Unfortunately we rarely get a glimpse at how good at administration someone is before they become President.

if they were very good. When 90% of the voters can not get their way, no single person will fix everything. We need the best we can get in every single position. Not just who would be the easiest to elect.

or being able to "fight", whatever those mean. And that's a skill that doesn't get displayed in most politicians' careers until they are already in a leadership position.

if we don't share the same destination.

Possibly slightly better or worse, depending on their administrative abilities. Big things don't turn quickly.

Have been more successful in recent years (than congresspersons) at making presidential runs.

Governors have administration experience to point to. It's why the republicans ran Romney. That, and the fact that they didn't have an eligible former governor with acting experience.

But if we are serious about winning - I think we need to look to governors (or even mayors).

Obama wouldn't have won the first time if he hadn't been running against a fellow senator. The problem with legislators is that the old 'I was for it before I was against it' saying will always be true, and too many Americans don't understand how congress actually works.

Imagine a president using the bully pulpit to unmask the crooks.

Imagine a president becoming the mass media organ to tell the truth.

Don't even f'n tell me it would make no difference.

I just f'n told you. I am confident saying it would make no f'in difference because the current President does this, and you don't even notice.

Obama is calling out the crooks? Sure, bucko. Sure.

Bankers

Bush

Cheney

SC Justice Thomas

More bankers

Crooked congress critters

restricting corporate practices in gov't, and overriding the corporatist supreme court.

while inevitable, would take decades if not generations to come to pass. There were subsets of this argument created right up until the repeal, including 'The President CAN'T support equality at least until AFTER his second election. It would be political suicide!!!!!!'
So you think you can see 80 years ahead, you can't call 80 days. No one can. The days of extremely slow change are gone, this is sad for the moderates and those who profit from taking years to do a good day's work but gradualism does not fit with the modern mindset, methods of communications, any of it.
Just like you guys were unable to convince LGBT people to 'wait for your pony' you will not be able to postpone change nearly as much as you are used to and even less as time ticks by.
It's cute, but the paradigms have shifted. Very swift and great change is more possible now than ever before.
Enjoy.

The only Federal involvement was one of those nudges I mentioned; Obama refusing to defend DOMA in court.

but the narrative chatter from the 'center' and 'right' about how it would take decades, perhaps generations. They'd say 'we have to wait for many of the older generations to die off, because the younger ones are more tolerant!!!!' They said, right up until the day he supported equality verbally, that the President simply could not do that, it would be 'political suicide, so stop demanding a pony'. And yet Obama could do that, it was not political suicide, we did not have to wait until all the bigots died off.
So when folks try to explain about the next 80 years and how slow all change just has to be I laugh, as I did all along.
Swifter, deeper and more pointed change is coming, because people are tired of fucking about and pretending we have to delay decency, delay justice, people know they don't have 80 years to wait and they don't want their children dealing with bullshit just because some profit from the way things are.
Just as information exchange is much faster than it was 20 years ago, so is the new pace of politics and of progress.
Change is made in the culture, then it is sent to DC for the clerks to arrange the paperwork. The politicians are not the authors of progress.

And yet you're mad at me for saying changes take decades and that Presidential leadership isn't usually what does them? I'm confused.

doesn't care much about LGBT rights. It has chosen to sit that issue out and let the democratic process work its will. There is nothing to be gained by not giving lukewarm support. For instance, Wall Street supports a woman's right to choose but not her right to wage equality, ergo, no wage equality. Wall street is not so committed to women's rights though that it is bothered when states suspend them. Had the "street" decided to stand against LGBT rights it wouldn't have mattered how many years of struggle went into the movement or who was responsible for it. There would have been little or not progress on that front.

a Congress who will support that President can work. And that begins next year. If we can give the next Democratic President a Congress that has a Democratic majority in both houses, much can be done. In fact, if we can do that in 2014, it will give President Obama two years to accomplish great things, too.

If, however, we fail to take control of Congress, what you are saying is essentially true. Only through a broadened power base for Democrats will the things we want be accomplished. And that applies to our state legislatures, too.

Our work is cut out for us, and it's up to us. If we succeed, things will change. If we do not, they will not.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

Prez-elect Obama probably had more political capital than any other prez in our lifetimes. He sprang to prominence on a wave of desperation for Hope and Change. He could have mobilized millions of people to pressure their elected reps to pass ANY agenda he campaigned on.

