Skip to main content

I am not new to Daily Kos.  I have been watching and reading every recced diary that comes along.  I have never commented nor have I ever thought of posting a diary.

What I have witnessed over the time I've been on this site, is that you all are easily swayed by the slightest bit of information that comes along showing a hint of President Obama possibly not agreeing to policies or cuts that WE here on Kos think he should.

Today's diary (which I have no idea how to reference) about the secret memo from the last negotiations during the deficit talks, where President Obama was supposedly willing to cut social security, medicare, etc., has all of you guys up in a panic as usual.

I find it ridiculous that you guys turn on the President at the drop of a dime if you get even a hint of the President not doing what you think he should be doing.  There doesn't seem to be much loyalty on this site.

I know this diary is up on all the technical stuff that you normally see in a diary.  As I said before, I don't have a clue how to reference the other diary I mentioned, but I do know that I've had enough of your wavering support of the President.

Update #1 - As I said from the beginning, I'm not a diarist and I certainly am not a writer.  I don't know the right language or protocol on this site.  I apologize for the "all caps" as I see that's offensive.  I apologize for the general terms such as "all".  I apologize for not knowing how to do tags and referencing other dairies.  So, I take the hit for those things.  I was hoping you all would look pass my entry-level diary mis-steps.  The overall point of this diary was just to say that we don't have to agree on everything that the President is doing, but that we shouldn't think that he is going to always give us 100% of what we are seeking from him.  He is only human.  He has to deal with the hand that he is dealt, in the best way possible.  I truly believe he does have our best interest in mind when he makes those hard choices.  I expected the backlash from this diary, so I take the hits as they come.  As a novice, I will learn as time goes on how to appropriately compose a diary so that I don't use general terms and lump everyone together.  Thanks for the feedback.

Update #2 - I've read all the comments, and I understand all the reactions I've gotten.  I didn't mean to suggest that anyone should just follow President Obama on everything that he does.  My point was that some diaries seem to be "exploding heads", just like I've seen people mention the reaction of those on the "redstate" site.  We are we showing when we post diaries like those where we immediately criticize the President.  Are we showing the "redstate" people how unglued we become at the slightest thing our President does.  To me, that shows them that we aren't as supportive of him as we make believe.  You see, I went over to "redstate" after the election because I wanted to see their "heads explode" or to see their comments where they were "freaking out".  My perception of them was just as I suspect their perception would be of us if they came to this site periodically and see the type of blogs over here.

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

  •  Naw.. just some of us are in a panic. (17+ / 0-)

    Most of us are just avoiding work and lurking - hoping for unknown reasons for a 538 blog update.

    Howard Dean will always be my president.

    by 4democracy on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:41:45 PM PST

    •  Mine too. (13+ / 0-)

      My loyalty went as far as working to reelect the man.

      That's been accomplished, so now it's on to the next battle, which the President may be on my side, or he may be on the other side.

      Why on earth should anyone take positions out of loyalty, unless there's a clear reason to?  Defeating Romney was a clear reason.  But sticking with bad policies just because we like the President?  Nope.  We'll be more impressed when he does the right thing.  When he does the wrong thing, why be loyal to that.

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

      by Mindful Nature on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:56:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't believe he has asked you to do that so why (9+ / 0-)

        borrow trouble and poison the pond of support now? We have nothing NOTHING if we undercut him. We can change this country for the better but not going to happen if we fail to back him up.

        The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

        by cherie clark on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:00:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is "backing him up" (14+ / 0-)

          Putting pressure on him to do the right thing is the best way forward. I don't see how it is "undercutting him"  to take action.  We are the change we've been waiting for, not him.  He's been quite clear on that.  I suspect that he can handle it.

          And if "poisoning the pond of support" is the price of getting good policies in place, that's overwhelimingly a good trade off.

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

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:11:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Encourage the President and beat the Republicans (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rlk, BruceCA, rubyr, CroneWit, keetz4, ParkRanger

            with every stick you can find! Fax them call them mail them LET THEM KNOW THIS ELECTION WAS A MANDATE. I hate to shout but what do you not understand about backing up the President is not telling him what he already knows, it is helping beat the opposition with every tool we have.

            The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

            by cherie clark on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:35:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  he does? (6+ / 0-)

              it remains entirely unproven that he's going to push a progressive agenda without pressure.  

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

              by Mindful Nature on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:50:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you don't trust him why work on his campaign (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rubyr, CroneWit, ParkRanger

                and vote for him? The republicans need the pressure sorry you just can't see that. I would hate to think we are going to let this opportunity slip by because not enough of us get it. The republicans are what are standing between you and everything you want, not the President.

                The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

                by cherie clark on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 05:13:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  If you look at what he's *done* (7+ / 0-)

                it's very good, all told.

                President Obama is the one who finally got universal health care done, after 100 years of trying.  Now, it isn't a single payer system (except that it lets states set up their own systems, starting in 2017, and Vermont's already busy planning its own single payer), and it doesn't have a public option (except maybe it does), and it doesn't crack down on the insurance companies (except that they can't rescind policies, they have to offer them to everyone, they have to actually pay out 80%).  Maybe it's not a pony, but neither was Social Security at first.  It's something to build on.

                Repealing DADT was a big progressive step -- maybe it didn't happen right away, but he did his homework, got the Pentagon behind it, and it has gone very smoothly by all accounts, with no lingering resentment about having it forced down the military's throat.  And even if his coming out and saying that he now favors same sex marriage was a bit belated, and effectively forced by Joe Biden, doesn't have the force of law, I have to think that it played a part in getting all four marriage resolutions going the good way.

                And no, nobody liked the budget deal he did with the Republicans...least of all the Republicans when they found out that they had been had, because the "cuts" were overwhelmingly nothing of the sort.  And however ugly the bargain he offered the Republicans was, they didn't take it, and it doubtless demonstrated to a lot of people just how intransigent they really were.

                No, his record isn't perfect.  He's been entirely too aggressive for my taste at cracking down on whistleblowers, for example.  And his rather free use of drones in going after terrorists also isn't everyone's cup of tea, although I think it's far better (both for Americans and civilians on the ground) than the previous administration's massive wars.  But FDR's also the one who interned the Japanese, for example.  Kennedy and Johnson escalated Vietnam.  We're never going to have a "perfect" president in the foreign sphere.

                So I'm going to wait to see what actually comes of it.  I trust from his actions that he ultimately has our back, even if it doesn't always look that way in the heat of battle.

              •  He's a pretty good president. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrAnon, rubyr, keetz4, ParkRanger

                I don't think he needs your help to do his duties. Please people, get over yourselves. We're talking about Barack Obama. How about trusting him a bit?

    •  You will never achieve the fulfillment of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrAnon

      principles and policies if you can't depend on people, including a leader, to actually put them into place.
      After all, we are people. This is a human endeavor.
      That works both ways, of course. We should never be surprised when our leaders turn out to be human, imperfect.
      I don't understand how someone can't understand the principle of human loyalty.
      And, yes, I always expect politicians to be politicians. The ones I trust the least are the ones that claim they aren't a politician.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:12:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not questioning where your loyal stands. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rubyr, ParkRanger

      Yes, your loyalty should be to the principles and policies, but why come down on him before the first talks.  That was the point of this diary.  Granted the diary wasn't written very well, but that was my point.

