Well said.

sandy, I hear you with trying to maintain a democratic majority, but at any cost, by all means necessary in regards to the POTUS? You will have to convert me, dear. I am seriously going to way my options with Obama, wait a minute--I am not going Republican, though. But I need to rant really quick about why we need to vote for representatives who are going against our party, our principles, and our progressions. Obama makes note whenever he is speaking to let listeners know that he is rich. Win or lose, he is going to be OK!! I feel like we as true progressives are being short changed, yet we have to support him anyway. I kinda feel like a teabagger of the democratic party. Voting against my own self interests. I would definitely like to have some other democratic options coming into the 2012 race.

in addition: be honest, you knew when the debt ceiling debates first started, without a doubt Obama was putting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table?

What is Obama winning? What does brinkmanship on a false crisis gain us that true populist leadership spoken from the bully pulpit couldn't?

I don't know Sandy, all of the commentary that I have viewed leads me to believe that Obama was proposing some "modifications" to these programs in the tune of 3 trillion dollars. I hope you are right on the bluff. The Republicans are definitely seeming to not budge on their principles, stated by Boehner just yesterday in his "shocking" 3 year old walkout on the talks. Hold to your principles as well Mr. President.

Right on Sandy. Too many people don't understand that the ones that have actually lengthened their life expectation are the high earners, not the working folks. I would actually like to see a progressive retirement age, We can't expect those in heavy labor industies to not retire until 67 or 70 given that they are not living to collect at 65 for the most part.

I realize that the far left zealots think that miners and loggers, and heavy industry workers are evil and stupid but that is wrong, it is just not true. They are simply trying to provide for their families the only way available to them. They don't have the luxury of being able to be concerned with conservation etc. It makes me sad that I see these people called everything but children of god. Not a wonder they cling to their religion and vote TP, given that the intellectuals and higher educated liberals pretty regularly invite them to step off the planet.

I agree - this one step would mean all recipients would even be able to receive increased benefits, and recipients' penalty for earning additional income could be removed for all - equal all around, ensuring SS for centuries. All that money is usually put right back into the economy too - so win-win.

How long have the uberwealthy received this most unfair tax break?
Most people I know pay SS tax on 100% of their earnings - why do the wealthy get off paying SS tax on only, say, .0000000001%? On its face this tax law is directed disproportionately at shift-workers and W-2 earners - the disappearing middle class.

When Obama makes a note, when he is speaking, that he is rich, he refers that he should also pay more taxes. He has not always been rich. He did not grow up with a rich family. It took him a long time to pay his student loans. As a community organizer he drove an old car with a hole in the floor board. His money came from the books he wrote. He knows what it's like to be poor. That is why he is for the middle class and poor. You are not being short changed, but the odds are against him with the teaparty house. Bad move in 2010.

if this seems like a good idea to raise revenues and still preserve the SS safetynet, then it most likely isn't going to happen. Show me the money. Don't talk about the possibilities. DO IT!!

I am well aware of Obama's story. I am saying that to say this, Obama is rich NOW.. And he is brilliant, so he deserves all his dough. But, like I say, whether he is president for one more year or five more years, he and his is going to be OK. When president Bush entered the white house he had a net worth of 3 million dollars--upon leaving, his net worth was reported around 30 million. Now, will you be ok?-What is your net worth today and what will it be in one or in five years? That is what middle class--working class people have to ask themselves!! So all I am contending is the simple fact that Obama has gone back on his promises, some in this discussion may think he is playing a poker match against the tea baggers and Boehner, and I hope that is true. I don't have the time and the patience anymore for that blind faith. I am an atheist for christsake. I don't follow the banter very well. And definitely am not going to continue to be supportive of Obama if he doesn't get his shit together. IJS..

We are no better than Teabagger Republicans who vote against their own self interest. We cannot fathom why any working class person would vote republican, why any minority would vote republican, why in this day and age would anyone be a republican? But their are many who, for whatever the reason identify to the right. Even if it means going against their own self interests. Wake up True Progressives. We should not have to settle for representatives that don't have the people's interest at heart, just because (D) is behind their names. Example: any Bluedog Democrat!!! Stop drinking the KOOLAID. I am so sick of this argument we have to choose the lesser of two evils. BULLSHIT!!--No matter what happens we still have to vote for Obama, no matter how many times democrats sell us out, we still have to vote for them....that is the mentality that is going to keep us in slavery. Slaves to this government and slaves to broken systems.

Yes, he is rich now, but willing to pay more in taxes to help the economy. He has kept many of his promises. Some were voted down by the congress. Now he has a problem with the teaparty house, not willing to stop the Bush tax cuts. These wealthy people will still be wealthy if they go back to the rate before the tax cut. So now i ask you will they still be ok?
Yes, I will be ok. Not rich but ok. But if the Republicans don't agree to give a little on more money coming into the government and the market falls like it did as Bush was leaving, probably I will have to tighten my belt. If this happens it is the Republicans I will blame. For the government to work there has to be give and take. I will continue to support Obama. I trust him. Which Republican running will do better?

sfirman, I am not saying we have to go totally insane as was the case in 2010 and turn republicans, I don't want to be jerked around by two-bit democrats either. We as democrats need to realize when we are getting the shaft by members of our own party. And if we are voting blindly just because (D) is behind the name, we are still voting against our own interest. Especially in the case of many Reagan Dems. IJS

I do know we are being jerked around by some Democrats. That is why we didn't get the Public Option, Gitmo closed and other good things.

