Skip to main content

I have a question that has been bothering me.  I haven't been able to find the answer.

Can anyone name a President other than President Barack Obama that has intentionally sparked a fight with his own electoral base within the first hundred days of a term?

 I have not been able to figure out another example, especially in recent history, but I am not a historian.

Does anyone have any ideas?  I am struggling to understand the political advantage gained from depressing your base and going strongly against polling during the first hundred days.   I will be interested in polling over the next two weeks.

It seems just odd.  I would like any supporter of the WH political strategy on the budget to provide a basis on which I should trust the WH on the politics of deficit reduction after watching the strategy executed on the sequester from the point suggesting it all the way to its recent implementation.  They were wrong at almost every step.  People to his left have generally been correct.

Please explain why this time is different.

I look forward to understanding what political strategy is being pursued here, and if there is any precedent.

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

  •  Re elected. (0+ / 0-)

    wtf

  •  obama seems to have a secret (13+ / 0-)

    political calculus which has to do with his personal motivations of which we know little to nothing.

    in my opinion, DC is now completely shut down.  the sequester doesn't get a mention and we are drifting towards the edge of a precipice.

    •  Yes, his secret political calculus is to assure (8+ / 1-)

      his daughters inheritance.  

      He will make more money after he leaves office than any  President ever dreamed of.  Pete Peterson and his sociopath friends will pay him plenty. In fact I'm guessing his very first paid speech, after office, will be for a Peterson group and that load of pig extrement Ed Rendell will introduce him. In fact, that syphilitic gnome, Rendell was on MSNBC multiple times yesterday declaring what a "bold" move it was.

      Kos needs to do an April Showers Tournament of turncoat Dems. He could include Baucus, Rendell, Schummer, Landreau, Cuomo etc.

      "I freed a thousand slaves, I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves" Harriet Tubman

      by BrianParker14 on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:22:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  HR abuse (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, dfarrah, chadwick G, Smoh, Mr Robert

        If you don't agree with a comment, say so, or just ignore it. HRs are for truly offensive comments sure to offend all, which this is not.

        Recommended by:    lostinamerica, blueoasis, scarysota63, 3goldens
        Hidden by:    BvueDem
        None of us can know for sure what Obama's reasons are or his intentions post-presidency, but at this point it's more than plausible that he's just looking out for himself and his family and rich friends in his policy decisions.

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

        by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:36:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pretty fucking offensive, (0+ / 0-)

          but I'll follow your lead on this one.

          Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

          by Smoh on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:38:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

          the post contains some pretty scummy CT.

          •  Like what? (4+ / 0-)

            That recent presidents have cashed in on their office and abused their power to do favors for rich donors and future benefactors? Or that many former pols end up working as lobbyists, exploiting their connections and putting to question their intentions when they were in office for self-gain?

            Seriously, WHAT CT?

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

            by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 11:17:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The person who HR'd my description of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, Susan from 29

          Ed Rendell, (who is absolutely on Pete Peterson's payroll of fix the debt and is clearly for cutting social security and medicare and many other programs for the poor and needy and is on MSNBC regularly spouting his anti-old, anti-poor crap, while extolling his Democratic bonafides)

          recently wrote these words in a post:

          "That's in part why freaks like Palin, Glen Beck, Bachman, and Coulter are popular, why extreme rhetoric sells, why blondes in short skirts replaced Cronkite, etc. "

          Now I absolutely agree w/those comments (however that "blondes" comment could be HR'd) but I don't see any difference between my comment about Rendell and his unconscionable sycophant actions and what BvueDem wrote in their "freaks" comment. Perhaps I was a little more verbally illustrative. But HRing someone for calling Ed Rendell names is a bit oversensitive unless perhaps they're related (easy now....that's a joke).

          "I freed a thousand slaves, I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves" Harriet Tubman

          by BrianParker14 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 02:18:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're probably being HRed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Susan from 29

            for your insufficient deference to Obama.  There's a lot of that going around these parts.

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The "blondes in short skirts" line (0+ / 0-)

            has been around since the 90's, and is hardly HRable IMO since it's true--Fox and the right absolutely use sex to sell their brand of politics, so much so that they defended Obama's unfortunate comment about Kamala Harris' looks the other day. As for calling Rendell mean things, I've called some Dems and many Repubs worse. And Obama is definitely acting poorly here.