      •  Because the President has a track record. (6+ / 0-)

        President Obama is not a blank slate or an unknown quantity. He's demonstrated repeatedly his willingness to pursue conservative approaches over liberal ones to the problems that face the country. He's demonstrated a willingness to 'pre-compromise' to no net political gain. He's demonstrated a commitment to backroom deals over transparency.

        There is no reason whatsoever for liberals to take anything the President says on faith. Don't trust - verify first.

        If that's seen as a failure of loyalty to the President, it's a situation of his own making.

        The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

        by Orange County Liberal on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:32:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why vote him back in office. (0+ / 0-)

          If red states can turn to blue states, then surely President Obama can change his stance on various positions he's had in the past.  

          I believe this election has shown him where his loyalty should be.  If, he doesn't make the right decisions, then of course we should hold him accountable for those decisions he makes now.

          •  Why, indeed? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TealTerror

            The White House won't change its policies on a whim. The only chance that liberals have is post-election to apply pressure early and often, to the Administration and particularly to the Senate Democratic Caucus.

            I agree that the election should show the President where his loyalty should be. That was no less true of 2008, and that didn't produce policies that many of us could support, either.

            You don't wait until the shit hits the fan to tell the guy with his hand full of crap not to throw it.

            The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

            by Orange County Liberal on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:45:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed. (29+ / 0-)

    Let's all take a breath and wait until all the facts come out.  It's a very different ballgame than when that memo was written.

    I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than that.

    by TigerMom on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:43:12 PM PST

    •  No way (9+ / 0-)

      I have every intention of playing ball in this ballgame, not sitting on the sidelines letting the right wing take the field against us, with Obama caught out somewhere in the middle.

      If we put pressure on the President to do what he's planning on anyway, great.  no harm.  If we put pressure when he's planning on doing something harmful, then there's a potential upside.  Either way, pressure is the right answer.

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

      by Mindful Nature on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:57:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Put pressure on the Republicans they are the ENEMY (8+ / 0-)

        not the president.

        The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

        by cherie clark on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:01:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tactically, that's maybe wise (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrSandman, 3goldens, TealTerror

          First off, I refuse to consider Republicans to be an enemy.

          Secondly, John Boehner and crowd would blow my thoughts off in a heartbeat.  As someone who worked on his campaign, the President is less likely to.  Thus, I think the President is the party to the negotiations I am best situaated to influence.  Absent that influence, I am likely to end up with no one representing my interests.

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

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:08:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is nothing wrong with encouraging the (0+ / 0-)

            President, let him know we have his back and are counting on him to bring it home for us. As for the Republicans, every letter or fax or phone call we make to them reenforces the FACT this election was a mandate, something they want to wish away. If we don't apply pressure to them we don't have the President's back at all, we are sending him into negotiations with a base that elected him and then largely deserted him when the going got tough the last time. You are so magnanimous to the republicans and not to the President, I mean WTF? Working on his campaign is not the same as working to help him succeed.

            The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

            by cherie clark on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:31:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He is the freaking president (5+ / 0-)

              he is also the only party in washington who stands a prayer of a chance to respond.

              It isn't magnaminous to Republicans, it's basically the sttrategy that works.  Remember we have a pretty good notion that raising a fuss works.  Being silent does not.

              And also, we need to raise a fuss on those decisions on which the Republicans have no input at all!  Don't forget, we CANNOT take executive branch decisions for granted at all and a large number have gone against us.  

              My representatives are all Democrats (one of whom also needs pressure and I write to her also)

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

              by Mindful Nature on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:53:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  How about an adversary? (0+ / 0-)

            They are adversaries or enemies but I guess I understand your reluctance to speak in confrontational tones. Speaking to them directly, while it may be futile, would be what you do to an adversary before you crush him like a bug.

      •  I agree that we should put pressure on the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splintersawry

        President, and we should in general make sure our desires are known, esp. about medicare and SS, etc.
        To fail to do that, and to be passive about it, is to re-iterate the last 30 years that got us to this point in the first place.
        I think we should put pressure on the Dem leaders such that it gives them leverage to bargain from strength and to stand firm on principles.
        I don't think we should be looking to undermine our leaders, though.
        We should undermine the gopers and help weaken their position. Which means we have to really put pressure on the media to frame the debate honestly and report facts.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:18:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  just like we did with the public option (0+ / 0-)

      NFW.

      "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

      by Publius2008 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:43:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  no way! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen

      i shall be outraged and let this blog know of my outrage!
      i must!

      Agreed. (18+ / 0-)
      Let's all take a breath and wait until all the facts come out.  It's a very different ballgame than when that memo was written.

      We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

      by Christin on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:55:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fixed your tags for you. (4+ / 0-)

    Assuming you're on Windows rather than a Mac, you can reference the other diary by visiting that diary, and clicking in the address bar. When blue highlights the text, press the keys 'Ctrl' and 'C' at the same time.

    Edit your diary here, and press Ctrl and V at the same time in the editing field.

    That will dump the raw link out, which I believe dailykos will turn into a hyperlink automatically. Prettying up the link is slightly more complicated.

    Re: substance of your diary, -shrug-. I generally prefer not to make diaries talking about other diaries, but that's just me. I don't have a strong opinion on this particular subject.

    Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?

    by ConfusedSkyes on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:43:50 PM PST

  •  Frankly (14+ / 0-)

    I don't like the deal that was on the table and I'd much rather let the fiscal cliff happen as scheduled than have an agreement that bad.

    It's nothing personal.

    I Support Puerto Rican Statehood

    by InsultComicDog on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:44:55 PM PST

  •  It's not a slight bit of information and ... (14+ / 0-)

    it's not new, if I understand correctly what you're talking about.

    Digby's got images of the received the "private negotiating documents outlining what the White House was prepared to agree to in the 2011 budget showdown".

    The President is on record many times admitting that he longs for a 'Grand Bargain'. It's not too soon to be prepared to oppose cuts to key social spending programs.

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:46:08 PM PST

    •  exactly...it isn't new (15+ / 0-)

      and yet people are reacting to it like it's gospel prognostication.  

      talk about signal to noise.  how about we react to information from NOW instead of a year ago?

      and being prepared is one thing.  but we all look pretty foolish calling the white house all adither when there really isn't fire at the end of the smoke trail.

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:53:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How do you know he was prepared to support (5+ / 0-)

      these v. putting them on the table for discussion?

      Not doubting, I just didn't read it that way.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:57:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We know how Republicans work (4+ / 0-)

        Whatever is put on the table for discussions they take as the baseline to start negotiating from. If you offer them a concession, they call it a matter of bipartisan agreement and then ask for something more in exchange for possibly considering some concessions of their own.

        "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

        by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:43:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  In negotiations nothing is agreed until the deal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA, askew, virginislandsguy

      is done. I think Lawrence O'Donnell did a segment on that at the time. This is a 2011 leak, for heavens sake. It is completely irrelevant now. If you are up in arms at the drop of a whisper, you will not get anything done. But you will by nicely manipulatable by anybody who knows how to push your buttons.

      admitting that he longs for
      Nothing of the kind. The President says many things in the discussion, and he needs to say many things to effectively negotiate. It is ridiculous to think you can have a better strategy for him. If you do not know now, whether you can trust him, after watching 4 years how he works, that would be rather pitiful.

      He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

      by Sophie Amrain on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:24:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My trust in the President is not limitless (7+ / 0-)

        Based on the evidence so far, I don't think he's very good at negotiating with hostile adversaries (e.g., Republicans).