Yay! I love your ideas - especially about our version of a Tea Party to pressure the Dems!

We need a wordsmith like Frank Luntz on our side -s/he HAS to be out there somewhere!

Yes, we need better leaders in the HoR and Senate like Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Grayson, etc... and the new party to influence the Democrats could be called...uh... The Progressive "Patriot Party"?
The main thing is that everyone Vote! Voting is always in your best interest because Not voting helps the opposition. Look what happened in 2010! Let's learn from history and not let it repeat itself, Please!

The reality is, dissent is the bedrock of a democracy. IMO, it is folly to expect progressives to sit on their hands and just take what comes along, because a bluedog dem like Bill Bradley or any other dem said they should. I'm not assuming you are a progressive, just expressing my progressive point of view.

There are progressives fighting for the working class every day in congress and they deserve and need our support. The right-wing republicans are having their way with this president and at the expense of middle class, poor and disadvantaged Americans. No, sitting on our hands is not even an option. We should be in the streets waving signs and being heard.

Sorry tlbuffin.....I can't help myself from saying it....I TOLD YOU SO! I am gay but supporting Obama because of advancing gay rights is not enough if the price is taking away everyones medicare and social security which he seems hell-bent on doing! Now I'll go away and leave you alone again.

yup's :) voted /\

I agree with what you say, and appreciate your brief, and I think accurate, contemporary political history.
However, the problem remains that Mr. Obama is not the reformer we need, or that he pretended to be to get elected.
The most charitable view of Mr. Obama excuses his unilateral "compromises" as either the result of Rethuglican pressure, or him just being a "nice guy."
The U.S. can't really afford a spineless Presidency at this juncture in our history.
We do need to act, and act now, with every means at our disposal to change this suicidal habit of business as usual.

a good way to be friend voted /\

Bernie is a Democrat. Obama is a Republican. Look at their policy positions not their party registration. If you're talking about party affiliation, what kept Libertarian Ron Paul from running in 2008 as a Republican?

History proves you're misstating the facts. Any thesis works if it's based on false assumptions. Liberals and Progressives are not to blame for Reagan's election in 1980. Liberals and Progressives were the only voters who DID turn out for Carter. Reagan Democrats were not Liberals and Progressives. The same goes for John Anderson supporters. Ralph Nader voters in 2000 had no impact on the overall electoral vote, nor the results of the election. The fact remains, Gore won the election as well as the popular vote. Nader had nothing to do with electing GW Bush. If you want to blame any other candidate instead of the power elite who stole the election, it was Republican Pat Buchanan who took votes away from Al Gore in Florida, due to errors with the "butterfly" ballot, causing the re-count fiasco and the crowning of Bush by his own brother, Gov of FL, and the Supreme Court appointed by his father.

If we are placing blame based on political history, why not blame all the compromisers and defenders of the status quo for not taking it to the streets and rioting for Al Gore when the power elite put Bush in office instead of the man elected by popular vote of the people? Al Gore did put up a brief fight, but in the end he did what Obama is doing now. He surrendered. Progressives and Liberals are not to blame for this. They are not to blame for the results of 2010, either. Obama is. If he had not turned against his base to play politics with the GOP after getting elected with more popular support than Gore in 08, or if he had spent any time at all since 2008 using the bully pulpit to enhance that popular support and along with it the Democratic party, we wouldn't be seeing a small minority like the Tea Party weilding such disproportionate power today. The GOP and it's leaders are afraid of the Tea Party because they don't compromise and they don't surrender. Democrats think the only way to survive in politics is to join the other side.

Unfortunately, his history is inaccurate. Please see my rebuttle post.

Instead of just voting my comments down why not rebut them?

I think you are right in that the wretched design of Florida ballots (as well as the overwhelming Republican effort to purge and disenfranchise eligible voters) probably had the most profound effect on the 2000 election numbers.
You did however, skip over the election of Nixon, when progressives did very clearly sit it out to such disastrous results.
There are other examples of election outcomes we could discuss ad nauseam, but the core of this is that my sympathies and hopes lie with you and anyone who proposes taking a proactive stance rather than signalling we will all vote the Democratic ticket as the lesser of two weevils, (as Jack Aubrey would have it.)
I think our mutual point is that we should make an earthshaking effort now before it's far too late to effect the outcome.

You need to wake up to the realities of the political damage caused by appeasement and capitulation.

Thanks for pointing out my oversight re: 1968. Again, Progressives and Liberals are not to blame for the election of Nixon. The "southern strategy" that won the '68 election was based on Nixon embracing the racist feelings of Southern whites Conservatives, not the Progressives and Liberals who were risking their lives down south to advance Civil Rights. Registered Democrats who embraced racist politics crossed over and voted for Nixon. Humphrey did not lose because of Liberals and Progressives sitting it out.

