Skip to main content

Having won re-election and having held a majority in the Senate, what is Democratic president Barack Obama supposed to do now? Why, move to the right of course. At least that’s the impression I’m getting from the punditry. Nice to see that the talking heads are so willing to leave the Overton window so firmly skewed to right of center.

And what now for the GOP? Again, according to pundits, Republicans have to stop hating on women, Hispanics and gays while apparently remaining free to believe whole-heartedly in magical economic theory and other failed policies. Nice to know the talking heads think women, Hispanics, and gays will gladly give up their economic interests in return for nothing more than not being discriminated against. Let them have their abortions, the freedom to walk about and not have to show their papers, and marry whom they please, so long as they’re willing to embrace union busting, polluting the environment, and war for fun and profit.  

This last week of the campaign seemed to me to be all about one thing for pundits; preserving the legitimacy of the GOP as a reasonable alternative to the Democratic Party despite the GOP’s compulsive aversion to economic, environmental, and other empirically provable realities. Dems’ WH and Sen victories last night, while mightily encouraging, will have meant nothing if the alternative realities of the GOP continue to be viewed as legitimate and relevant. Bipartisanship and compromise are great, but fantastical thinking such as climate change denial and trickle-down economics must not be allowed to ensure that compromise ends up falling fatally short of what actual reality requires in finding real solutions to real problems.

Pundits are great at opinion. Too bad so few of them allow facts to influence their opinions. Also unfortunate is that enlightened pundits are such enablers, failing miserably to politely and consistently call their colleagues’ attention to factual inaccuracies.

Thankfully President Obama and his team ignored the pundits throughout this election season starting with the tsk-tsking of the ads attacking Romney and his Bain record and ending with mockery of ‘Romnesia’. Hopefully the President will continue ignoring the pundits.

If the goal is to find the ‘center’, here’s a news flash; the President is already at center and has been at the center from day one of his first term. It’s time for the GOP to tell the Tea Party it ain’t workin’ out and for actual moderate Republicans to join the President at actual center. It would be helpful if enlightened pundits, who know this is the epitome of reasonable, would be more concerned with facilitating the alignment of perception and reality than with not hurting the fee fees of colleagues.

This election, for me, came to be a referendum on truth. The truth prevailed, however this was but one battle in a greater war. Unless we are able and willing to commit to consistently distinguishing between truth and fact-free opinion, much will remain at risk. This needs to start at the top. President Obama, if he correctly interperets the result of this election, must find a polite, tactful manner of making it crystal clear that facts matter and regardless of how dearly held some opinions may be, facts will trump opinions. Finding the center using the whacko fringe Tea Party agenda as the right-most reference point must be a non-starter. He owes that to the American people. Enlightend alleged liberal pundits who fail to get solidly and consitently on board with this message deserve our scorn and wrath.

Originally posted to JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:17 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Poll

Can/wil the Overton Window be appropriately realigned?

13%18 votes
7%10 votes
10%15 votes
29%41 votes
28%39 votes
10%15 votes

| 138 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I generally agree with this. (16+ / 0-)

    Except for the part about the President already being in the center.  I think he is where the Republican Party used to be.  He is a right-leaning centrist who embraces the failed economics that have brought much of Europe to such dire straits.  The Republicans are, as you point out, nuts, so he looks like a lefty by comparison.  But he has helped to move the Overton window rightward with his Grand Bargain nonsense.

    The state races are more consequential for our daily lives than the presidential race. GOTV

    by 2laneIA on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:46:59 AM PST

    •  I don't think, in his heart of hearts, (5+ / 0-)

      he's a right-leaning centrist.  I don't believe he was seriously interested in the final Grand Bargain of 2011. I believe that was strategic, it was a bluff. Thankfully he's got a second term to show which one of us is right based on how he moves forward.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:58:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's a difference between what your policies (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC, blueoasis

        need to be in a recession, and what policies you need to have in more ordinary times, especially when the recession in question is one of the magnitude of the one we've been in since 2008 and probably will not be out of completely for three more years.

      •  That was no bluff. This President really, really (16+ / 0-)

        wants bipartisanship. That is his number one goal. His hero is Henry Clay. Or at least that is what he told a small group that I was lucky enough to be in. He is serious about entitlement reform. Just look at who his advisers are. Overwhelmingly pro Wall Street DLC types. If this term is to be more progressive he are going to have to push hard. Now that the election is over and Obama is safely re-elected to a 2nd term we need to work on a Progressive majority in the House. The demographics are with us progressives. The arc of history is bending our way. But we are going to have to work to make this happen.

        Republicans are going to start pandering to parts of our coalition looking to peel off Hispanics. This may be the last year of the ultra right white Republican party. And we need to make sure that we are fighting for our values and not let the Republican pivot towards the center damage our chances in 14.

        •  you know something? i want bipartsanship, too! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FischFry, JTinDC, joedemocrat

          i remember when the day after the election, ALL members of government pushed up their sleeves and went to work for what was best for this nation.

          i long for those days - not for the ones we have now where the minority vows to hold the nation hostage until they get their way.

          i WANT to see the opposition working with the majority - it is what is good for the nation - but that goes both ways.  for them to work with us, we can't shut them out of the process.

          we need to drop this "us against them" meme - on BOTH sides - because, as president obama said last night, we are ALL americans - every single one of us.

          it is time to start acting like it.  enough with the polarization!

          now, i'm not stupid enough to mean that to simply roll over to  the hostage takers and neither is president obama - but what it does mean is that we need to find saner heads within the republican party to override the extremists.  they are there.  this election is a bellweather for them - either work WITH the democrats or see their own jobs go away in 2014.

          to make that happen, we need to be on the ground running right now in preparation for 2014 - and we need to be targeting republicans, not democrats.  i really hope this site doesn't lapse into total disarray and the "eat your own" that we've had in the past.

          frankly, i don't agree with all extreme progressive positions any more than i agree with extreme tea party positions.  we need to find a balance - THE balance - if we want to move ahead progressively!  change isn't always an immediate seismic shift - it comes as we are able to handle it.  and how we handle it is by bringing along those who, a decade ago, were kicking and screaming and fighting with all they had.  

          look at the states that just voted for marriage equality this go round.  it was not that long ago that matthew shepard was brutally murdered - less than ten years - 2004.

          change is coming.  we just have to keep working for it.  and we need to know WHO is the root of the problem (hint: republicans).