        And I'm not at all convinced that his goals in this negotiation are in line with my own. In particular, I think he buys too much of the pundit-class CW that Social Security and Medicare are broken. Joe Biden spoke out very forcefully in defense of these programs during the campaign, but the President was very circumspect.

        "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

        by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:50:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hey cool. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Demi Moaned, WakeUpNeo, TealTerror

      Is that Woodward's fax number on top?

      That could be useful for all those times I want to personally tell him to STFU.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:10:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Get a grip? Really? (16+ / 0-)

    RE: "There doesn't seem to be much loyalty on this site."

    It's true that most of us are fighting hard to prevent Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefit cuts. That's a good thing.

    By the way, I don't agree that we owe our loyalty to our elected representatives. If anything, it's the other way around. They work for us.

    •  The president has said (6+ / 0-)

      he would cut Medicare Advantage, the gift Bush gave to Big Medicine. A snip from an interview with President Obama on ABC:

      OBAMA:  No.  Here — here's what's going to happen.  These are essentially private HMOs who are getting, on average — and this is not my estimate, this is Democrats and Republicans, experts have said — they're getting, on average, about 14 percent more over payments, basically subsidies from taxpayers for a program that ordinary Medicare does just as good, if not better, at keeping people healthy.

      Now, they package these things in ways that, in some cases, may make it more convenient for some consumers, but they're overcharging massively for it.  There's no competitive bidding under the process.

      And so what we've said is instead of spending $17 billion, $18 billion a year, $177 billion over 10 years on that, why wouldn’t we use that to close the donut hole so the people are actually getting better prescription drugs…

      http://abcnews.go.com/...

      Medicare NEEDS some changing, because it has been gamed so long for profit. I first saw it in the mid-'80s when I was working at a medical school. Some of the practices being used to make ever-more money are ineffective and carry risk. And much, much worse.

      We shouldn't be paying for that!

      The medical-industrial-complex is a big deal, and it needs to be brought to heel.

      "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

      by cotterperson on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:16:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And this is just the tip of the potential savings. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, DianeNYS

        For instance, consider the massive sums paid to force people into expensive "nursing homes" and such to receive long term care --- when many could stay in their own homes with appropriate support --- with greater respect for their individual rights, and often at considerably lower costs and with better health outcomes.

        Provisions of the ACA such as the Community First Choice Option will eventually help turn this around:

        Recognizing that President Obama has demonstrated support for both our civil right to live in the community AND the Medicaid funding we need to make that right a reality, Colorado ADAPTers headed to his rally yesterday. They brought “Obama Supports Community Living” signs with them to make sure the President understood why they were there.

        As the President moved through the crowd, the signs DID catch his attention. Not only did he see them, he SIGNED one! There is more to this story, but I wanted to get this part out right away.

        More here:  ADAPT
        •  Excellent! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WakeUpNeo, DianeNYS

          For 11 years I lived with my mom and was her main caregiver. Every six months, I took her to the doctor, and the last few weeks we got Hospice. She lived where she could see the natural beauty that soothed the fear brought on by dementia and died in her sleep at home at 92. It was exactly what she wanted.

          I wouldn't have missed it for anything, but it would have been nice to have some insurance myself. I don't know about the plan you mentioned, but it sounds great and I'll find more online. Later this year, I'll have Medicare, I'm eager to learn more.

          Thanks for the info!

          "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

          by cotterperson on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:35:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This struck a nerve. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt, cotterperson

          "...consider the massive sums paid to force people into expensive nursing homes'"......

          My mother-in-law had dementia. We could not live with her, we were still raising our children in our home. We could not leave it. Eventually we had to put her in a nursing home. No one forced us to do it. I don't know what you are talking about. She needed to be safe. She could no longer cook - burned pans. She could no longer take her meds correctly. Despite how frequently we called and visited, she fell and was alone on the floor of her home for two days. She could no longer live alone.

          "...when many could stay in their own homes with appropriate support"...And that would be the first choice for many. But my mother-in-law hated strangers around. She became paranoid, and began telling us whoppers. We realized that, for her, the stay at home with assistance option would not work. We needed a place where many people were, who could either corroborate her stories or sympathetically try to turn her mind to other things besides her fantasies. For our family, it worked

          Maybe we were luckier than most, but both of the facilities she lived in were great. I visited her at least every other day, and my kids dropped in constantly. My husband and I took her to Dr. appts., to visit family, to go out to eat. I just don't understand what you mean when you say "with greater respect for their individual rights....and with better health outcomes". We were her advocates, and made certain she was well treated and had as many rights as were safe for someone in her condition. As her condition deteriorated, she moved to a new facility that had nurses, a doctor on call, and a "hallway" that had rooms for those with mild dementia. Unfortunately she was only able to live there for three months before she got much worse and had to move to the Alzheimer's wing. When it became obvious to us and the fabulous staff that she was declining, they helped us bring in Hospice to help her. She died a month after, and the kindness and consideration shown toward her, as well as all of us family members, is something I will never forget.

    •  Complaining on a blog is not fighting hard. (5+ / 0-)

      And if you can't be loyal, then you will have no success. If the soldiers turn on the generals every time the enemy sends a rumour out - that army will not win any battle.

      He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

      by Sophie Amrain on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:16:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Isn't there room for both... (18+ / 0-)

    positively supporting Obama (e.g. being the movement that he needs with him)...

    AND at the same time still holding him to account?

    Cultivate the positive.

  •  My concerns are reality based (9+ / 0-)

    And are the direct result of what Obama has said publicly numerous times.

  •  And practice what you preach! (7+ / 0-)

    An ALL UPPERCASE TITLE! does not radiate the spirit of getting a grip.

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:50:21 PM PST

  •  What's the downside (14+ / 0-)

    of objecting to the 2011 proposal?  If it's not actually being considered, great!  If it is being considered, then we should push back.

    ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

    by TFinSF on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:51:14 PM PST

  •  Be Vigilant Always (7+ / 0-)

    The left has been screwed by its own, ones we help get elected, repeatedly. There is nothing ridiculous about analyzing information and responding to it. As for the memo you mention, while not having seen it, it sounds related to the "grand bargain" he has spoken of. He is on record as open to cuts to the very programs that we reelected him to protect. We absolutely have to guard against that vigilantly. Always.  We have no particularly good reasons to trust the President or Democrats generally. Getting them elected is actually the relatively easy part, compared to getting them to do the right thing once elected.

    It's also important to understand that Dems have been very bad negotiators historically. They start where they ought to finish.  Say you are selling a car and you hope to get $2000 for it. You don't ask for $2000 OBO, you ask for $2500 or even $3000 and let the other party talk you down.  Dems typically, in this scenario, say something like "Well, it would be nice to get something in the neighborhood of 2K, but, you know, we're open to whatever you are willing to offer."  We get screwed that way every time. Every fucking time! It's bullshit, and we have to push our people to do better or it will happen again.  Take health care for instance, they didn't even ask for single payer!  If we had started there, we may have gotten the public option.  But Dems didn't even vigorously push for public option.

    While I disagree with your point in this instance, this community can overreact sometimes, but your example here is bogus.  But thank you for posting!

  •  Kos family? (8+ / 0-)

    We are all different.  All with our own opinions.  Kind of like herding cats.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:53:03 PM PST

  •  Disagreed. Some may be in a tizzy, but not all. (4+ / 0-)

    It's far too easy to paint one picture so broadly about 'everyone' here. Try again.