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

            by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 04:50:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Lincoln's first election (9+ / 0-)

    His base, the abolitionists, were bitterly disappointed that he was not, in fact, a strong abolitionist.  His position evolved, of course, and he signed the Emancipation Proclamation when it was the right time, politically, to do so.

    Even then, his base was pissed.  The E.P. only freed the enslaved people in states that were engaged in rebellion.

    "...hope is not the equivalent of optimism. Its opposite is not pessimism but despair. So I'm always hopeful." William Sloane Coffin

    by mxwing on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:22:57 PM PDT

    •  Lincoln never ran as an abolitionist in the 1860 (10+ / 0-)

      election.

    •  I am not sure that is exactly what I mean. (4+ / 0-)

      He didn't  propose anything that went against abolitionist ideology.  He didn't do anything blatantly out of step.  

      That is what is so anti historical.  Maybe all Presidents should do it.  Maybe he is ahead of the curve.  But I see it as a very odd, and likely poor political strategy.

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:06:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  100 days in... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limpidglass, JesseCW, ChuckInReno

      Lincoln was trying to save the country and he rejected compromises on the extension of slavery that some thought might have offered an opportunity to prevent or postpone secession, despite pressure from his own party to do so.

      In this, he certainly did not turn his back on his base.

      I don't think any President has ever turned his back on the primary concerns of those who elected him in anything approaching the degree to which the President does with his budget plan.

      To no small degree W wrecked his presidency on the shoals of an ill-advised plan to alter Social Security.  Why on earth does a Democratic President choose to do the dirty work of the GOP for them?

      "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

      by Notthemayor on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 11:30:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not the GOP, but the rich elite (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glitterscale

        who own substantial parts of both parties. And he's doing it because that was the condition of their backing him. If he goes back on that, he's going to have a tough post-presidency, more like Carter's than Clinton's.

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

        by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:40:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Lincoln's base was not abolitionists (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emelyn

      People should learn more about the abolitionists.  They worked in obscurity for decades and were generally hated in both the North and South.

      I can't explain Obama except to say that he never has been in line with his base.  He was just the best choice we could make at the time.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:30:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those Abolitionists ravaged him in the press (0+ / 0-)

      In fact, there is almost no change he would have been reelected, even with the just North voting, if he hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

      He didn't sign it until long after it would have been wise to do so.  That he finally fucking got that he had to do it or else face losing the war and being exiled from his native country doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a damned good idea to do it two years earlier.

      He wasn't some wise man who did the right thing at the right time because he'd known better than Douglass or the Langstons all along.  He was a coward and a fool who was forced by circumstance to finally listen to men who were in every way his superiors.

      He  had to be forced to do the right thing.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:02:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  LBJ ramped up the war in Viet Nam (4+ / 0-)

    (after the 64 election), but that was gradual and, at the time, ant-war sentiment hadn't really crystallized the way it would a few short years later. And George Bush compromised on taxes, but, again, I don't think that was within a hundred days of his election. That's all I can think of recently.

    I believe that in every country the people themselves are more peaceably and liberally inclined than their governments. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by Blue Knight on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:50:55 PM PDT

  •  Ummm .. W.H. Harrison pissed off his base by dying (18+ / 0-)

    and leaving a Vice-President from the other party in office.

    That was pretty radical, doncha think?

    Too late for the simple life, too early for android love slaves - Savio

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:52:00 PM PDT

    •  HA!! Totally contradictory to his platform!! (10+ / 0-)

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:08:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ironically, Obama is a lot like Tyler (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah, Mr Robert

      Tyler was actually a Whig, like Harrison, but a pro-slavery Whig, it turned out, who had his own agenda and refused to do what the party and base wanted. He became an outcast in his party and wasn't even considered for reelection and ended up joining the Confederacy shortly before he died. It was people like him who caused the collapse of the Whig party over slavery.