He hasn't done anything but mobilize the GOP, helping them rebuild their dead party by making them viable

This is what I'm talking about. They passed an incredibly important step towards getting health care into the public sector, and you dismiss it as not even shit. That's your call, but you're crazy if you think a President Sanders could have gotten a more effective bill passed (and remember, Sanders voted for ACA).

Yeah.....that's a real 'step'



LOL does anyone even remember the Ledbetter thing? I know it's on The List™

Yes, "the Ledbetter thing".

And, yes, it's a real step which is why Senator Sanders voted for it.

I'm arguing against the "don't vote for Democrats because they don't enact everything we want" BS.

Presidents can change things on the margins, and it's far better to have those changes made by a Democrat.

He failed at everything else.

in history? How about FISA spying on everyone. He ended support for national infrastructure to the tune of 1 trillion dollar debt. He let thousand drown in New Orleans and then let the corporate-carpetbaggers like Halliburton rip off the taxpayers for hundreds of billions. Howz about the bank "crisis" that transferred billions from taxpayer pockets to the banks.

Besides "a war and ten-year tax cut" was, by itself, enough to kill the middle class.

Bush did a lot in 8 years.

States like New York and California are already proving that the new setup is driving down the prices on premiums. The 80/20 rule is having a very palpable impact. And the ban on pre-existing discrimination, just by itself, is enough to make the ACA an awesome law. Nevermind the vast Medicaid expansion, the fact that Medicare got 8 more years of life breathed into it and all the funding for free clinics and better access to birth control.

Your logic is flawless leftstreet.

"That Ledbetter thing" is definitely Neo-DU speak. Congrats!

Again, congrats.

Let's hear it.

'universal' healthcare

green and/or shovel-ready jobs program

ending 'dumb wars'

stuff like that

PPACA was actually to the left of his plan in the primaries.

the 'universal healthcare' is now mandatory payments to for-profit insurance corporations

There has been no jobs program

The DOD budget is higher than it's ever been

See? He does what you want and you don't even notice. Maybe this is why you feel ignored.

Iraq is over, Afghanistan is ending next year.

Mandatory and regulated private insurance is how many countries enact universal healthcare. Ultimately it's how Medicare works, for that matter, since private companies do the actual provisioning.

"is not an answer." I asked for your plan, because I provided a plan. If you have a better one, I'm interested.

In the meantime, I'll keep working to get progressive people elected. If you have a better plan, explain it.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

What utter bullshit.

recognizes the root problem and is dedicated and committed to solving it, and clearly informing the public as to the exact nature of root of the problem, from the bully pulpit of the Presidency, will be a huge step forward in solving the problem.

If President Warren can get the people behind her like President Roosevelt got the people behind him, we can do a whole lot toward subjugating wealthy private interests in a relatively short period of time.

After that...

"Nothing succeeds like success."

The corporations that survived the great depression were much larger, more concentrated, more powerful, and much more involved in and with the government than they had ever been before FDR.

That's why populists like Long and Coughlin were so against FDR and vilified him as a corporatist.

It wasn't a huge problem that corporate interests were imbedded into the government as long as they were paying their share of taxes.

No, this didn't start happening 80 years ago. It started 50 years ago when the top marginal tax rate was decreased from 91% to 70%, and then accelerated 30 years ago when it dropped even lower.

When we looked at money as something to simplify the bartering process, but keep the top tier from hoarding it, the government seemed to work fine. It is the policies that have the rich not paying its fair share that has caused these problems of folks with wads of cash controlling the government.

Bribery has become a legitimate business with a large (tax free) return.

Unfortunately we need at least one conservative justice to retire for that to happen.

Is that the law restricted free speech.

Campaign finance reform needs to be done in such a way that it does not restrict freedoms.

We can allow corporations to spend as much as they want on an issue, and levy a tax equal to the expenditure to pay for the 'opposing opinion'.

We know from the ruling on ACA that the government has the authority to tax, they don't have the authority to limit free speech.

It was bad law, and the Supreme Court was right to strike it down. The problem isn't that they can say whatever they want, the problem is that they can say whatever they want without the opposition having an equal voice.

And Jenny McCarthy will demand money from Merck.

From what I recall, the early case law on campaign finance was frank that it was a limitation of speech, but one that was justified by Congress's interest in preserving the fairness of elections. I can live with that.

Or even a historian or an expert in the law.

The most common way to get to a workable solution seems to be copy what has worked in the past.