    Reality based also means you can't assume 'everyone' sees things exactly the same way no matter how much you rationalize that opinion to seem correct.

    Perhaps you should be more specific and target the actual opinions of those with whom you disagree instead of casting everyone under a single monolithic lens.

    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

    by Vayle on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:54:03 PM PST

  •  Some of These Reports Can Be Trial Balloons and (13+ / 0-)

    I think in case a bad idea is a trial balloon it's best to get our reaction out early.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:55:16 PM PST

  •  Obama DID slam an axe in the door of SS (9+ / 0-)

    and it's partly his commission that is looking at how best to carjack the nation austerity measure....

    The question is he going to pull it out or are we back to Kabuki Theater?

    You get a grip.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:55:46 PM PST

    •  Worth noting that the administration's position . (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KateCrashes, lgmcp, TealTerror, kurt

      has been changing the formula for calculating benefit increases over time.  So in the first ten years there's something like a 6 percent benefit cut.  Over the next 30 years there's closer to a 20 percent benefit cut above trend.

      If we do nothing, then in 30 years, there's a 20 percent cut in benefits anyways, as social security starts to take in less than it pays out.

      Hopefully the administration has recalibrated its position.

  •  There is a silent majority here that (9+ / 0-)

    does not jump out of our seats at each utterance coming out of Washington. Speaking for myself, though I know many others feel this way, I trust Pres Obama to negotiate something that is good for the country more than I trust anyone on the internets (including myself). Obama is our man - he is gifted and focused and IMO does not require our micromanagement.

    •  I agree. I shouldn't have said "all" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc2
    •  While I understand your point of view (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt

      Speaking personally, I feel like I'd be abandoning my duty as a citizen to trust my political leaders above myself. I mean, look, even if Obama is "our man" as you say, there are plenty of reasons he might make the wrong decision. In those cases, it is incumbent upon us to call him out. (The same, of course, applies to all politicians.)

      "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

      by TealTerror on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:57:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How are we supposed to know (0+ / 0-)

        When he makes a mistake? This is his full tim job, while just a hobby for us. His access to information is limitless, including the worlds foremost experts. Add to that that he's really good at this stuff, undstands the politics better than us, and smarter than anyone on this site, and IMO there's just no reason to doubt his judgment.

        •  Read my signature (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt, splintersawry

          We don't "know" anything. If President Obama does something I disagree with, it is entirely possible that he is right and I am wrong. But I refuse to outsource my thinking to him. First of all, nobody's perfect, especially not politicians. But far more importantly, in a democracy, I think it is the duty of citizens to distrust and doubt their political leaders. Because trusting that those with power are right, even while suppressing personal doubts, is the core of authoritarianism, and authoritarianism has historically been the death knell of democracy.

          I apologize for calling you an authoritarian--it is certainly not a nice term--but after this comment and your previous one I honestly can't interpret your political philosophy in any other way. I hope you, in turn, can understand that authoritarianism in any form is far more inimical to me even than conservatism is (and trust me, that's saying something).

          "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

          by TealTerror on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 09:37:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So when birthers challenge the (0+ / 0-)

            President, they are doing their duty?  Right or wrong,they disagree with him and believe that they are right.

            Do the math. Say that Obama is right 90% of the time. And assume that you are right almost as often, say 85% of the time. Okay. Now in the 85 times out of 100 that you are right, Obama is going to agree with you almost always, say 83 times. In this case, for the 15 times you are wrong, obama is right 7 times and wrong 8. Thus, for all the times you do NOT agree with him, in 7/9 of cases he is right and you are wrong. These #'s may seem arbitrary but as long as you agree that obama is slightly more likely to be right than you (and that you and he are generally in agreement), you will always end up finding that whenever you actually disagree with him, he is MUCH more likely to be right.

            Since you don't know which are the rare times you are right and he is wrong, my philosophy is to stick with him. It is a view rooted in logic. Maybe you are more confident than I am that you are right, which would change the logic. But are you being realistic in that case about your abilities to outsmart him?

            •  Ooooh, math! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              splintersawry

              OK, first of all--yes, if the Birther honestly believes Obama wasn't born in this country, they are doing their duty by saying so. They're wrong, and most likely racist, but still.

              Now then, as to your math. First, I have no idea how often Obama is right and how often I am right, and I also have no idea how often we're in agreement. I mean, I've never met the man. That said, he strikes me as a neo-liberal like Bill Clinton, which means we do have fundamental disagreements about a lot of stuff.

              However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that in terms of our beliefs, we're generally in agreement and Obama is right more often than I am. But that's only about beliefs, and what's important in politics is not beliefs but actions. And there are plenty of reasons why Obama might do something he doesn't believe in. Maybe he's doing it because it's popular. Maybe he's doing it as a compromise to get something else he wants. Maybe he's doing it to please some special interest group(s) so they don't go after him. He might even be right to do those things.

              But if we want to push the Overton Window to the left, we have to call Obama out when he does illiberal things, especially if Obama doesn't want to do them--because if he doesn't want to do them, our job is to create political space on the left for him. Think about it this way: If all liberals loudly criticized him whenever he did something illiberal, he could reasonably tell the Republicans "Sorry guys, but if I compromise with you too much my base will eat me alive." In this way, criticizing him becomes sort of a form of support.

              There is a factor, though, which is more important than all of those. The problem with Authoritarianism above all--and Authoritarianism is definitely what you're advocating here--is that its efficacy entirely depends on the righteousness of the leader you choose to follow. And historically speaking, plenty of really undeserving people have had hordes of followers. Look at George W. Bush. For that matter, look at Bill Clinton, who had people like you defending NAFTA, welfare reform, and sanctions on Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands, many of them children. Perhaps Obama is the extraordinarily rare leader who actually deserves unquestioning devotion. But I'm not willing to take that chance.

              "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

              by TealTerror on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 04:10:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Two things on which we do not concur. (0+ / 0-)

                First, it is not a citizen's duty to be a birther, ever. The fact that you arrived at this conclusion should make you realize that your logic may have made a wrong turn somewhere.

                Second, since when can Authoritarianism be something that is completely by choice by the citizen? The whole point of that form of government is that it is based on compulsion. If I believe that I shall support a particular leader's actions, and do so voluntarily, and only do so for the leader I choose, and reserve the right to change my mind in the future, then I do not live under Authoritarian rule. If Obama announced that we were going to war with England, out of the blue, I would begin to question him; I am not a blind supporter. But when it is something very complex, an issue for which his knowledge surpasses mine in all respects, and for which I believe he is more suited than I to make the decision, I CHOOSE to defer to him. That is my choice. If you choose not to, that is your choice.

                Keep in mind that I may be much less knowledgeable than you on some of these issues, or not as smart. I know we're not supposed to think that others here are smarter than us but I'm not the most intelligent person on this site so for all I know you have 10 IQ points on me. But if I were you, no matter how smart and knowing you are, I'd ask myself if I truly bested Barack Obama in my ability to decide these things. It is possible that someone here knows better than him, but I am skeptical.