      I think that Obama could end up splitting the Democratic party over economic and perhaps even foreign and military policy and give the GOP an opening to regain its dominance. It almost feels like he WANTS this to happen with his behavior, which whatever its policy merits or lack thereof, is incredibly stupid and reckless politically. Sometimes I think that he's still pissed off at the party for rejecting him in 2000 (when Bobby Rush humiliated him and he wasn't even allowed into the DNC convention) and has this passive-aggressive urge to get back at it in retaliation. My god, the narcissism, it's epic with this one.

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

      by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:51:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What happened in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo

        2000?  Will you provide more details?

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:24:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good god (0+ / 0-)

          This is common knowledge and easily googleable. Obama ran a pointless vanity campaign in 2000 against the very popular former Black Panther Bobby Rush in Chicago for the house, and lost huge. He was also denied entry to the 2000 DNC convention. Word is that he was obsessed over his loss years after it. He took on the system and was crushed by it, so he decided to join it.

          And boy has he.

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

          by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:31:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, and sorry (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChuckInReno

            for inconveniencing you.  

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:39:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well, Rush's assessment of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kovie, corvo

            BO sure seems spot on:

            Bobby Rush
            In the 2000 Democratic primary for the Illinois' 1st congressional district, Rush was challenged by then-State Senator, Barack Obama.[12] During the primary, Rush said, "Barack Obama went to Harvard and became an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all about it."[13] Rush claimed that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns.[14] For his part, Obama said Rush was a part of "a politics that is rooted in the past" and said he himself could build bridges with whites to get things done. But while Obama did well in his own Hyde Park base, he didn't get enough support from the surrounding black neighborhoods.[15] Starting with just 10% name recognition, Obama went on to get only 30% of the vote, losing by a more than 2-to-1 margin despite winning among white voters; and Rush winning 61% overall.[16][17][18][19][20] Rush went on to win the general election with 88% of the vote.[21]

            Rush has consistently won with high margins, winning above 80% in every election, with the exception being his first bid for re-election in 1994 and in 2012 after redistricting, with him still winning above 70% of the vote.

            I always thot BO was a stuffed shirt but didn't know this history.  And he sure learned fast enough who to suck up to.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:48:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If it hasn't been done already (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mr Robert

              I think that someone will eventually give a name or label to the phenomenon that Obama appears to be a prime example of. Namely, when an otherwise intelligent and well-educated person spends too much time inside their own head and in the sheltered worlds of academia and the intelligentsia, and too little out in the real world learning how things really work.

              Not that there isn't value in analyzing things from a detached theoretical perspective. It's just that when it comes to actually getting good things done, it's not enough. You need to get your hands dirty and understand the complexities of the real world to be able to effect meaningful change, and theory only gets you so far.

              I think that Obama still lives in that theoretical world, where reality is defined not by actual reality, but by what one says it is or wants it to be. So long as one isn't forced to step outside this protective bubble--and as president he will never be--one can continue to indulge in the illusion that your view of reality is an accurate one, and act accordingly.

              You'd think that Obama, being very intelligent and having more than a little real-world experience, both growing up and as a community organizer, would know better. And I suspect that deep down he does. But it's so much easier and more comforting to indulge in the illusion, which is a lot neater and less messy than reality. Plus, obviously, more lucrative.

              In the end I think that Obama is one part ivory tower elitist, one part bait and switch huckster, one part well-meaning idealist. He's not just a common con artist like Bush or Reagan. On some level I think he really does want to do good. It's just that he's unwilling to go about it properly, which would mean adapting his conceptual view of the world to its reality, taking some personal risks, getting his hands dirty, standing up to entrenched powers, and giving up his golden boy vanity project. Who knows, with nearly 4 years left in office, he might have an epiphany and do that. But I doubt it, as it would endanger his cushy post-presidency, which I've no doubt he looks forward to.

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

              by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:08:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  "BO" . . . which reminds me of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dfarrah

              a little comparison:

              (1) the guy quoted in my sig file, who adopts street dogs (and wrote a book about one of them); and

              (2) the guy who promises during his campaign to adopt a shelter dog, then turns around and gets a purebred from Ted Kennedy's breeder . . . and names it after himself.

              Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

              by corvo on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:25:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Here's a link to a NY Times article (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo

          The only trouble with retirement is...I never get a day off!

          by Mr Robert on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:11:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well, I doubt there is a strategy going on at all. (27+ / 0-)

    This is just pure "we know better" ism on the part of our economic and political elites.