          •  I have to say (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            edrie, JTinDC, blueoasis, WheninRome

            I appreciate your sentiment overall.  But I strongly disagree with this:

            "we need to drop this "us against them" meme - on BOTH sides - because, as president obama said last night, we are ALL americans - every single one of us."

            Unfortunately we have a fair number of people who are just plain batshit in this country, and a much larger number who don't know or care.  

            So while I can agree with the sentiment of not demonizing people with different viewpoints, and having everyone able to contribute to the conversation, I don't think that looks like enabling the military industrial complex or the people who can't connect the dots.

            I think it's leadership time for the progressive movement.  The Overton window needs to move very far to the left to regain any semblance of balance.  Not just a wee bit so the teabaggers are still comfortable-ish.  But far enough left to represent a majority of this country, who actually believe in progressive values and want a green new deal.

            •  i didn't mean that we should not fight to replace (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Xavier Onassis EMTP

              the "thems" that are batsh*t crazy.  it is the over generalization of the "us against them" thing that is destructive.  we cannot, as a nation, move any legislation through congress without cooperation - and that comes from the republican side as much as the dems.  

              i think the better tactic right now would be to seriously try to influence the moderate to reasonable republicans to abandon the crazies - that way, we can move forward, even if it is just an inch at a time.

              when the bachmanns and her ilk are gone, then maybe some good will come from our government instead of this horrific stalemate brought on by the "us against them" that was started on the other side of the aisle.  we are at a stalemate - and two sides need to cooperate to break it.

              •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JTinDC
                i think the better tactic right now would be to seriously try to influence the moderate to reasonable republicans to abandon the crazies - that way, we can move forward, even if it is just an inch at a time.
                I think that is happening, because even they can read the handwriting on the wall after last night.  Republican operatives and pundits have already started talking about the big looney tune purge that must happen if they want to remain viable at all.

                However, why must the action always focus on them?  Who will clean our house?

                •  we need to clean their clock before we clean our (0+ / 0-)

                  house.  we have started "at home" - look at the new dems in the senate and house.  

                  however, until the dems have control of the house again, we need numbers to do that and we have to work with those numbers.

                  also, looking at the demographics of the region where the more conservative dems are elected, a more progressive one can not yet win that seat.  we can't bully people into changing - the republicans tried that and look how it worked out for them.

        •  I see (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JTinDC, blueoasis, apimomfan2, WheninRome

          a civil war brewing in both parties.

          I, for one, am completely done meeting them in the middle.  

          The Democrats can either lurch really hard to the left, or kiss me -- and lots of other progressives -- goodbye forever.  We got Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, Alan Grayson.  That's our A Team

          I don't know.  Maybe they can dolsey-do, and the Republicans will be the new progressive party and the Democrats can keep scooting to the right.

          It's A-game time, or they can show us what a bunch of sellout scumbags they really are.  If insisting on BETTER Democrats makes me a pariah on DK, so be it.  I'm not playing this shit anymore.

          •  The DEM Party is very duplicitous. (0+ / 0-)

            It is the New Right Party. DLC Central. Third Way BS. Doublespeak and bipartisan fairy tales. Expect more of the last 4 in the next 4. Obama takes another stab at the Catfood Commission by midsummer 2013. The DEMs are wallflowers while the GOP takes a wrecking ball and goes to town. Same sh!t, different day. NDAA, Unpatriot Act I/II, drones, surveillance, etc. Couldn't have gotten any of it without DEM Party duplicity.

      •  and that is where WE come in - we have two (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC

        years, starting today, to remove the extremists from the house.  we need a list of republicans and we need to start fielding candidates TODAY to replace them and regain control of the house.

        as long as republicans hold the majority, they will prevent, obstruct, delay and destroy any recovery this nation attempts to build.

        furthermore, we need to make SURE that we don't blame the president and the senate for that which they cannot do by not holding the majority in the house:  put REAL legislation on the table, hold REAL investigations into mismanagement and corruption perpetrated on this nation by the right wing and money brokers for the last four years.

        walking out of the campaign headquarters after the wonderful address from president obama last night, ALL of us were chanting "FIRED UP! READY TO GO!!" - and we have to be ready to hit the ground running right now if we want change during president obama's last four years.

        i'm afraid that we'll see obstruction for the first two of them - but it is up to us to keep pointing the finger at WHO is obstructing and get them out of office in 2014!

        so, are YOU fired up?  are YOU ready to go?  i know i am!

        (that's a generalized "you", jt - but i hope that every single person here is ready..., don't you?)

        •  President Obama (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JTinDC, apimomfan2

          No longer has anything to lose.  Not a single thing.  No more fear of giant moneybombs coming at him.

          The Democratic party, to me, feels like an abusive husband.  Motherfucker's never gonna punch me in the face again.  I will not enable bullshit.  Democrats need to look in the mirror.

          •  excuse me? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JTinDC

            exactly HOW can president obama or ANY president force the house to put a bill on the floor?  much less, pass it?

            you need to get a better grip on how our government works.

            and, if you think the "democratic party" is like an abusive husband, exactly how would you describe the republicans?  your comment is disgusting.

            and, imho, you are on the wrong website.  your views fit better on ones located over --------->

            •  Democratic Party is like an abusive husband. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Xavier Onassis EMTP, apimomfan2

              Republican Party is like a serial rapist.

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:14:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're excused (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              apimomfan2

              If this really is nothing but a big kool-aid party, I don't belong here.

              There's a civil war brewing on the left, and you're apparently on the side that's going to lose.

            •  Here's what I don't get (0+ / 0-)

              There is a MASSIVE executive branch in this country that Congress doesn't weigh in on largely.  What about that?

              This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

              by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:11:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  the executive branch can veto congress but (0+ / 0-)

                it can't make congress bring a bill to the floor or vote on it.  three equal branches - the executive - can cancel out egregious acts by congress, the supremes can overrule congress and the president, the executive can do executive orders that are only good for the duration of the current occupant... unless congress decides they are worthy of incorporating into law.

                being massive doesn't mean having complete control.  yes, i know that dubya tried that - and, even with all his abuses, i'd object strenuously if a democrat tried to do the same.

                dubya gave the wrong impression with his abuses - that doesn't mean the abuses should continue under another party's control.  many of bush's actions were illegal - and i, too, wish he and his crew had been prosecuted.  i understand why they weren't and don't agree with it, but that was what was done and we can't undo it any more than we can undo ford's pardon of tricky dick.

                the goal now is FORWARD!  (while learning from our mistakes, of course...)

