsf
Post #346,917 by mmoffitt 8/29/11 3:49:25 PM Reply	A wiki link? Holy Smokes, you are grasping at straws, aren't you? ;0)
Post #346,929 by Another Scott 8/29/11 5:07:20 PM Reply	We've been through it before. http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=48727 Click the DU linky. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #346,910 by crazy 8/29/11 11:40:56 AM 8/29/11 1:10:34 PM Reply	Which means you work at the esoteric high side Where you get to play with edge cases. IE: 2+2=5 (for large values of 2). I'm sorry, I should have said: Arithmetic Edited by crazy Aug. 29, 2011, 01:10:34 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #346,921 by beepster 8/29/11 3:59:56 PM Reply	heh heh welcome to the dark side my young apprentice ;-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!