    He seems rather bored. I don't think he cares one way or the other.

    Has Obama really made it his business to distinguish himself on budget issues prior to becoming president? No. The staff is handling the budget and they are all Washington establishment people. Naturally they all think that whatever they hear at their kids soccer practice at "I'm an elite fuck obsessing over my children academy for children of elite fucks" is gospel.

    His main thing that propelled him into office was ending the Iraq War. Well, that task is complete. He did the healthcare thing. We're hoping it works out but the underlings are handling the implementation of that. He's largely paid his debt to the LGBT community. He's gonna try and pay his debt to Latino voters. He hasn't really done jack shit for black people, but that's normal for Democrats. And he's appointed a lot of women to high office, so check that box.

    Nothing for him to do really except try and win back the House. I'm damn sure he doesn't truly give a shit about that because he's never cared about any election beyond his own.  But he'll do some stuff. Why the fuck not? Nothing better to do.

    Unless there is a war, these next four years are going to be mostly uneventful. He's pretty much spent as a political force.

    Boy...Martin O'Malley is busy in Maryland though. He's the best political executive in the country far as I'm concerned. I'd rank Dan Malloy a close second and then Jerry Brown.

    •  Depressing (8+ / 0-)

      and probably accurate.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:53:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What is O'Malley's national appeal? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude

      I'm from MD too, so I'm curious what you think.

      My biggest worry about the next time round in 2016* is that Hillary will come sailing in all inevitable again, which would be disastrous.

      The bad guys will not be messing about this time, they will have some young, rock star who looks and sounds reasonable.  Remember Paul Ryan is "very serious" and Marco Rubio speaks Spanish. WE cannot afford to cede ideas to them.

      Whoever we nominate, O'Malley, Clinton, Biden, it needs to be someone that can put the beat down on right-wing nonsense and that is on the cutting edge of GTOV operations (I understand Clinton is not even on Twitter?)

      *yes I know about 2014, but for me that election is more about holding the line/minimizing losses)

    •  Yeah, he's disintereted (8+ / 0-)

      People who spend years working 80 hours weeks undergoing the hardest job interview on Earth just ignore the levers of power once they have obtained them.

      Barack Obama told you all what his goal is: to have a transformational effect on the arc of American history in much the same manner as Ronald Reagan had.

      In this he might succeed or he might fail. But the mind-reading efforts constantly put forth here - that he is bored, or that he lusts to destroy the safety net, or that he's a secret Republican in disguise, are just laughable.

      •  He's definitely going to leave a mark. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scarysota63, Mr Robert

        But I think his impact is going to be far more in the foreign policy arena than in domestic policy. Except for LGBT. If there's anything he should get a lot of credit for, its that. But everything else will be viewed through the lens of the economy. Fact is, if you don't leave with the economy booming, you're going to have rely on the historians. Under Obama we've gotten poorer, growth has been mediocre at best, incomes are flat, and inequality is at an all time high.

        The only reason Reagan got to be Reagan was because it "worked." If Obama gets to be Obama it will be because it "worked." Well, if by worked we mean ended the Iraq war and all manner of expensive foreign military adventures. Then yes. If we mean fixed the economy, then no.

        Then again, we may get some robust growth out of nowhere and he will be vindicated. Otherwise, I can pretty much guarantee by 2015 Americans of all stripes (except the die hards) will be plenty ready for him to go home.

        •  And he will only have himself to blame (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, Mr Robert, corvo

          he had 2 opportunities to be decisive Jan 2009, Dec 2012.

          He played small ball each time.   History will judge if this was the correct course of action.

          The other odd thing to me is he is taking the same political approach he took in Dec 2010 after hiring miserably.  Now, he is doing the same with McDonough.  And expecting different results. He is being led on by Republicans, thinking he can persuade folks that have no incentive to be persuaded, with a plan that if he somehow does convince them is bad policy and bad politics.