                •  Umm.. (0+ / 0-)

                  The executive has extensive rule making authority that Congress cannot touch directly.  These regulations are binding law until changed, which is a very difficult and time consuming process.  This is a MAJOR power of the presidency that seemingly few people are aware of.

                  It goes far, far beyond executive orders.

                  For those aspects, Obama, and Obama alone, is accountable.

                  This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                  by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:18:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  those rules can be altered by the next elected (0+ / 0-)

                    president.  don't you remember that both bush and obama did that regarding a number of issues.  that is why congress is so critical to the process - to make certain rulings permanent.

                    you give too much power to the executive - but that is a common mistake among those who refuse to view how our government functions.  it is the reason so many blame their own party while not recognizing that a bicameral body was set up on purpose - to prevent one extreme or the other from causing wide fluxuation in government and to slow down change to allow the country to adapt to change in less than a radical moment.

                    •  I am an administrative lawyer (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      apimomfan2

                      Who deal with how the government works every damn day of the week.  This is what I do for a living.  So I know for a fact your description is largely inaccurate.  Don't lecture me on how the government works unless you can tell me how the APA places constraints on how new presidents can change rules.   Then you might understand the context of what is being said here.  

                      This is what is so frustrating, is having a bunch of people who really are fairly ignorant telling me how naive I am.

                      This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                      by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:39:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  rather than berate me, then tell us what those (0+ / 0-)

                        rules are that are difficult to change.  i recall executive orders being reversed by both bush and obama within the first days of their new term.

                        if you are talking of rules to agencies within the executive branch, then that is a different context - and i welcome your input.

                        rather than be so adversarial and hostile, how about a productive dialoge where we ALL benefit.

                        i was specifically referring to executive orders - you have brought up an area with which i am unfamiliar, as are others.  rather than get angry - explain it so we can do something to influence it.

                        we ARE in this together, after all - we are on the same damned side (yet, a lurker would never know that).

                        •  Sure. Sorry (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          edrie

                          Virtually all laws passed by Congress are rather vague because congress is no expert.   So Congress leaves it up to expert agencies to fill in the details through regulation.   Take the clean air act as a relevant example.   It says that polluters can only emit up to certain limits, which are set to protect the public health (mostly).  The EPA does research on what levels, say, of ozone the science says would protect health.

                          Then the EPA does what is called a "notice and comment" rule making under the Administrative Procedures Act. This requires public notice and time for comment.  The agency has to evaluate te public comments and respond publicly.  After a round of this (we are probably two years int to process now) the agency can then publish the final rule.   However if the public feels that the agency didn't comply with the required procedures or the rule does not comply with the requirements of the law then they can sue.   For example the agency might have ignored the science and set the ozone levels higher than the science says protects health as required by the law enacted  by Congress. If so, the court throws out the rule and the agency has to start over.  This can last until someone else is President

                          In the case of ozone, Bush sets the standards too loose, leading to illness and death (not surprising).  NRDC sued and won.  The agency went back to try again, based on new science and promulgated a rule under a binding settlement.  But when the new rule was about to be finalized at a level that would protect health, comply with the law and comply with the court order, Obama decides unilaterally that the administration was not going to put out the rule, instead leaving an old much higher and dangerous level in place.  Obviously this isn't going to be legally defensible in court but that will take years. Especially if we got back to the notice and comment process.  

                          If Obama had allowed the rule to go forward, another President could change it but it would have to go through notice and comment and legal challenge (so the new rule would need new science that shows a different reality.  And it would have to comply with the legal standards as interpreted by the courts.  Not easy or quick)

                          So in this case, Obama handed us a big loss on a difficult to change issue that a lot of people have been working on for decades. (The Clean Air Act was passed in 1972 I think). The rationales came straight from the Rove play book.  "Regulations kill jobs" (false) "It's bad for the economy" ( false) or the it'd be too hard or unnecessary (false, per the actual science).

                          Note that Obama did not have to contend with Congress in any way here.   It was between te EPA, the environmental groups who had won in court and the judge.  Obama defies the law his agreement and the judge to hand polluters a big win.  If this were an isolated incident, that'd be one thing, but it is a repeated pattern that Obama has bucked or stretched the law to hand conservative interests wins where it was entirely an executive decision.  

                          This is the "liberal president" we are discussing?    Now he's a great President, but he is not a liberal.   We should not muddy the waters by pretending that centrist approaches are liberal ones.  

                          This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                          by Mindful Nature on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:05:36 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  wow - thanks! this should be a series unto itself (0+ / 0-)

                            called "how our government actually functions"!

                            i agree that obama isn't the "liberal" that either of us would like - i think he is a product of the political reality that exists right now after the disasterous years that started with reagan.  

                            that he has advisors who are not "progressive" is a part of that problem.  i didn't know about the epa issue - i'd love to know when and why he left the old rules in place and who advised him - that would give us room to apply the correct pressure on his administration to change its course.  

                            i wonder how much of the decision was impacted by the disastrous attempts in 2004 to break the back of the oil cartels - it was reported at that time by many sources (here and in the middle east) that the saudis over pumped their fields in an attempt to get prices back down to the price band that opec had set and, in doing so, severely damaged their oil reserves (too much salt water coming up when overpumping).  when obama came into office, the oil situation was a disaster - bush had so screwed up the economy and the price of energy, i wonder if this was why his epa back flipped on regulations.

                            i'm not saying it was right - it wasn't - but i'd love to have been the proverbial fly on the walls on why that was done.  

                            we WILL get climate change discussions into the mainstream, especially now after sandy.  and, with that, the majority of this nation is paying closer attention to the science and the disasters that are coming when it is ignored.

                            as for obama - liberal? no.  pragmatist? yes.  i truly believe that he is accomplishing as much as is possible given the insanely batsh*t climate that exists in the house and country right now.  it isn't about what is "right" (correct, not political) as much as what can get through the halls to his desk.  backroom deals have always been a key part of any political entity - from nations to the u.n. to households.  i agree that we need to keep the pressure on our side where we can make a difference - and we CAN make a difference by the sheer volume of our voices, now that the election has been won.

                            i also believe strongly, however, that our jobs aren't finished.  we need to start now to remove every stunted member of congress - both house and senate - on BOTH sides of the aisle.  dems who are in red states and have won their seats need to start presenting a stronger case for why they need to work FOR the environment and the economy and the middle class. it isn't enough for them to simply coast by being republican lite.