Thanks for your input and I appreciate your passion in support of President Obama. I'm not interested in picking and choosing points in history to bolster an argument in a time wasting pissing match that will not change anything. My comment stands.

I will tell you this though, because you don't agree with me, I don't think you to be an ignorant or naive person and I have no names to call you. It has no value in an intellectual or philosophical exchange, regardless of the venue.

It's beer thirty man, gotta go! Keep up the good fight!

I'm not dreaming. I'm taking up action the same as you. The only difference being, I refuse to support the lesser of two evils. You are welcome to support the status quo and the slow gradual decline of America into a third world nation. I chose not to. No hard feelings.

It's going to take all of us in this war against the republican right, isn't it!

Yes, too true!
Vote for "your best interests" because not voting is "Not in your best interest"!

I, for one, very much appreciate you taking the time to post the numbers--so much more reliable in getting an accurate picture compared to flat statements of opinion no matter how didactic.

I respect many of Mr. Obama's clearly demonstrated talents but I myself can't quite get behind promoting him for sainthood.
In regard to imagining toughness is having the ability to order someone killed, I would beg to differ.
To me, toughness is standing up to your enemies yourself.
There's nothing wrong with avoiding unnecessary conflict or using strategic compromise to reach your goals, but it seems to me Mr. Obama has demonstrated many times by his own quite unilateral decision, such as ramping up Afghanistan, continuing Guantanamo, increasing government secrecy, the choice of favored government prosecutions, and government prosecutions NOT made or allowed to proceed, and so many other fights for the rights of American citizens he has forgone in favor of corporate control and support that a huge number of his goals are not mine
. Push comes to shove I could see voting for him again if there is no rational alternative but in my life I've always found far more alternatives available than are commonly supposed.

I love Bernie to tl, but if he were president now he would not do any better then Obama. The Republican house would turn on him to.

...but would they hold their shoes in front of their faces..

...'clown car'...I'm stealing that one.

I don't think Sanders will run...I think he wants the President to remember all those to his left and don't take them for granted. Obama needs someone to his left..because we have all been sliding to the right...and if Bernie can give him a little cold slap from the left...good. Obama is losing or has lost a lot of lefties and progressives..because he consistently caves...Bernie has credibility with the left. Right now Obama looks like a typical slimy pol.

If he speaks for you, then you should support him.

I support Obama!

That is, of course, the rational thing to do.
There are plenty of examples of the persistent hankering for a less tainted candidate being a big factor in electing scumbags like Nixon and George W. Bush.
The most rankling thing about that is knowing the Mr. Obama and his advisers are counting on that triangulation.
It mightily tempts one from time to time not to be so reassuringly rational.

I lived in Burligton Vt. while Bernie was mayor of that city....
He use to walk down to , City Park and shoot the breeze with anyone who felt like talking....My first time at the park we were smoking a joint and I saw this guy going from person to person briefly talking with them...I was a little paranoid as he walked over in our direction and asked my friend, ' Who's this guy' ? his reply, " Oh, Don't worry he's cool, he's just the Mayor!"
I don't think he's let the Senate go to his head....This guy really does care about folks.

No kidding, - all this past week while people in DC were making noises about the "deal" finally being done I could already see Lucy's hands on the football.

Warren running is genius. She's not a politician and that is a huge plus in this political climate. She's a fighter for average Americans. She'd get my vote.

Leen, I know you're not and neither am I. The whole circular firing squad argument is just another distraction. We should not down that road anymore. The American public has spoken. More than a 2/3 majority of all voters want NO cuts to SS, Mcare and Mcaid, and want taxes increased on the wealthy and corporations. That position was ignored by both sides. We need to fight for what the people want not what the politicians and their corporate masters want. Any politican not willing to frame the correct arguements instead of fighting for false choices, needs to be disavowed. That includes the President and everybody else willing to negotiate away everything we've fought for throughout history. The President is just as culpable for ignoring the public and pandering to the plutocrats as the GOP. Sometimes the truth hurts.

I agree with your points here, Mike. The truth only hurts those who don't want to hear it.

Thanks for the link. +1

I made up my mind a few weeks ago to vote for Bernie even if he didn't run, but can you seriously imagine an America with Bernie and Elizabeth in the top 2 positions???? Please Bernie, do it!

Hell No!

I agree Mike! You hit it with the phony Tea Party. Everyone is saying, oh the Tea Party won't let us do what is right, it's bs form both sides. The Tea Party, from it's inception, was nothing more than a tool to be used by the republicans to screw the American people. The speech he gave this afternoon was a passionate "this is how it is" speech, he should have been doing that all along, but hasn't. IMO it's too late now, he has been too weak at critical times.

Yes, Dudley. Funny how the minority Tea Party can call all the shots. Democrats are too afraid to make their own arguments. Instead our leadership keeps negotiating away everything we've ever stood for.

Very good, Dudley! Voted up!