Honestly, I think if we restored the tax rates from the 1950's (adjusted for inflation), it would solve the problem with campaign finance. However, that isn't going to happen soon. There is an outpouring of support for campaign finance reform from enough Americans to pass a tax on campaign spending. We know that the existing legislation won't pass muster with the Supreme Court - I say approach it from a different angle, even if that means its a departure from what has worked in the past.

If there are concerns about creationists etc. - exemptions can be put into the legislation, but campaign finance is a problem because some people have too much money to spend on their issues, and their opponents have no money.

That's the approach we need to take, IMHO, make them pay taxes on it. Call it an 'issue balance' tax. Organizations (and individuals) can apply for grants.

The most common way to get to a workable solution seems to be copy what has worked in the past.

Honestly, I think if we restored the tax rates from the 1950's (adjusted for inflation), it would solve the problem with campaign finance. However, that isn't going to happen soon. There is an outpouring of support for campaign finance reform from enough Americans to pass a tax on campaign spending. We know that the existing legislation won't pass muster with the Supreme Court - I say approach it from a different angle, even if that means its a departure from what has worked in the past.

If there are concerns about creationists etc. - exemptions can be put into the legislation, but campaign finance is a problem because some people have too much money to spend on their issues, and their opponents have no money.

That's the approach we need to take, IMHO, make them pay taxes on it. Call it an 'issue balance' tax. Organizations (and individuals) can apply for grants.

Got a credible source for that information?

Coughlin was a fascist, a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a Nazi sympathizer.

Why use his opinion as evidence of anything except ignorance and hatred?

I don't really care for the defeatist attitude that it really doesn't matter. If that is the case, just turn it over to the Republicans. It doesn't matter.

It matters hugely to a lot of my friends that they could get into a high-risk pool two years ago and will be able to get on an exchange next year. It's a question of life and death for some, and bankruptcy and solvency for others. Which is why I think people like Sanders voted for PPACA, or why Warren staked her political career on implementing an important part of Dodd-Frank (which flamed almost as passionately as PPACA here).

and themselves.

after all, it might not work.

I'm saying the standard a lot of this board has for what "works" mean is ridiculous.

Like how next year individual health insurance will be on a regulated and subsidized marketplace.

Goldwater's crushing defeat to Reagan's triumph was 16 years. The flip in the Republican Party from establishment Republicans like Nixon and Ford was from 76 to 80.

The changes brought about by Reagan's election have been stunning, and they aren't over, and they have dragged both halves of the duopoly way over to the right.

Your op advocates more rancid vapid incrementalism. Tiny little reforms, bones tossed to the party faithful by a corrupt party leadership that works hand in hand with the other half of the duopoly on issues that they really care about: feeding the .01%, furthering militarism and world hegemony, building the global security state.

Yes better to do nothing.

Wow. Look at all the money and time wasted picking and electing a candidate.
Oh wait.

Sorry, I guess I didn't make my OP clear. I'm saying there's a huge difference between Republican and Democratic presidents, but not among Democratic presidents. They're all going to take the government as far left as it's capable of going.

You assume they cannot win? Obama could not win either. I don't buy that.

I don't think any of them as President would have passed more of their agenda than Obama did of his.

And 2014 is much more important in my view. Until you know what happens in 2014, talking about later elections is fumbling in the dark.

Why?

First, I agree with you a bit here. But it also undermines so much of the GOTV rhetoric people love to espouse. If we want real change, real hope, real help, real community, its not going to come from that game in DC. Once we recognize that, there is no point in playing that game, or even believing it anymore

in terms of what they could actually accomplish as President.

Presidents aren't kings. They are turd polishers selected by the majority, for the purpose of polishing tasty turds that majority will slurp. That's why the domestic spying policy resembles that of the right wing. Thats why "Obamacare" looks like Nixon's NHIPA. That's why the evasive drone policy is an interventionalists wet-dream.

Presidents don't pick policies. Parties don't even pick policies. Both exist to manipulate people into accepting the pre-selected policies of the elite & corporations that run the country, while advancing the guise of democracy. Its all bullshit to keep the cogs moving most-efficiently in the industrial machine to produce the most growth and profits. Its also bullshit that distracts the masses from understanding this machine is destroying their very life-support system they depend on at a rapid pace.

If it's crap, it should be easy to make a stronger narrative.

The President decides if we will or will not use drones to kill innocents abroad. Not congress, not the corporations. If The President says no, then the event does not happen.