                            but we need to be on the ground talking to neighbors, friends, family members, acquaintances, co-workers and even strangers about what is at stake.  we can't afford to wait until six months before mid-terms.  the ozone layer is depending on all of us right now.  we all should have been there 10 - hell, 20, years ago!  rachel carson warned us in the 50s and 60s.  it's time we start fighting back - all of us, not just the few, like yourself, that have been valiently holding down the fort.

                            we can do it if we are informed.  your post is a good step  in the right direction.

                            now, what do you think about a "how government functions" group?  i'm game if you are - i just learned a great deal from your post and i think this should get wider eyeballs, don't you?

          •  fortunately, my response to you disappeared (0+ / 0-)

            instead of posting.

    •  I think so too (6+ / 0-)

      go look at the policies of Eisenhower, and you'll find a lot of Obama in there.

      "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

      by azureblue on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:14:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Joke from the Fifties (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindful Nature, blueoasis

        Hey, didja hear there's a new Eisenhower doll on the market?

        Yeah, what's it like?

        You wind it up, and it does nothing for eight years.

        "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything even remotely true." -- H. Simpson

        by midnight lurker on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:39:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i lived in those years - it was a time that the (4+ / 0-)

          nation needed quiet.  wwII had just ended and people needed to get their lives back together.  

          i really find the criticism of eisenhower to be disingenuous.  different times, different world.

          i really wish people who draw such comparisons actually knew the world as it was then - and how we much this nation really grew during those years.

          it was a time where americans actually were able to buy homes - middle class americans.  

          yes, there were many injustices - but those had been around since the beginning of this nation - and the seeds of growth came with the purchases of those homes.  even for those shut out of the system due to segregation - they saw what was possible and fought to be a part of that change - that growth.

          history isn't just words on the page - it is the development of a society in sometimes tiny baby steps - but those steps are moving forward - albeit slowly sometimes - but still forward.

          •  I agree about (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JTinDC, jrooth, blueoasis, apimomfan2

            the context being completely different.  I was alive not too long after those years.

            But that was then, this is now.  This is not the time to sit back and chill.  We pull hard and pull now, or we're done.  Obama has done a lot of inexcusable crap.  There, I've said it.

            •  your attitude will turn off many people. just (0+ / 0-)

              a thought.

              •  I'm not sure (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                apimomfan2

                if you understand this, but the go along, get along liberal thing has turned off a whole lot of people.  The ones who are actual progressives.

                Yes, I'm angry.  I'm outraged.  News item, I'm not alone.

                I realize DK is a bit of an echo chamber, and I'm not one to toe the party line.  So if they brand me, run me off, so be it.  But if you read the comments here, it looks like a lot of people read it the same way I do.  

                •  No, this is not a welcome view (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis

                  I find a whole host of defensive rhetoric already deployed.

                  Would you like the "you're naive and want ponies" line?  or the "Congress is bad" line?  Or the "you want the republicans to win" line?

                  Have I forgotten any of the other deflection strategies?

                  This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                  by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:15:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I Was There in the Fifties Also (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, 2laneIA

            It was "I Love Lucy," "Father Knows Best," "Lassie," the House Un-American Activities Committee, the Korean War, and segregation - not to mention splicing "under God" in to the Pledge of Allegiance. To get along, you had to understand where your place was.

            Not all things that Eisenhower had anything to do with by any means, but those were not halcyon days for a lot of people. Thank God there was Rock and Roll. :)

            "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything even remotely true." -- H. Simpson

            by midnight lurker on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:53:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The next 60 days is going to tell us a lot (7+ / 0-)

      I've always believed that PBO was a centrist who leaned slightly to the right.  In 2008, after his affirmative FISA vote in the Senate, it seemed very clear to me that he was not a centrist or progressive.

      His first term "pragmatism" was off-putting to me on many occasions, but it's still remarkable what his administration was able to accomplish in the face of category 5 GOP headwinds of obstruction.

      With the upcoming debt ceiling cacophony, decisions on who gets their ox gored in sequestration fights that resulted from the last "grand bargain", and expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, the next 60 days will tell us loudly and clearly whether PBO and the Dems in the legislative branch actually heard us last night.  It's going to be an interesting couple of months.  

      •  I'm more hot-headed than you Richard. (3+ / 0-)

        Here's a little ditty I posted on my local CBS affiliate website that has been a real battleground mostly populated with Rushbots and very, very low informational voters.

        Seriously, dude, after all the repubs have thrown at our President, the racial slurs directed at not only him but his wife and kids and questions about his birth, religion and parentage, I wouldn't blame him one damn bit if he didn't come out swinging a big, heavy ax at every motherfer repub that's been standing in the way of real progress in this country.
        I hope he's pissed. I hope he's so angry that he goes into the house chamber, locks the doors and reads those obstructionist a holes the riot act. I hope he threatens them with charges of treason and sedition if they don't get up off their pasty white asses and pass some m$ucking legislation that get's this country back on track.
        The repubs have tried as hard as they could to ruin this country over the past 4 years and they should be made accountable. Each and every one of them should be brought before a court of law and made to explain just what they were trying to do.
        Each member of congress swore an oath to uphold the constitution and protect our nation. More than half of them acted against the interest of our nation and it's citizens in concert to ruin our economy and make the President and thereby our nation fail over these past four years.
        There should be a gallows erected in front of the capitol building and every republican congresscritter made to explain why they should not be hanged before a public court.

        I was somewhat surprised that most of my ranting got past the filters. No replies as yet.

        I haven't liked being in a corner for the past 12 months and taking punches from every winger who's never before heard of Libya and have no f'ing idea why that country, city or whatever it is should matter. They're Faux fed and that's all they need as far as they are concerned. (Sigh)

        My neighbors are some of the most ill-informed or misinformed beings on the planet. Being a PTSDd to the max old veteran I have very little tolerance for the intolerable stupidity of some folks.

        Stupidity gets people killed. It's a fact. You can look it up.

        What, sir, would the people of the earth be without woman? They would be scarce, sir, almighty scarce. Mark Twain

        by Gordon20024 on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:29:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This boils it down quite nicely. (3+ / 0-)
          Stupidity gets people killed. It's a fact.
          Also, excellent rant.