                •  Let us discuss those two things, then (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  splintersawry

                  First of all, no, my logic didn't make a wrong turn. If you do honestly believe Obama wasn't born in this country, you should be a birther. Because all, or almost all, the available evidence points to Obama having been born in this country, this will require incredible ignorance on your part. Now, It is my personal opinion that most birthers are not ignorant, they're just disingenuous, much like these people. These are probably the people you're thinking of when you say it's never someone's duty to be a birther. But think of it this way: Imagine that we elected a President (not Obama) who really wasn't born in this country, but had somehow faked it. In that case, wouldn't it be our duty to be a birther?

                  Anyway, on to the second point. To start out with, you're mistaking authoritarianism as a governmental system with authoritarianism as a personal political ideology. Certainly, we don't live under an authoritarian government currently. But your professed principles, that of always deferring to Obama, struck me as being a very authoritarian attitude to take. Whether that's bad or not is a separate question--as I said before, it's just that even mild authoritarianism is more inimical to me than conservatism. This post, on the other hand, where you suggest you only defer to Obama when the issue is complex, is a more nuanced view than the one you expressed earlier--still authoritarian, perhaps, but a more mild variety. So I retract my earlier allegation.

                  Let me now respond to this:

                  But if I were you, no matter how smart and knowing you are, I'd ask myself if I truly bested Barack Obama in my ability to decide these things. It is possible that someone here knows better than him, but I am skeptical.
                  As I said, I have come to the point of view that the President is a neo-liberal. This is not a knock on his intelligence--hell, plenty of intelligent people were in the John Birch Society. But it means his definition of what's "right" and my definition of what's "right" are different. Which is fine. That's what politics is all about. And besides, even if Obama were a secret liberal, I assume that means he'd want people to criticize him when he does something illiberal. So really, criticizing him is a win-win. :)

                  "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                  by TealTerror on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 08:56:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  He offered it up on the table last year (7+ / 0-)

    How do we know he's not starting off from that point this year? And no, we have every right to raise a ruckus about this.

  •  I think we should both get a grip, but (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NotGeorgeWill, Sylv, MKSinSA, WakeUpNeo

    alsobut also let the President and Republicans know we mean business and we are not afraid to go over this supposed cliff.  I too sort of rolled my eyes when I saw the title of the diary.  But felt a little better when I saw the diarist point out this was from 2011.  Though a lot of folks in the comment glossed over that.

    Point, the President needs to know we have his back should we need to go over the cliff.  He needs to know the left wont join the rights chorus in slamming him should we go over the cliff.  Make our voice loud.  Call White House and your elected officials tomorrow.

  •  Those who want to protect SS and medicare (10+ / 0-)

    get branded by the left and right as being conspiracy theorists or "panicking".

    No, we just don't want any cuts to these working programs. It's a manufactured crisis. End the bush tax cuts and most of the problem goes away.

    •  What about all of us that want (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, WakeUpNeo

      to protect SS and Medicare but don't think that it is necessary to insist that not a dime is cut? Many would like to see the better parts of the programs expanded while at the same time the less effective parts should be reduced, fixed, or eliminated. These are huge programs, and anyone who thinks that they are 100% perfect is not IMO doing what is right in order to keep these programs solvent well into the future.

      Plus, saying things like "not a dime" is akin to the Tea Party saying that same thing about raising taxes. Everyone in America has got to learn to compromise a bit; not everybody in the country is a liberal like us and we must learn to appreciate that. Obama knows that he is everybody's president.

      •  "Not a dime is cut" (5+ / 0-)

        A dime cut is not what the "grand bargain" is. It's 3:1 spending to taxes. And the only place to give is medicare.

        Raising medicare age to 67 or raising any other age requirements are not "dime cuts".

        Yet another example of trying to make me seem extreme or a conspiracy theorist.

        I repeat: Raising medicare or any other age requirements to 67 is not a "dime cut" or inconsequential. That's what is on the table and more for these negotiations.

        •  Well, we are living longer, aren't (0+ / 0-)

          we? And more and more of us are old and fewer of us are young. It is intuitive to me that unless you change the rules to match the actual changes in demographics that the programs will end up breaking the bank. Since I like these programs a great deal, I am all for commonsense adjustment of things like retirement ages and means testing.

          •  Look at medicare and SS spending as (4+ / 0-)

            a percentage of GDP. Unchanged since the 70s and perfectly fine. Telling 65 year old people to work another 2 years so we can buy more jets and tax cuts for the rich is dumb.

            Look at tax decreases and defense spending... spiking out of control. Those are the things to look at.

            The fact that medicare and SS are even up for discussion in this manufactured crisis is ridiculous. The focus should be on the facts: Taxes need to go back up and defense spending needs to go back down.

            •  AFter you raise taxes on the (0+ / 0-)

              rich and cut defense spending, then what? Yes those things need to happen. But you are in la la land if you think that solves everything. You can't have everyone receiving checks and very few people writing them, which is the demographic picture our county faces. It's just logical man. People didn't live this long in 1935.

          •  The wealthy are living longer. (4+ / 0-)

            The rest of us are holding steady.

            Your intuition is leading you to false conclusions.

            The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

            by Orange County Liberal on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:24:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  doc2, means testing is a terrible idea (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink, kurt, splintersawry

            Means testing was the driving force behind that dreadful bankruptcy reform bill, which had massive bipartisan support.  Watching that calamity become law makes me shudder at the thought of having the same principles applied to SS and Medicare.

            Besides, as I understand SS, it's already means tested in the sense that what you get at retirement is dependent on what you paid in over your life.  My knowledge here is a bit sketchy, but I know the problem has been discussed in the context of stay at home moms whose husbands trade them in for younger models 20+ years later.

            As for people living longer, that just doesn't matter when it comes to affording healthcare.  If you're 64 and not working, you're not going to be covered while you wait to turn 65 because insurance just costs too much.  Raising the age of eligibility just changes the numbers I just used with zero effect on affordability.

            •  I think you got something backwards. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VetGrl

              Richer people, over their lifetimes, will pay in more than poorer people. So their payouts are higher. The concept behind means testing is to then reduce or eliminate the payouts to retires who don't need the money. Today, when a Donald trump retires, he gets more SS money than a working class guy. Means testing won't by itself fix the program, but it is one idea.

              •  Not so much backwards (0+ / 0-)

                My comment is just from the other side of it.

                Social security for the wealthy does strike a chord of unfairness.  But one of the reasons the program has endured so well and for so long is that everyone is entitled to it.  Once means testing is injected into it, the whole program becomes subject to the "forgotten man" argument of A takes from B to give to C.

                Oddly enough, typing this comment has made me question my support for eliminating the FICA cap.  If contributions are capped, isn't the unfairness at payout time thus reduced?

  •  DailyKos is bi-polar (7+ / 0-)

    We are either celebrating the evisceration of our enemies, or we are panicking over the oncoming treachery of our friends.

    This is just the way it is.

    •  But it makes us rather useless, sadly enough. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew

      He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

      by Sophie Amrain on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:30:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depends on your definition of useful. (0+ / 0-)

        I've been here for 10 years and have found this site to be incredibly entertaining. I've spent many thousands of hours here, and enjoyed most of them. Do we change the world? No. Do people here say dumb things all the time, including rec-listed diaries? Yes. But entertainment itself is useful IMO>

    •  Yes, and I am not part of the "we" you mention. (0+ / 0-)

      There is great diversity of perspectives here on this site and I hugely appreciate this.  Our strength is the fact we don't all think the same way. I come here to think things through for myself.  When I get caught in either "celebration" or "panic" I have lost my focus.  And, I do enjoy the passion you are writing about as well.