The President decides a great deal, irrespective of Congress, or of the Corporations. So don't start laying the ground work to get some moderate/Conservative democrat to be the front runner. This group here wants a Liberal, and one that is going to reign the Government in. One that is going to tell the NSA to shut down the spying on citizens. One that is going to start to roll back the militarization of our police.

Don't give me the nothing the President can do crap, I've heard that all my life when we get disappointed, always when we get disappointed. So why don't your Conservative Democrats ever run on the nothing I can do platform? Because we all know it's bullshit.

Peddle your papers man, but don't believe for a minute that anyone here is buying.

If a candidate would potentially become a president who would say no to the will of the elite and the will of the corporations, the elite and the corporations would eliminate them from the list of viable candidates.

We cannot elect those that the machine refuses to allow at the helm, in a position devoted to advocating their policies.

The President told the Attorney General that DOMA was bad law, and unconstitutional, and the Attorney General dropped the defense of the law before the courts.

The President decided that zapping the potential hostiles with Drones was an acceptable activity. The President campaigned on the left, and won the nomination. Are you suggesting that the Corporations then got to him and threatened him? What was to stop him from just doing what he wanted once in office?

This is the biggest lamest insane conspiracy theory there ever was. We laughed out loud when Perot claimed that the CIA was going to kill him which is why he dropped out of the race, and then jumped back in a couple weeks later. We wrote him off as a paranoid lunatic with good reason. Once he had the nomination, the Secret Service was protecting him. Are you suggesting the Secret Service would go on break and leave the candidate out in the cold?

Once he's in office, there is nothing to stop him from setting policy. The death threat nonsense? If he recorded that and played it for the news that Justice Department would tear whomever made the threat apart. Besides, are you actually foolish enough to believe that they want Biden in the Oval Office more than they want Obama?

This nonsensical theory is laughable on it's face. And should be laughed at whenever someone waves it as an excuse for a Politicians actions. Because there is no way you are going to convince me that the Corporations and shadowy figures running things from behind the scenes wanted the ACA, they spent a ton of money fighting it. There is no way you are going to convince me that the President is limited by these shadowy figures, because the President has the power. Obama could call up Holder today, and say that he was threatened by the CIA. The Justice Department would raid the CIA's compounds in a day, no more. Or are you suggesting that Holder is in on it? Then the President could walk down the hall to the room full of the world's press, and play the tape recording of the CIA and Holder threatening him, and ask the People to support him the elected leader of the nation. Even the Rethugs would get behind Obama, because a Coup would not go down well with them.

Keep believing this nonsense if you wish, but in order to believe it, you have to set aside all logic, intelligence, and common sense. I refuse to believe such nonsense in a fictional book, I'll damn sure not get behind it in reality.

Do you for some reason believe that the will of the elite and corporations precludes any and all progressive policies (re DOMA)? Remember, the machine merely wants to grow and stabilize marketplaces at the fastest possible rate. It is primarily neutral to social policy, insofar as such policy will accelerate production and the velocity of energy in the economy (while at the same time, not threatening the existence of the machien). The Women's Rights movement has most assuredly illustrated the benefit of "progressive" policy to the economy at large.

The President campaigned on the left, and won the nomination. Are you suggesting that the Corporations then got to him and threatened him? What was to stop him from just doing what he wanted once in office?

helpless leader. and saviour that's just doing the best he can...

SSSADD

but they could not enact a pro-active agenda without a dramatically changed congress, which likely won't occur without changing our system and even constitution.

a Dem. President. We have systemic problems that arise from government corruption. It's the corporate money and the legalized bribery system we have that is keeping us stuck where we are. The reason to elect Democrats, the more liberal the better, is because we want them setting the agenda.

What we need to begin systemic change is an amendment that limits or forbids corporate money in elections. We won't see the GOP advocate that; only the Democrats, especially Progressive Democrats, will work to push it forward. So no, electing Democrats is not the ultimate goal. They are the means to the end of cleaning up the corruption that has put our democratic republic on life support.

populist support that would also be felt in the Congressional elections, and even state level elections.

I agree that simply electing one individual president won't fix things-- but if a non-corporate stooge were to hold the office, I think it would be a barometer of other political changes in the country that would most certainly change things.

I could see that.

than Hillary or other triangulators.

They need a supporting Congress and they need our support. Those going on about them are just looking for a new hero. They keep deluding themselves that having the Presidency, or the just-right President, is all we need. Actually they are looking for a benign dictator, one that Congress defers to, and allows to "lead" them. Sort of like Evo Morales.