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:40:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  In my dreams... (4+ / 0-)
          I wouldn't blame him one damn bit if he didn't come out swinging a big, heavy ax at every motherfer repub that's been standing in the way of real progress in this country.
          ...that's what happens.

          When I snap back to reality, I believe that the fight ahead will be just as hard (if not harder) than the one behind us.  

          In 2014, 20 Dem Senate seats are in play.  Dems made gains in the House this year, but as we've seen over and over, mid-terms are a different story, with 2006 being the rare exception.  The GOPpers will fight like hell to retain the House.  

          With Jesusland sector of America being Jesusland (and that ain't gonna change in two years; in fact see NC and AR as proof that the wingnuts are actually consolidating state level gains), not many hearts and minds are going be thinking differently in 2014. That's going to take another generation or two to flip.

          I don't believe that the GOP has any incentive to do anything different than they've been doing since 2008, regardless of how big of an axe that PBO brings to the table.  I hope I'm proven wrong.  Recent history would indicate that I'm not.

          Nice rant, by the way!

          •  what we have going for us are the young voters (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JTinDC, Gordon20024, gramofsam1

            that will become eligible to vote.  we need to start connecting with them now and draw them into the process.  it is up to US to make this upcoming midterm election as important as the presidential race.

            we need to start getting boots on the ground now if we want that progressive change to occur.  IF we do this, i believe that many republicans who have been silenced by the lunatics will shift back toward reason.

            but that will only occur if we are strong enough to show them that their futures are tied to reason, not the insanity of the ryans, bachmanns, kings in government.

            who to target?  mcconnell, bohner, cantor - all three are up for re-election in 2014, aren't they?  let's start making a list and start now going after them in every venue instead of wasting our energy going after the president.  he can't do this alone - he needs OUR help to make change happen.  he made that clear in his acceptance speech last night - WE are either a part of the problem or a part of the solution.  we need to get very smart about what we do in the next coming days, months, years.

          •  NC (5+ / 0-)

            is a weird critter.  I live here.

            On the one hand, we do have some of the most apathetic, least informed, civil-war butthurt morons living here.

            However, we also have a shit ton of educated, progressive people who are working really hard.  Our election night was a pretty mixed bag, but nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

            If the rest of the country could help us fight back against Art Pope, it would be good for the whole progressive movement.

            Bottom line, our progressives get money raped by the Kochtopus on a daily basis, and we're just sort of left to twist in the wind.  Example:  Americans for Prosperity and related scumbags pumped $800,000 into one NC supreme court race.   The progressive judge raised I think $150,000.  Guess who won?

            We can't fight this alone.  We need national support in a big way.

            •  Definitely a frustrating situation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JTinDC

              I hear you about the very progressive pockets in a sea of red.  That's almost incredible that the Kochs would dump nearly a million dollars into a single state level supreme court seat.  I mean, I understand (at a high level) why - they're working on setting up political Petri dishes that they completely control at a state level.  Wisconsin pushed back on them.  I don't see that happening in NC or AR.

              To the best of my knowledge, there simply isn't a big money progressive equivalent of Americans for Prosperity or Crossroads GPS that could focus so intently at the state level.  And holding a progressive bake sale isn't going to get you the funding you need.  In other words, it's almost impossible for progressives to compete anywhere but the federal level.

              What are your thoughts in terms of national support?  

        •  gordon, we may have to deal with this for another (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JTinDC, Gordon20024, gramofsam1

          two years - UNTIL we get the rest of the extremists out of the house in 2014.  we need to keep focus on the root of the problem - and that isn't obama or the dems - the PROBLEM is that the extremists still hold hostage the house of representatives.  they hold the committee chairs.  they determine which budget legislation is put on the table. they will continue to obstruct until we can take back the house, hold the senate and give president obama two years to fix the damage they've done.

          •  ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gordon20024, blueoasis
            we need to keep focus on the root of the problem - and that isn't obama or the dems -
            Strongly disagree.  If we keep playing on the right's terms, we keep moving to the right.  We have the upper hand right now, we need to play it.
          •  The repubs have 2 years to get their stuff (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JTinDC, edrie, apimomfan2

            together.

            The next election began this morning.

            I can't imagine how they're going to corral all the fringe elements of their party into one unified political bloc before the 2014 elections which really began this morning.

            At this point in time the republican party is in the ditch, They haven't planned on loosing (what's that tell you?). Repubs thought they had this in the bag while all the polls where telling them otherwise. Denial or sure of a fix?

            My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that the reason Rove (notice it wasn't Rmoney who decided to concede) held off conceding the election is that he thought with all his black little heart that the election had been fixed and it was going to come down to Ohio and Pennsylvania where Rmoney's sons had bought the diabold machines.

            But, that's just me. I'll leave it to the Justice Department to do the right thing, or not.

            In refusing to concede the election after the results were in Rove gave me a 'tell' that something was wrong. His fix wasn't working and he was very pissed. look at the tape. His fix didn't work and he was pissed.

            What, sir, would the people of the earth be without woman? They would be scarce, sir, almighty scarce. Mark Twain

            by Gordon20024 on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:36:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JTinDC, Gordon20024, blueoasis, apimomfan2

          Meeting batshit people in the middle doesn't make any sense.  Maybe it's just because I have PTSD too.

          I say we enact policies that work for as many people as possible, and let the wingnuts either touch down on planet earth or fuck off and secede.  I'd be all in favor of letting them go form the Teapublic of Libertopia, just don't bother us anymore.

          That said, Obama does have some splaining to do.

      •  We better make sure they hear us now (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC, blueoasis

        They won't if we don't make the phone calls, they won't respond.

        This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

        by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:16:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC, 2laneIA, apimomfan2

      I thought perhaps I was losing my mind.  This is a center right president.  He's to the right of Rick Perry on the War on Drugs, for example.  He's not saying anything that even remotely approaches the Green New Deal.

      The fact that the mainstream left seems to want to shrug and sigh doesn't bode well for our future, methinks.

      We either push him to the left, and push HARD, right the hell now, or we may as well have elected Romney.

      No more drone strikes
      No Keystone XL
      No big oil subsidies
      No more coal
      No extrajudicial kill list
      No NDAA/patriot act
      No GMOs
      No Grand Bargain
      No austerity
      Yes single payer healthcare
      Yes tax the shit out of the 1%

      Screw his heart of hearts.  Thump his policy of policies.   If we don't demand these things, in no uncertain terms, we're screwed permanently.