          I know I am not in the WH, and sound like a DFH, but I am really actually what used to be construed as moderate and sensible (still is outside of Washington).  But I see nothing about this current strategy that makes any sense.  All I see is the President capitulating to putting his plan on paper, as Republicans have begged and cajoled him into doing for 2 years. Have any of the strategies supporters ever stopped to think why Republicans were so insistent on that demand?

          "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

          by justmy2 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:50:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm already ready (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dfarrah, Mr Robert

          Barring some major unexpected turnaround by him in political approach or some huge unforeseen development that he handles well, I think he's just going to be running out the clock from here on. In fact he has been for the most part since late 2010. His presidency, as a transformative force, be it for good or bad, was effectively over once HCR & FinReg were passed. I don't think he had the stomach for more than 18-22 months of hard pushing. Since then he's just been coasting. Arguably, all along, really. I think he expended most of his "fierce urgency" during the 2008 campaign, and being president was almost an afterthought, like giving the speech after receiving a Nobel.

          Well, for some people, at least, others viewing the speech and doing the things that earned you the prize and using the credibility it grants you to do good as the real point, the prize itself being the afterthought.

          Of course he wouldn't know anything about that.

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

          by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:22:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why should he get a lot of credit for changing (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dfarrah, Mr Robert, corvo

          his bigoted positions on fundamental human rights only when it became clearly necessary for him to do so in order to get re-elected?

          90% of politicians in his positions would have done the same thing if they needed gay money and gay volunteers to avoid becoming a one term President.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:08:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He's already (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo

          left a big, ugly mark.

          2010 - and the subsequent redistricting.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:27:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama's made us poorer, but Reaganomics "worked" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emelyn, askew

          Wow, do you have a bass-ackwards reading of history.

          LGBT? That's it for PBO's legacy in your mind?

          First movement in over 50 years towards public health? Never happened.  First effort since 1980 to bust the Reaganomics taboo of raising taxes on the wealthy? Never happened.

          OK, whatever. It's a waste of time arguing uphill on DKos these days.

      •  He will go down as the Great Tweaker (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dfarrah, Mr Robert

        Lots of small to medium improvements, maybe one or two big ones, but with the big issues of the day left unchanged and unfixed, like the insidious power of the expanding national security state and military empire, a massively and dangerously overfinancialized economy in which productivity gains are often illusory and in any case don't benefit most workers, the growing dominance of money over politics, a resurgence of extreme conservatism at the state and local level, a two-tiered justice system based on one's income and race, huge infrastructure deficiencies that leave us woefully unprepared for the future as our biggest economic rivals invest heavily in theirs, failing schools, etc.

        And yet it's unfair, in fact silly, of us to speculate on his motivations. Because this is all about him, not us, and what right do we have to judge him?

        Uhuh.

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

        by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:15:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Welcome to the party 30 years tardy (0+ / 0-)

          You are blaming PBO for the effects of Reaganomics. Yet PBO is the first President since 1980 to attack the definitive feeature of Reaganomics: the taboo of raising taxes esp on the wealthy.

          But yeah, Joe Sixpack in 2018 is gonna share a beer with is neighbor, and they are going to commiserate over the expanding national security state empire because, drones.

          Bro, you might be hanging out with your friends saying that, but you're found towards the fringe political thought in America not the mainstream. It's a fantasy to think the bulk of American's care about these issues the same way you do.

    •  Dan Malloy looks good from a distance but... (9+ / 0-)

      up close he is a big corporate whore. Investigate his love of Charter Schools and their corporate owners and other educational issues along with his effort to screw retired teachers with healthcare costs and you might change your mine.

      Plato's " The Cave" taught me to question reality.

      by CTDemoFarmer on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:11:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  wow this rings true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, Mr Robert
      He seems rather bored. I don't think he cares one way or the other.
      he had a vision of a presidency that couldn't happen because of 2008.

      since, i strongly suspect, everything is about him (note his lack of help to  D candidates), if his story can't go as he wishes, he gets frustrated and bored and because frustration is not acceptable in his personality structure, he is left with the boredom.

      very good catch.  we was hoping for Kennedy glitter.  not a chance in depression we are calling a recession

    •  Spot on (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah, Mr Robert

      Obama is a vain and selfish narcissist who lives for the limelight and acts like he's god's gift to us silly little people, a strutting peacock who says a lot of impressive shit but doesn't actually DO the things he says he'll do, and almost seems to enjoy the bait and switch. He seems to find most issues to be mundane and boring and quite beneath him, and once elected acted like he really didn't want the job and instead proceeded to make a speech a day about stuff no one remembers because it wasn't about anything real.