You don't KNOW that to be factually true; rather it is simply your surmising,
informed though it may be.

IMHO Sanders and Warren are proving themselves in the trenches in the US Senate.

I think they would be a winning ticket, and I don't doubt for a minute that it would be
an incredibly high-stakes gamble, in terms of their physical safety in small planes or
computerized vehicles. But if we got lucky, and they managed to survive intact, then
there is no inherent reason to assume them to be incapable of "doing the right thing"
with regard to the greedy 1% vulture class.

The filthy lucre whores are the REAL "traitors", traitors to everything this nation is supposed
to stand for, and which our current Democratic Administration is now making a global
mockery of, sadly.

We live in a plutocracy and it will take both Congress and the Executive branch AND the SCOTUS to have huge paradigms to the way we see profit and success and how they don't always mean the same thing.

Pres Obama continued the economic losers that Bush used. He continued the intelligence community exactly as Bush had it. Pres Obama embraces the Patriot Act and domestic spying, just like Bush. Pres Obama tossed in indefinite detention for good measure. He persecutes medical marijuana users like a conservative while ignoring Wall Street crimes.

Those you mentioned would not do these things.

This OP is another of the "President Obama cant do anything" post. I say either he doesnt want to or someone isnt letting him.

Anybody who realistically took an appointment you'd call a sell-out.

agencies, embracing Bush's policies of the Patrot Act, Domestic spying. I got Bernanke running the economy. I got the same people running the country that were under Bush.

Give me an honest Democrat that doesnt pledge to end the Patriot Act and then back-out. That doesnt embrace Republicans like Gen Clapper, Mueller, Alexander, and Comey. And Holder, supposedly a Democrat spends his resources persecuting cancer patients, MS patients, etc. that need medical marijuana instead of prosecuting banksters or Wall Street criminals.

Give me a Democrat that believes in Democratic principles and wont cut Social Security and wont appoint Penny Pritzker the female Romney.

Even if Obama would have appointed Democrats, and allowed a few non-bankers on his staff, nothing would be different. He's done the best job that any president could conceivably do. Electing an actual Democrat to replace him will play right into the hands or Republicans, al Qaeda, and Snowden (who suxx, by the way).

Just as Hillary will be our next President. And be unable to change anything, either.

Personally I am writing in Nalph Rader, but dont tell anyone but the NS(FUCKING)A.

... a whole lot better than what we've got now.

At least they have spines and an actual interest in something besides turning Republicans into their buddies, like maybe doing something for those of us not in the 1%.

Last edited Tue Jul 23, 2013, 02:59 AM - Edit history (1)

They would have the exact same realities to deal with

Don't do the right thing cus' it's hopeless to try for anything better.

Got it.

Politicians are being bought off so much, on just about everything, that they only care about maintaining their positions in government, or spend enough time to get enough influence to where they can set themselves up on easy straight later when and if they do return to the private sector. We have to take the profitability out of politics and make these people strictly public servants. There used to a be a time when people in Congress had jobs in the private sector and made their money away from politics. Now you have career politicians that make their livelihood on our behalf and you have to reverse that.

Also, Teddy Roosevelt would disagree.

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Me neither. Because he *did* turn things around overnight.

The worst banking crisis in US history was turned around in ONE WEEK.

Unemployment dropped by 40%, and GDP growth averaged 8% per year during FDR's first term.

So forgive me for thinking that history is not your friend on this.

to see if anyone had even mentioned this man.

Since there's not point in even trying, they hell with it. Why even vote?

that anything can be done. President Obama has done everything that any president conceivably could. The fault lies in the stars.

Let's just sit back and keep the status quo.

People used to tell me the country was headed over the cliff in 2008. I told them if so, it was only Obama who could save us. Well, has he?

It's not a matter of not having a magic wand. It's a matter of having entirely different goals than a Warren or a Sanders.

The longstanding lie, that the goals are the same, is what has fallen apart and been exposed as lie.

and that's the power of the mic. I don't think any president has much to say about that anymore.

who can fight for things like campaign finance reform, repealing Citizens United, fair wages, taxing the 1%, and corporate regulation. Just because we are losing the fight right now does not mean we can afford to give up the fight. We must fight. At some point we will reach a tipping point and eventually the momentum will change, but if no one is willing to start the ball rolling then we will never reach that tipping point, never gain the momentum.

Just as the news that President Obama doesn't have a magic wand that he can wave to make things "all better now".

He promised.

Hope and Change.

Remember?

What happened?