    •  He has plenty of willing accomplices (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, 2laneIA, Faroutman, JTinDC

      who are willing to redefine "liberal" as whatever the President does, which moves the realm of possilities further to the right.

      This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

      by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:04:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it's a matter of redefining liberal. (0+ / 0-)

        It seems to me it's a matter of which issues carry the most weight with individuals.

        I and most others see him as liberal becasue he is liberal on the issues most important to us. It appears that for quite a few on this site that NDAA and related issues are most important and in that regard, sure, I can see where one would say he is clearly not liberal. However, those issues just are not that important for the very vast majority of the electorate. Yes, those issues should be important to everyone, but they just aren't.

        There's never, well, almost never, majority support for an issue until and unless that issue has a direct effect them and/or people close to them. NDAA and related issues in most people's minds is just theoretical for the most part. It has had a direct effect on very, very few people. Very, very few people even personally know any of the very, very few people on which these issues have had a direct effect. Until and unless the NDAA is used, or abused, to disappear large numbers of citizens, people will continue to just not care.  

        It's quite similar to climate change. People only start paying attention when the effects of it touch their lives. Otherwise, it's just a theory.

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:41:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I Liked That President Obama Said During His (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC, Mindful Nature

    victory speech, that BTW we need to fix those long voting lines.  He could have not mentioned that at all.  I wonder if he plans to propose or re-introduce some voting reform?  I know it's hopeless to pass with the same House and Senate, but I guess he could try.

    Also anyone know if that Proposal in California that says California as a state right can require disclosure of individuals names who are behind any Citizen United type PAC, did it pass?

    The Republican Party is Simply a Coalition of Greed and Hate

    by kerplunk on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:09:26 AM PST

  •  Thier should be somekind of political retribution (6+ / 0-)

    Against Republican ,seem that they have done everything they can to make  womens life hard ,it would be only fitting

    •  Yeah, the "vote for revenge" remark may have (7+ / 0-)

      been attacked by some as unwise, but many of us has no problem finding context for it. The GOP has more than earned some revenge, from women, lgbts, AAs, Hispanics and the entire electorate for the assumption we're all too stupid to know where our best interests are.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:33:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I expect (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC, Apost8

    The GOP to implode - the baggers will start to blame everyone but themselves and wind up dividing the party.

    "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

    by azureblue on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:12:36 AM PST

  •  He needs to appoint a new cabinet... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gritsngumbo, Dabb, JTinDC, Sunspots, blueoasis

    Without weakening the Senate and governorships like he did last time.

    •  Agree. Kerry would make a great SOS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC, blueoasis

      but I don't want to see Pretty Boy Brown back in the Senate and we know what happened in Arizona.

      "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

      by gritsngumbo on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:32:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's start with replacing Timmeh G. (6+ / 0-)

      Wall Street and the banksters barely got their hands slapped for their gross misbehavior so they turn and go full bore against Obama? And they fail to oust him? Seems to me this puts Obama squarely in the driver's seat. No more needs for appointing a SoT with so much conflict of interest. And we can let the CPFB do it's thing.

      Duncan can go. Pinetta needs a talking to. Lahood seems OK. Salazar a bit iffy. Not sure about the rest.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:48:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree about Geitner (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC, apimomfan2

        and that it's time for BHO to show his actual stripes.  Which I'm afraid we're all going to discover are actually Republican, or what Republicans used to be.

        Ken Salazar is a bought and paid for, conflict of interest having scumbag who needs to get tarred and feathered, metaphorically.

  •  Stocks Are On Sale Today (0+ / 0-)

    The Republican Party is Simply a Coalition of Greed and Hate

    by kerplunk on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:15:18 AM PST

  •  I agree with you. I'm SICK of this (13+ / 0-)

    OBAMA needs to reach across the aisle BULLSHIT.  He's reached, and his hand had been bitten off REPEATEDLY.  Their stated goal was to make him a one termer.  Last night was a referendum on SO many levels, not just for his re-election.  It was truly a rejection of the right wing, ultra conservative, theologically driven platform and a repudiation of the myriad of lies and disinformation spread by Fox and all the GOP talking heads.

    If the goal is to find the ‘center’, here’s a news flash; the President is already at center and has been at the center from day one of his first term. It’s time for the GOP to tell the Tea Party it ain’t workin’ out and for actual moderate Republicans to join the President at actual center. It would be helpful if enlightened pundits, who know this is the epitome of reasonable, would be more concerned with facilitating the alignment of perception and reality than with not hurting the fee fees of colleagues.
    Nailed it.

    It's time for THEM to face reality, leave the bubble behind, and stop pushing this "Obama needs to be a centrist now" load of dog shit.  Obama is centrist ENUF (too much for much of our liking).  No. More.

    •  that's not the way the government works. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC

      sorry - we don't have a dictatorship.  it is up to US to fix the house and senate by getting democrats elected into the majority.

      every president - every party - has to "reach across the aisle".  it is how much support they have behind them that will let a line be drawn.

      we will go a long way by reforming the filibuster nonsense but we still cannot determine which budget legislation is put on the  floor and which bills are put up for consideration.

      we NEED the house of representatives - and we may see stagnancy for another two years until we get it back.

      HOWEVER, if we keep slamming democrats, the risk of not regaining the house and of LOSING the senate are very real - then we will see this nation stuck in one place, if not going backwards at a rapid pace - and we'll set the stage for a republican to take the white house, senate AND house in 2016.

      the choice is ours.  who do we focus on - obama or the republicans?

      •  Simple (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2
        the choice is ours.  who do we focus on - obama or the republicans?
        Democrats.  Because as long as we continue to focus on how bad the other guy is, our pack of sellouts has zero incentive to clean their own house.

        This is the same thing I see going on with sexism on the left, which is rampant.  Lefty men don't get called to task for their bad behavior, because we're too busy dealing with the redneck Taliban across the aisle.  How convenient.

        We need to stop playing their game.  We've got the whip hand.  It's time for us to stop focusing on them and start laying down the fucking law.