  •  So, now you decide to speak up? And lecture? (4+ / 0-)

    After four plus years here you now weigh in?  I don't care about, nor do I respect your opinion and note you aren't and haven't been here to discuss or defend it since you posted.
    Take a hike.

    Andy's two-timin' tail run off wiff mah sig line!

    by nannyboz on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:03:34 PM PST

  •  I agree with both the diarist and most of the (4+ / 0-)

    commenters.

    While I haven't gotten everything on my wish list from the President, he has done pretty damned good. He has earned my trust. I plan to push the Congress for co-operation with President Obama and to push the
    President to stand up for us.

    But I have not been disappointed with the President yet considering the circumstances he was in.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:04:56 PM PST

  •  Ah, a return to the past (16+ / 0-)

    And now, here again, we go through the usual steps.

    FIRST:  There is a leak of some unpalatable idea from the democratic camp, with complete deniability.

    SECOND:   Those on the left -- that would be, the Progressives -- raise cain, because we recognize the leak is a trial balloon.

    THIRD:   The Obama Apparatchiks come out and say:

    (a)   This is just an unverified story -- Trust the President

    (b)   You have no proof that this leak is real.

    (c)    You can't prove a thing.

    FOURTH:   The Progressives come back and point out that the leak comports with some of the things which Obama has said in the past.

    FIFTH:   The demands are made for "proof" of every statement that the Progressives come forward with.   When confronted with links to stories, those stories are always attacked as "not credible" unless there's a fucking quote from Obama on the record.

    SIXTH:   The Progressives point to other quotes which seem to support the idea that the President is behind the unpalatable idea, including the fact that he has not repudiated the idea.

    SEVENTH:   The Apparatchiks shout and yell that the Progressives don't understand anything and have no proof of what is happening.

    EIGHTH:   OBAMA announces that the unpalatable idea is, in fact, exactly what he is proposing (ie, Chained CPI; no public option; no meaningful mortgage relief through bankruptcy; no prosecution of war criminals, etc.)

    NINTH:   The Progressives howl.

    TENTH:   The Apparatchiks inform the Progressives that if they had been listening, they would have understood Obama's nuanced position, and attempt to shout down the debate.

    We have a grip.   We have a very good grip indeed, and we know that if we sit passively, the Progressives will get sold.   By screaming now, we create the possibility that enough Democratic votes in the house and the senate will refuse to play along -- forcing the Republicans to come up with the votes to compromise with the President.   Last time the Grand Bargain surfaced, the Republicans couldn't get it done.

    Sitting by silently, and allowing Obama to build momentum for a crappy idea, is not how one goes about resisting the crappy idea.  The way one resists the crappy idea is to raise cain about it early, and to keep raising cain at every step along the way, until the political price of the moronic compromise becomes too high.   Call Congress; call the White House; ; refuse to give money because of the betrayal; threaten to primary people over the issue -- that is how you stop the betrayal.

    Need an example?   OK, gay rights -- Obama came in and originally promised movement on the issue of gay rights, and then betrayed the LGTB community by continuing through his justice department of arguing the gay sex was the equivalent of bestiality.   The LGTB community responded by cutting off funding, protesting to anyone who would listen, refusing to support Team D until they got what they wanted.

    And look what happened.   Obama was dragged to the left.   He was forced to respond to DADT and get rid of that program.   He was forced to take a position which ended administration defense of DOMA.   None of that happened because gay people sat on their hands and waited for Obama to change his mind -- it happened because they made their position public.

    •  sad but true (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Williston Barrett, TealTerror, kurt

      unfortunately

    •  Progressives vs. Obama Apparatchiks (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StellaRay, TealTerror, kurt

      Well at least you fairly characterized two positions in an completely unbiased way.

      The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

      by FiredUpInCA on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:43:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, that is, unfortunately, an excellent (8+ / 0-)

      analysis.

      "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

      by Publius2008 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:45:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with (0+ / 0-)

      what you pointed out here.  I also agree with everyone else said we have to the President accountable.

      My point wasn't laid out as well as it could have been.  My pont is to say that we haven't even given them a chance to sit at the table yet and see what the first round gives us.

      •  Your point was well written. I just disagree (4+ / 0-)

        with its entire premise.

        Your point, as you say, that "We haven't even given them a chance to sit a table and see what the first round gives us."

        This is the exact same point that every other Apparatchik makes.   It is, under the guise of reasonableness, a statement that reaction against the plan being floated through intermediaries is premature, and that Progressives should wait-and-see what happens.

        My first point -- and I make it without apology -- is that this is yet another attempt to stifle criticism of the President when he suggests (through intermediaries) the adoption of odious policies.   "Wait and see" is just another form of "Shut up, and Trust the President."   Do you doubt me?   Well then, why did you tell Progressives to "get a grip" if you weren't trying to silence those who are criticizing the policies previously endorsed by the President?

        My second point is that what you are saying is precisely the opposite of what works to stop bad policy.  The way one fights a crappy policy decision is to fight it from the get go -- when its floated, when its discussed as a theory, and when its finally brought into the open.  A wait and see approach is what allows the crappy policy idea to gain momentum and become an actual policy.

        •  I get your point. (0+ / 0-)

          But, my point wasn't just about waiting to see what the President does.  It was more about the reactions on this site and how we are perceived to others.  Sometimes when I come on this site, I'm not sure if its in support of the President or not.

          •  Let me clear that up. (0+ / 0-)

            We support the President when he supports democratic policies.

            Many of us here do not support the President when he does not support democratic policies, other than the fact that we will vote for him and Democrats over Republicans.  

            We understand we will be perceived by others are unfaithful to the President, but that is the cost of being faithful to ideas which are bigger than the President.   The term we use to describe this criticism of our position is to self-name outselves the Dirty Fucking Hippies.

            As for your claim that you aren't in favor of "waiting to see what the President does" but more about the reactions to this site....yes, we are talking about the same thing.  

            You said you wanted the people on this site criticizing the President to "get a grip" on their criticisms.   Your original diary said that we shouldn't be quick to criticize once we receive news that the President has taken a position contrary to what we think is wise.   You suggested that such criticism was, in your words, ridiculous.  

            You thus are saying that we should refrain from criticism of the President, either permanently or until negotiations are further along.   This is yet another attempt to silence people who have learned, by bitter experience, that the only way to influence policy is to start fighting for a desired outcome from the start of the debate -- not halfway through.

    •  You ought to diary this comment. (6+ / 0-)

      It's exactly what happens.

      Calling out the President is the only thing that works. LGBT groups have the playbook on how to get Obama to move left. He is not of the Left, and has to be forced in that direction...very loudly.

      The rule is, "don't be a dick" - kos

      by cybrestrike on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 05:35:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Spot fucking on. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cthulhu, TealTerror, kurt, splintersawry

      The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

      by Orange County Liberal on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:26:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ok, thanks. (5+ / 0-)

    "They are an entire cruise ship of evil clowns, these current Republicans"...concernedamerican

    by Giles Goat Boy on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:08:21 PM PST

  •  Here we go again . . . (8+ / 0-)

    I remember these same kind of diary wars back in 2009 and 2010.

    The bottom line is that Obama's approval ratings were in Carter territory around the time of the debt-ceiling negotiations.

    When he made a pivot towards more progressive policies and focused on job creation his numbers started to tick up -- aided in part by the slow, but real economic recovery.