      Yes, he has done a bunch of stuff, some bad, some good, some small, some big. But damn, given the magnitude of the problems we face today and the great promise with which he was elected, it's as if he painted the upstairs bedroom while the building was on fire. Why? Because that's what he felt like doing, so stop asking annoying questions! Just don't forget that $5 donation...

      He just doesn't care. Not about the real issues. That's dirty your hands stuff and Michelle's got that covered with her cute organic garden. What he does care about is being and staying in the good graces of the rich and powerful elite who own the country and the well-paid sycophants who shill for them, who are his new and future BFFs and will make it possible for him to start that foundation and initiative post-presidency and become hugely rich.

      I made a comparison to John Tyler above and I think it's apt. A rich and selfish buffoon who gave a rat's ass about his party or its policies and ended up causing it major political harm through his indifference and maverick behavior, who once he left office became the very model of post-presidential obscurity.

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

      by kovie on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:04:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Jerry Brown is a moderate Republican by (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, Mr Robert, Ruinenlust

      California standards, and he's still riding on a 30 year old legacy while doing all he can to prevent the modern Democratic Party from making any use at all of a pair of super-majorities.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:06:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not sure (4+ / 0-)

    but truth be told, I don't think the first 100 days of the second term is really something that resonates, at least not with me.

    As far as unpopular with the base in the 2nd term...the Shrub tried to do immigration reform, and was rebuffed by the republicans.

    To be clear, I think the whole chained CPI thing is seriously stupid and Obama fucked up on it.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:48:11 PM PDT

  •  Pretty sure he made it clear that he would (17+ / 0-)

    not go after the Bush administration for War Crimes the first time (2009).

    Also, he actually attacked his base before the election by hiring Rahm and Geithner in 2008, which we knew spelled betrayal and disaster, and we were absolutely right.

    What's the point of letting neoliberals into the tent when neoliberalism is burning down the campground?

    by Words In Action on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:03:01 PM PDT

  •  You speak for entire electoral base? (8+ / 0-)

    Fear is the Mind Killer...

    by boophus on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:38:36 PM PDT

  •  FDR Took a Lot of Heat From Labor and Liberals (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dadoodaman, vcmvo2, lazybum

    for not doing enough stimulus, but I'm not aware of what the timing for that was. He started with banking and economic regulation, wiki says he opposed paying the promised retirement bonus early for WW1 troops.

    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 Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:58:32 PM PDT

    •  There's a gap between failing to do enough, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah

      and actively attacking policies you were elected to protect.

      The closest to this in recent history was "Read my lips....no new taxes".

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:12:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He's been at war with his base since his first (5+ / 0-)

    election.  Too many were still enthralled with the shiny to notice -- though it seems more are now opening their eyes.

    Obama: self-described moderate Republican

    by The Dead Man on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 05:48:14 PM PDT

  •  DKos is not Obama's "base". n/t (8+ / 0-)

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 05:50:26 PM PDT

    •  Correct. (5+ / 0-)

      For the most part, Daily Kos is composed of real Democrats, committed to protecting and expanding upon the achievements of the New Deal and the Great Society.

      Most definitely, DKos is not Obama's base.

      A Hillary run in 2016 may or may not destroy the Democratic party. But Daily Kos? We're toast.

      by WisePiper on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:09:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Progressives (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, 3goldens

        probably make up around a third of Democrats.  How is that not a substantial part of his coalition?

        I know Obama and the Democrats act as if we're a third party, but we kind of aren't

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:38:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Is protecting Social Security a preference (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, JesseCW

      Of DKos or the Obama base?  I don't understand your point?  Or are you attempting to say that protecting SS is no longer a core base issue for the Obama 2012 electorate?  That sounds awfully strange?  

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:17:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All depends on who you think his base is (6+ / 0-)

    I'd think most polls of Dems would show wide approval.