        •  yet, we have no ability to "whip the hand" nor do (0+ / 0-)

          we have the ability to "lay down the law" - that is what the politicians do.

          i have seen republicans change votes when their constituents flood their offices with calls and letters over certain positions they hold.  some respond and some don't.

          sending the democrats who SUPPORT those positions all those letters, emails, phone calls is a waste of energy - they are already ON our side.

          sexism needs to be called out no matter WHO is doing it - i know firsthand that it can be done effectively - so do two of my former employers and one who came close - but they changed their behavior rather than get entangled.

          i've never walked away from a battle, whether personal or in a group - and i haven't lost one yet because i KNOW how to "play the game" - it is by knowing the law and making sure that the laws are enforced... and when the laws are inadequate, it is through changing them... done that, too.

          whether we like it or not, we are 50% of this nation here on the left side of the equation.  isn't it more effective to persuade those who are closer to our views to join us instead of isolating them and furthering the divide?

          another good diary today asked that we stop generalizing and demonizing those who hold differing views.  whether those views are among us, here on this site, or in the general nation - it is time we start looking for consensus and start from there instead of acting like two warring gangs out for total destruction of the other side.

    •  He's center-right. NT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis
  •  The President's Victory Speech. (6+ / 0-)

    Yes I stayed up that late on the east coast just to hear the President's speech. I was very encouraged to hear him utter the "P" word: Peace! Peace again in my lifetime? Hell yes.

  •  In the Sentate, filibuster reform. (10+ / 0-)

    In the Oval Office, ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and immigration reform.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:40:26 AM PST

    •  agreed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, davethefave, HeyMikey

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:55:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Question (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC, blueoasis, apimomfan2

      What's to stop him from pulling out the big guns, prosecuting banksters, slapping the shit out of the supreme court, and instituting finance reform that will actually take the money out of politics?  He has nothing to lose.  He has a progressive mandate.  We've rebuked the dark money.  Wanna bet he doesn't do any of that?

      I didn't watch his acceptance speech.   I reckon he didn't brag about how friendly he is to big coal and how much he's encouraged fracking.

      Fuck him.

  •  I'll tell you now what. (7+ / 0-)

    Step one: Obama throws down the gauntlet, demands higher taxes to raise revenues.

    Step two: When they reject it, very publically say that the plan is to replace the house majority in 2014 as the ONLY WAY TO REMOVE GRIDLOCK

    step three i'm probably wrong but it would be nice if he hammered the point from his bully pulpit until they had no choice.

    the problem is obama lets the right run the narrative all over the media.

  •  Given this basic truth (5+ / 0-)
    If the goal is to find the ‘center’, here’s a news flash; the President is already at center and has been at the center from day one of his first term.
    ... it's been staggering to witness the breadth and depth of Obama derangement syndrome.  The absolute frothing conviction that a completely unprecedented orgy of free-spending pro-sex socialism has been underway, is a level of self-delusion that is really one for the record books.  Honestly, no matter how much someone disgrees with the President's agenda, the reality is that VERY LITTLE has changed.  After the Bush nosedive, the main goal was just steady-as-she-goes.

    I have had some hopes in the past that a second term would be more unabashedly liberal, even confrontational, but already I doubt that.  With the House still under the baleful influence of teabaggers, and Obama already talking hands-across-the-aisle ...

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:07:43 AM PST

  •  Because Campaign Obama is not President Obama. (6+ / 0-)

    He is more a mediator for opposing viewpoints than he is a leader for his own policies. Wrong leadership style for this time, but politically easy considering the divisiveness in Congress.

    I wish he could channel LBJ this term....and want to.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:12:22 AM PST

    •   channel LBJ (4+ / 0-)

      I hope he does exactly that. That would be the right thing to do. I hope that doing the right thing policy-wise for the country morally outweighs, as it ought to, his notion of kumbaya-ing with the GOP.

      It's fine to want to get along, but not at the expense of good policy. I've been a stauch defender of the president for the past four years. But if moving forward he needlessly fails to chose the American people over playing nice with the opposition, then I'll be on him like stink on shit, as should we all be. The only thing he'll be good for is SC appointments, which isn't insignificant by any means, but we should be able to reasonably expect so much more, even with a divided congress.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:47:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't believe his motivation is "get along". I've (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC

        worked with pols like this, they aren't there to rock the boat as much as massage things their way. Rahm was Obama's LBJ but probably pissed everyone off along the way.

        Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

        by the fan man on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 10:04:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've always been under the impression Rahm was (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt, blueoasis

          part of the problem in so far as he reined in Obama's liberal side. I've been under the impression that several of Obama's advisors are more centrist than Obama and have been giving him bad advice, which he has unfortunately followed in the past. He needs better advisors in the second term. If there's a way we could have some influence of that it would be great, tho I've no idea how that could be accomplished, Perhaos there is someone who knows someone and we could find an emmisary to the WH who could have the president's ear.

          As for "massaging things their way", what is it you see as being massaging things Obama's way? Do you not think he wishes to govern to benefit the people or is it a matter of believing he has an agenda of his own, that he's decided what he'll do in our interest whether we agree or not?

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 10:43:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  i prdict that Reps will not change. (6+ / 0-)

    I think next time they will come off like sweethearts lying their asses off and then remove the sheep's wool after they get elected.  We really need to aggresively get after the money behind all this BS.

    This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

    by swtexas on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 10:10:35 AM PST

  •  I started to write it here (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey, JTinDC, naviline, Steve15, 2laneIA

    but it was like 4 pages, so I guess I'll just diary it.

    Short version: Don't expect 1st term Obama to repeat himself.

  •  2 things Obama can do without Congress: (4+ / 0-)

    1. The Supreme Court has already ruled--twice--that the EPA has authority under current law to regulate CO2. So let's get on that.

    2. The Attorney General has authority to move marijuana from Schedule I to a less-restrictive schedule under the Controlled Substances Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Whether Obama will be bold enough to do either is an open question.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 10:53:32 AM PST

    •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey, blueoasis

      The point about rescheduling marijuana and rebuking the DEA is going to be where the rubber meets the road.

      Basically the DEA gets to set laws, then enforce them as they see fit.  The Schedule I classification was laughable 30 years ago, and is incomprehensible now.  There's no justification for it whatsoever.  So let's see what happens with ASA v. DEA.  Smart money's on President Obama not saying a word or budging from his position on this.

      Obama has been a reeking turd on this, as has his whole administration.

  •  Now we push to close Gitmo and make sure ACA is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC, Sunspots, kurt, HeyMikey

    properly implemented.

    Possibly set up single payer within Vermont and a few other states.

  •  Kick DeMarco in the huevos (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC, naviline, Sunspots, HeyMikey

    and get him the hell out of our hair.  What a skin tag.  This will help to free up the freeze on mortage relief.  The sooner the better with this.