    At the end of the day though, we gave money, time and a vote to support a candidate in the expectation that he would fight for social security, Medicare, etc.   To the extent that he does that, fine.

    If he doesn't, however, it will result in a well-deserved backlash.

    The loyalty is to a set of policies and goals, not to a man.

  •  Let's Play Offense and suggest a change to SS (13+ / 0-)

    The change is: Remove the cap on taxed earnings. Last year it was 108K, I think. And apply FICA to capital gains, too.

    /Start rant
    I'm not that far over the bar, but I can damn well guarantee you I would not have  even FELT the extra FICA deductions. Anybody making what I do or more who can't spare it is either a world-class fool with their money or a stingy a**hole that doesn't appreciate a country that's been better to them than they deserve.

    /end rant

  •  Good diary. Sorely needed. (5+ / 0-)

    As I can see from the comments, some of us have very lofty principles and seem to be proud of having them. I think Al Giordano's advice may be useful here.

    I don't believe in activism.

    I think activism, as it is generally practiced in the United States, is more often than not a cop out and an excuse by some to avoid doing the heavy lifting of organizing.

    What is the difference, you might ask, between activism and organizing?

    To me, it's this:

    Activism is the practice of preaching to the choir, rallying the already converted, and trying to convince other "activists" to do your work for you (say, call your Congressman, or write your Senator for or against a piece of legislation). Activists like to make declaratory "statements," hold "meetings," invite other activists (usually fairly hegemonic of the same socio-economic demographics as them), engage in group "process," make "decisions," veto (or attempt to do so) others from taking initiative outside of the groupthink that too often happens in activist projects, declare "party lines," enforce them, and claim that one is part of a "movement" even when there is no evidence that one really is.

    Activism seeks media attention through protests and other means, errantly thinking it will draw others to its cause by doing so. This dominant tendency in "activism" becomes a circular, self-reinforcing, self-marginalizing, chest-thumping, bureaucratic and anally-retentive activity and a big waste of time with little impact on the issues or policies it seeks to change or defend.

    Organizing is something completely different: It is based on attainable and quantifiable goals (be they small, as in, "put a stop sign in the neighborhood," or be they large, as occurred last year: elect an underdog as president of the United States). Here's a simple yardstick by which to measure: If it doesn't involve knocking on doors, making phone calls or otherwise proactively communicating with people demographically different than you, it's not organizing. If it doesn't involve face-to-face building of relationships, teams, chains of command, and, day-by-day, clear goals to measure its progress and effectiveness, it's not organizing. If it happens only on the Internet, that's not organizing either.

    He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

    by Sophie Amrain on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:12:43 PM PST

    •  Thank you for this. (0+ / 0-)

      "If it doesn't involve face-to-face building of relationships, teams, chains of command, and, day-by-day, clear goals to measure its progress and effectiveness, it's not organizing."

      This makes a lot of sense. I am making a mental note to refer back to your comment as needed.  

  •  Um, it's a crowded site. (6+ / 0-)

    On any given topic, you'll see hyperventilating.  You'll see criticims of hyperventilating.  You'll see dogged loyalty.  You'll see complete disinterest as indicated by skipping the whole discussion and participating in some OTHER discussion.

    There's a rather strong "selection effect" that biases these observations.  People go to the very diaries that interest them -- fancy that!  Diaries about betrayal tend to attract people worried about betrayal.  Diaries about action items tend to attract people looking for action items.  And so on.

    Collectively, we kossacks are a little smarter than the average mob -- but only a little.  There are a LOT of people here, and as such we are still subject to all the irrational things that generally govern the behavior of crowds.  Don't expect every person in a giant crowd to show good sense on every given topic -- but DO expect to notice the behaviors that bug you more than the ones that don't.

    In short, have some perspective.  The magnitude of this problem is likely much smaller than you think it.

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

    by lgmcp on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:20:28 PM PST

    •  Yes, I see that most kossacks are smarter then me. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp

      I did notice the many different reactions to diaries, and I will take that under consideration the next time I react with my emotions.

      •  You are willing to look at yourself and adjust (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp

        that is "smart" is my definition of the word. Many people here react with their emotions.  This site can be a good outlet for that.  And from there, in the back and forth conversation that follows, more truth can be seen.  My main interest on this site is the discussions about organizing for 2014. And how we treat each other here relates to our success in on the ground efforts.  Both have to do with learning to communicate with respect and with an honoring of diversity.

  •  Just libs being libs… (0+ / 0-)

    Righties will follow their man over a cliff, then eat him. Libs prefer their meat uncooked; why wait for the sky to actually fall. But there are always, at least among the libs, a number of calmer, more rational minds.

    I voted for the UPPITY ONE

    by qua on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:23:10 PM PST

    •  It's not all libs, it is merely a portion. (0+ / 0-)

      We have all types in our tent, including some pretty extreme lefties. Staunch critics of the president are a tiny minority.

    •  Thank you for implying (0+ / 0-)

      That I am not calm or rational. It made me take your comment seriously and will surely be the cause of much fruitful discussion.

      "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

      by TealTerror on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:10:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's our job. (10+ / 0-)

    Obama said it's up to us. So we advocate loudly for what we want, just like the Centrists advocate for their cuts.  

    Problem is, they're sitting at the table. All we have to go on is leaks and trial balloons.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:24:30 PM PST

  •  People aren't going to shut up this time... (7+ / 0-)

    ...nor are they going to be cowed into shutting up. so you ought to learn to live with it. The president cannot be unelected, he'll be fine.  Maybe 2010 won't happen again if the base isn't dejected like in 2010.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:24:47 PM PST

    •  I wasn't asking people to shut up. (0+ / 0-)

      I was asking people to accept the fact that we more than likely won't get 100% of what we want from any President we elect.  It seems that some are not prepared to get 90% or even 80%, they seem to want 100% or else.

      •  Of course we won't get 100% (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TealTerror, kurt

        and most of us know that very, very well.  It's just the example you used is one issue (cutting SS, medicare and medicaid) that, for many of us, is pretty much non-negotiable. They want to roll back the New Deal, and that is not except able. Period.  We won't get anything close to 80 or 90% of what we want, and we know that.  So POTUS shouldn't go into negotiations sending signals that he is willing to throw the New Deal under the bus (even if he is willing to, which he shouldn't be, you don't telegraph that before negotiating). You don't see the right (with a couple of rare, bizarre exceptions since the election) running around saying they are open to letting the Bush tax cuts expire while continuing the cuts for everyone else. Hell no! They aren't stating that they are willing to compromise (because they are not). They aren't saying that they are open to raising or eliminating the cap on Social Security wages that are taxed. That is because they really don't give a flying fuck about solving problems. They just want to shred the safety net and stay ideologically pure. The whole "fiscal cliff" is 100% contrived and created from whole cloth.

        Again, your overall point has some validity, but you chose a very, very bad example to make your point.  Don't stop sharing because of some harsh comments.

  •  Is anyone beside me wondering where the hell (3+ / 0-)

    the diarist is?  No comments, no discussion, no rebuttals.  No diaries in four years until now.  No comments either.  Diarist must really be feeling strongly, /snark

    Andy's two-timin' tail run off wiff mah sig line!

    by nannyboz on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:25:18 PM PST

  •  The situation in 2010 isn't the situation in 2012 (4+ / 0-)

    Obama was actually over a barrel with the debt ceiling issue.

