Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman asks the President a question on Republican obstructionism (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am really nervous about what POTUS will be (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheOrchid, J M F, Laconic Lib, aliasalias

    saying today. He has the opportunity to right some of the wrong-headed decisions he made at the beginning of the first term re the economy. If he's in one of his overly bipartisan frames of mind, then we''ll be looking at another term of mediocrity.

    •  we'll find out in about 5 hours (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      his remarks are scheduled for 1:05 PM EST

      "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

      by teacherken on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:59:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  i expect this...i hope i'm wrong (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jec, Laconic Lib, aliasalias
      overly bipartisan

      2016: Clinton in Landslide Victory Over Christie!

      by memofromturner on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:10:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Define "Overly" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoogleBonhoeffer, artmartin

        He has to be "bi-partisan" to an extent, he is POTUS of ALL OF US. And it's in his nature to find solutions that give everyone something.
        And truly, we all have been asking for a reduction in Partisanship, he's tried to deliver and every time he does we then jump all over him for "caving".
        Particularly on this issue, we have to get our own understanding and messaging straight.
        Do we want less Partisanship, but only if it means that we get our agenda delivered whole and unalloyed?
        That would be the Republican definition of compromise, no?
        Or is it that we want less extremism on the part of the GOP? And how do we get there? By party discipline and parliamentary tricks? Also from the GOP playbook.
        We need to have this discussion and quickly. The GOP is already on the ground and running, Boner headfaked yesterday and the Media fell for it (of course) that he was "willing to be led", what they didn't report was that he was willing to be led as long as balancing the budget came entirely from cuts and that the taxes on the rich were off the table. In other words, they wrapped the same package up in new paper and expect that no one will notice, same same.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:16:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Overly would be conceding any leverage he (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ferg, Laconic Lib

          might have as an opening gambit. A favorite move of the President and Dems in Congress.

          •  You have a distorted view of leverage (0+ / 0-)

            Any major action has to come through the House of Representatives where they still have a majority.  If the Republicans vote in block as they have, everything stops dead.  The bully pulpit still goes through the right wing media and will get distorted and cherry picked.  The vast majority of House members truly don't care if they lose their house seats in 2014 because their benefactors are most likely guaranteeing them financial bliss for their stonewalling.  

            Stating reality is not conceding anything.  Reality may not be what you want or expect.

            "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

            by artmartin on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:19:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Progressive policies help everyone (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Don midwest, shaharazade, orlbucfan

          Progressive policies help the poor and middle-class, but they also help everyone. A society without poverty and people dying for lack of healthcare is a healthier society for everyone. A fair and functioning economic system is better for everyone except for thieves and fraudsters -- and why would we want to help them? Compromising with greedy, selfish, self-centered racist jerks is not good for anyone -- even for them.

          Just look at how good things were for the wealthy throughout the 1950s and 60s. Everyone is now working harder and is less happy.

        •  the catfood commission, "i take john boner's word" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Don midwest, shaharazade, aliasalias


          don't make me explain 2+2 in detail

          2016: Clinton in Landslide Victory Over Christie!

          by memofromturner on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:22:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  A reduction of partisanship? (4+ / 0-)

          Would that be the grand bargain? That's not all people have been asking for. People are asking that the Dems. fight for 'we the people' for an economy that works for all of us..  Enough with the he's the president of everybody bs. He is but that doesn't mean he should implement the lunatic right wings policy and agenda. He won because a majority of people voted against the extremist Republican agenda. Leadership means leading and standing your ground against the extremists. Our system is partisan that's how it's set up. The Democrat's won so why allow the Republicans to implement their agenda and call it a bargain. What people want is a government that represents them their common good an economy that enables them to live decently.

    •  I think he's already said it in his 2am call (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, jec, shaharazade

      And they responded. I think the die's already been cast and we're just doing our usual Charlie with the football self-denial thing.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:16:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site