  •  The Republicans will have their civil war... (6+ / 0-)

    ....but if there's one thing I've learned over the years, the powers BEHIND the Republican Party: Big Oil, The Koch Bros., Wall St. Banks, The Military Industrial Complex... they won't stop.  

    You see, normally when the voters hand you a loss, you take it as a repudiation of your goals, and you then adjust your goals to win over more people next time.  But not these people. They will never give up.  They will keep attacking until they are dead and buried.  That's the only thing that stops them.

    We should never fool ourselves into thinking that last night's election victory will have any effect on this group's intention of dominating there World, and destroying the U.S. Government's ability to counter their profiteering.

    We should not rest for a day, because they sure as Hell won't. We must attack them with every tool we have.

  •  To Harry reid: About the filibuster: "écrasez (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC, HeyMikey

    la chose infâme."

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:48:50 AM PST

    •  Oh, and Harry, about negotiating with Mitch (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC, HeyMikey

      McConnell: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

      "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

      by TofG on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:50:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually, the President has never been at the (9+ / 0-)

    center, but always a bit to the right thereof. We, in this country, have completely forgotten where the center is. We define it as a point half-way between the extreme right and a place more or less in the vicinity of where the center should really be.

    Example:

    True center = choice, 1/2 way between no abortions and mandatory abortions

    US center = limited abortions, 1/2 way between no abortions and choice.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:10:43 PM PST

    •  Obama is right of center only in the eyes (0+ / 0-)

      of most on the far left. And I say that as one who self-identifies as pretty far left. It's as erroneous to label him right of center as is it to label him radically left.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:27:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Neo liberal economics is right of center, (4+ / 0-)

        for just one example.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:16:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree strongly. (6+ / 0-)

        The notion that torturers should be shielded from legal consequences for their actions whilst those who exposed them should be aggressively prosecuted is right of center.

        The idea that the executive has the power to imprison people for life with no trial os right of center.

        The idea that the president can have people killed far from any battlefield because he has decided they are a sufficient national security threat to justify it is right of center.

        The belief that all of that is beyond the purview of the courts to question is right of center.

        Then there's the vast expansion of the surveillance state in the service of that breathtaking view of executive power.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:37:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2

        actually he's quite center right.  Not only do I think so, Andrew Sullivan said so on Colbert the other night.

        It's a Stockholm syndrome thing, thinking that he's actually in the center.

        He's to the right of Rick Perry in the War on Drugs, and to the right of George Bush on civil rights.

        Seriously, the day has come to wake the hell up.  I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I bit my lip until we were clear of Romney.

        Obama better move to the left, hard and fast.  A lot of us aren't having it for another minute.

  •  What should happen in the next 2 years? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC

    Personally, I don't have much hope of anything of any substance getting done. Maybe,, the Grand Bargain, but after that, what are the House and Senate going to agree on?

    The only way anything gets done is if the handful of conservative Dems work to create some legislative compromises that Obama would be willing to sign rather than do nothing at all.

    Like it or not -- that's the choice. Do nothing and hope it doesn't all go to shit during the next two years, or move to the right.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:20:41 PM PST

    •  Or (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, apimomfan2

      fight with your dying breath to restore an actual left, which is what me and a lot of others will be doing.  Fuck letting the conservative dems have a circle jerk.  It's torches and pitchforks time.

      Fuck all of the options you listed, nothing personal.  But if you really think what you wrote is the right or only way to go, it's time for you to join the Republican party, because we're having civil war on the left.

      •  Two things (0+ / 0-)

        1) We're not having a civil war. Go have your Bolshevik fantasies, but that doesn't happen in America.

        2) I'm not inventing the choices.

        If you want the President and the entire Democratic caucus to stick to liberal guns, then nothing will be accomplished in the next 2 years. Also, we'll have more drama and brinksmanship regarding extending the debt ceiling and passing funding for the government (either a budget {extremely unlikely} or a continuing resolution).

        On the other hand, if you're hoping to see some Democratic ideas get enacted within larger compromises, that would be possible, but it will involve a rightward tilt.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 06:00:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  sorry, but even Obama is still right of center (3+ / 0-)

    when he starts rolling back the tsa and going after wall street let me know.

  •  I don't trust the Republicans (3+ / 0-)

    In this election, Democrats carried the youth vote, but this demographic would be coveted by the Republicans.  What worries me is the threat of a reduction in Social Security and Medicare.  For if these programs are substantially cut for the young, and the message to them is you are on your own in retirement, wouldn't a Republican message of individual fiscal independence appeal?  Bear in mind that for many new workers in large corporations, pensions are no longer offered.  No pension and a greatly reduced Social Security and Medicare?  How will the young retire?  Why then, vote Democratic?  Many years ago, Michael Kinsley wrote a column that said that the way for Republicans to rid the USA of Social Security was to bankrupt the country.  Are we there now?   Should we all be frightened of a "Grand Bargain"?

  •  Nothing big is going to happen in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    President Obama's last term unless the Congress changes in 2014,

    I can guarantee you the Republicans are still the assholes they were before the election and their idea of compromise is still our capitulation to their demands. Sucks, but that is the way it is.

    If President Obama can be constrained from giving away the farm in his bipartisany piss poor negotiations I'll be happy.

    We just need to raise hell when he starts caving on SS and Medicare and Medicaid and no tax cuts for the rich. If we can do that I'll be happy.

    And just thank God that Romney isn't in there happily using his 5 digits to pass every insane thing passed by the Republican house.

    The Fierce Urgency of Later

    by Faroutman on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:52:17 PM PST

  •  I'd like to see Obama do what the Republicans did (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC

    When he took office, they repeatedly scored victories simply by pretending they were trying to work with him. And Obama repeatedly suffered losses simply because he was actually trying to work with them.

    Maybe this time, do what they did. Make a show of how he's trying to work with them, meanwhile having no intention of letting them have or pass anything they want.

    The only way I'd actually want him to work with them is if we've got some kind of genius plan to set traps for them (presumably something where they'd have no choice but to agree to some kind of raise in taxes, resulting in Grover Norquist's army primarying them and setting up 2014 to be a repeat of 2012, where Tea Partiers replace more electable candidates and cost them the Senate). But I can't see that scenario being possible -- because I don't think there's anything reasonable he can give them to tempt them that much.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site