    Whereas in 2012, he can just let the bush tax cuts and sequestration happen.

    Not to mention the not inconsiderable facts that Occupy changed the national conversation and that he won an election on a platform of raising taxes on the rich.

    The GOP had their chance to win really, really big with their hostage taking.  But they were too freaking crazy to go for it.

    They'll not see that chance again.

    So yeah, like the diary says, chill out until some 2012 evidence of bad behavior appears.  I'm really tired of people freaking out about what almost happened in the summer of 2010.  It didn't happen.  It isn't likely to happen again.  And I can't see it getting through the Senate even if he does cut some kind of boneheaded deal.

  •  A diary about loyalty (3+ / 0-)

    without even addressing the issue raised?

    And you complain about "you guys."

    "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

    by Publius2008 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:41:41 PM PST

  •  It's just the internet... (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone is up in arms about everything on-line (now including you, apparently... in a meta sort-of way) Best to read all this stuff with that in mind.

    Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

    by walk2live on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:46:52 PM PST

  •  Please don't yell at us (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon

    in diary titles.

    Thanks.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 05:01:02 PM PST

  •  You know how Romney knew he'd win the election? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Williston Barrett, kurt

    You know how some democrats know Obama won't make a bargain away the New Deal?

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 05:03:11 PM PST

    •  I was just hoping we could at least (0+ / 0-)

      get through the first round of talks before everyone started speculating about what he will or won't do.

      •  The stakes are too big for that. Do not (7+ / 0-)

        underestimate the assault on SS and Medicare and the extent to which both parties are influenced by Wall Street money and power.

        •  I'm not naive. I'm a 47 year old wife (0+ / 0-)

          and mother of three.  I just thought it was premature.  If after the first round of talks, we see the President not going out way, then yes, he would deserve the negative comments, but until then, its pure speculation.

          •  "our way" is what I meant to say (0+ / 0-)
            •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

              Dead fucking wrong!  If we don't pressure him immediately he will give away the farm. Have you paid attention to how Dems negotiate over the last few decades? It is just plain stupid to think we can just relax and everything will turn out alright.  It won't.  We have to fight for every inch we get.  If they roll back the New Deal, it will be much harder to  get it back (impossible more likely) than it will be to protect it now.  We have to pressure now.  To not do so is way beyond naive.

              •  What do you see as the best way to keep (0+ / 0-)

                the pressure on?  How can we be best heard by those we want to influence?

                •  All of the above (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BruceCA

                  communications with White House and Congress expressing our strong opinions on the subject. Demonstrations if we need to (and we likely will), pushing our message in whatever major media we can get into (MSNBC opinion shows like Rachel). But we don't just sit back and trust that the prez and congressional dems will do the right thing.  As stated, that would be stupid. Because they won't. We know that. Just like Nate Silver knew Dick Morris was wrong.

                  I haven't been a very engaged organizer or activist in some time. I'm sure others can expand on the very basic outline I have described.

                  •  So if we were to come up with a single message (0+ / 0-)

                    on this subject what would it be?  My new congressman will  be going to DC for the first time.   What message shall I ask him to take to Obama?  I already have some ideas about this and I am also interested in what some of you would suggest I say. I want to say "No Compromise" and want to know the best way to context that.

                    •  quick answer before bed (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BruceCA

                      the message, generally includes these main elements:
                      1. We elected you to protect New Deal programs and later similar ones such as SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. We expect you to do that,
                      2. The wealthy need to pay more. At a minimum Bush era tax cuts must go back to Clinton era rates for the wealthy (they can bicker over the cut off income line).
                      3. If wingnut congres-critters won't agree, let them expire at the new year as they are scheduled to.  Middle class tax cuts would expire too, but those are relatively insignificant.
                      4. After expiration of Bush tax cuts, Senate can pass middle class tax cuts and the House will either go along or be blamed for punishing us regular folk.
                      5. The so-called "fiscal cliff" is 100% contrived and created out of whole cloth by the wingnuts. They can take the blame for budget cuts they don't like if they won't play ball.  And they will, eventually.

                      For once we have the ace in the hole with the Bush tax cuts set to expire.  We can, and must, set the terms of the debate.

                      I invite anyone else to add to or otherwise refine this.  I like the idea of a unified message. That is something the wingnuts are good at, partly because they have their own tv network. But we can still get on the same page and on message without a tv network.

                      •  Some key messaging themes. (0+ / 0-)

                        Thank you for your thoughts. First, perhaps it is time for us to move forward towards having our own TV network?  I do not know what this would take, but wow would it make a big difference!

                        What seems to often get left out in all the noise that happens around these issues is the basic human value of fairness. Our message could be centered around:  "This is the fair thing to do!"  Seniors who depend on social security, for example, are real people with real needs. They are our parents, our grandparents, our aunts and uncles.  Do we want these folks who have given us so much over the years to have to worry about money and basic survival?  We need, I suggest, to keep a really human face on this.

                        There is also the human value of integrity.  The commitment to social security, again as an example, is a clear agreement that was made. Are we a nation that keeps its agreements?

                        In the expression of these and other deep core values, not relevant and sensationalist concepts like "fiscal cliff" or "class warfare" can be moved aside.  

                        We must, as you suggest, have a way to frame this whole debate on our terms rather than theirs.  This takes work, time, dedication, and listening to each other.

              •  "Dead fucking wrong!" Maybe, but calling me (0+ / 0-)

                stupid and naive is not productive.  Never did I say just sit back and relax and hope that the President does what we want.  Making our voices heard in a more supportive way seems reasonable to me.

        •  yes! keeping our eyes wide open at all times! (0+ / 0-)
      •  that would be stupid (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Dead Man, TealTerror, kurt

        why in the world would we trust him on the most important issues to us when he is already on record stating that he is willing to degrade the programs we cherish most?  I thought you said you read the comments?  Don't be stupid. He has told us that we have to pressure him (and other Dems) to get positive results.  He wasn't fucking around when he said that, he meant it.  We don't have time to waste.  

  •  We all need to stay engaged for the 2014 midterms (0+ / 0-)

    no matter what.  Look, there are going to be some things in the so-called "grand bargain" that we're not going to like.  But let's not forget what would have happened if Romney had gotten in.  He would have taken a hatchet to Medicaid and other programs (not to mention Big Bird!).  

  •  Isn't that what Right Wing Republicans do? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TealTerror, kurt

    I do not agree with everything that the president has done.

    I voted for him, and I will hold him accountable for Drone strikes, TPP & NDAA.

    I do not walk in lockstep with anybody.

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

    by resa on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:41:31 PM PST

  •  Thx for sharing your thoughts author (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WakeUpNeo, BruceCA

    I applaud your bravery smile
    This can be a very tough crowd here.
    Keep your chin up, your armour on while posting and be true to yourself.
    It's big tent and everyone isn't always going to agree. And some relish in that disagreement it seems at times, just like everywhere on the net.
    I'm glad to see you post your first diary.
    Welcome to the discussion smile

  •  cutting important senior support is a big deal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    this is not the same as heads exploding over craptastic conspiracies.  I think there's a difference between legitimate fears about our future and agreements that actualize those fears vs imaginative, speculative masterful nutcase ideas.  I don't care if nutters get to enjoy my version of a panic. I will still freak if the emphasis of our vote is ignored. not negotiable.

Click here for the mobile view of the site