    Fire Dog Lake... not so much.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:18:59 PM PDT

    •  DKos is not the base (7+ / 0-)

      But from the polls I have seen, the majority of democrats oppose chained CPI (that is, they oppose anything that reduces benfits, and chained CPI reduces benefits).  So, in this regard, Obama is going against his base on this one.

      I am generally a supporter of Obama, but I think he is fucking up on this one.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:47:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is no polling that I am aware of (8+ / 0-)

      That says cutting social security is approved by any demographic that could be called the Obama base.

      Not only that, Obama has said himself he knows this is something that is not supported by his base.  

      It amazes me that people would come on this site, and make an argument that literally contradicts the President under the auspices of supporting the President.   It is cognitive dissonance at its finest.

      Lets be clear.   My question is based on the Presidents own words.  Not some concocted rationale.  If you are asserting this diary is based on false facts, you are asserting the President himself is lying when he says this budget does things his base won't like.  

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:35:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, 3goldens

      His approvals are around the mid 70s, similar to Clinton, way higher than Carter.  The Democratic Party is pretty centrist, not a liberal party

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 10:37:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that is to say (4+ / 0-)

      that where 75% approve, 25% of Democrats do not.  I'm willing to guess a substantial fraction are progressives, while some progressives won't declare they disapprove, even if disgruntled.  Can you really say that that big a chunk of the membership of the party are NOT part of the base?  That's bizarre political logic.

      Put it another way, if progressives actually decided to stay home or vote for someone en masse (which they basically never have), Republicans would sweep everything.  I'd say an indispensable part of your electoral coalition has to be considered part of your base.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:40:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the 75% includes all the liberals and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emelyn, askew

        most of those who call themselves progressives. Left over to make the 25% are disgruntled conservadems and other angry reactionaries.

        That 25% is needed at the polls like any other Dem, and they seldom vote Republican though many many used to. But they can't be counted on, they are lazy and don't vote in the off years, they will buy the tea shirt but not phone bank. They whine and complain all the time.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:02:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course, there are no polls supporting the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, Mr Robert, 3goldens

          things you think, but right wingers who pose as Democrats never let that stop them.

          No matter what the evidence shows, the answer to every problem is for the Party to move right.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:14:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's where we differ, I believe moving left is (0+ / 0-)

            progress, if you truly are a right winger you should think about wether you support the Democratic party. This is a web site for Democrats.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 05:24:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Funny (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          Fire dog lake and Gleen Greenwald arent exact conservadems.   And many of the cricicisms from Delocrats are that Obama isnt liberal enough (see for example environmentalists and Occupy Wall Street).  But thanks for elaborating on your thought.  It clarifies what misperceptions people may be laboring under

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:37:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  He's not the first. You can go back as far as (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emelyn

    you want among Democratic presidents of the past century. I was discussing this with a friend tonight and we made a list of the presidents we personally remember who were dissed by their "base:" Clinton, Carter, JFK, and the historical record shows FDR as well.

    Maybe it's because the Democratic "base" is rather ... base.

    Marriage Equality Rocks! at my BoldlyLiberal Zazzle store for political peeps.

    by jan4insight on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 09:51:50 PM PDT

  •  He was a post triangulation president (0+ / 0-)

    Who came in when the base was livid post Bush.  His base was probably more radicalized and the reigning political philosophy was to move right.  I think it was just the circumstances.  I think Gore or Kerry or Clinton would have been similar I think

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 09:56:39 PM PDT

  •  One possibility. (0+ / 0-)

    The rich pay more taxes next year in return for a hit on seniors that only really matters years from now. At 53 I'm in the group it would likely hurt most.

    It's only a law and can be repealed. It may be that the definition of chained CPI can be changed by an executive action.

    •  "It's only a law and can be repealed." (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, pot

      It sets a terrible precedent and betrays anything resembling Democratic principles.

      That, and it's cut of the same wishful-thinking cloth as "We can do another stimulus package later" and "PPACA is only the beginning."

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 02:19:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats won't win the House in my lifetime? (0+ / 0-)
        •  Even if they do, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, JayRaye, pot

          what kind of Democrats?  And with what kind of leadership?

          Look at Senate Democrats -- few of them worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 04:13:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site