online bait and click narratives.

"But this is all wrong. You should judge leaders by their achievements, not their press, and in terms of policy substance Mr. Obama is having a seriously good year. In fact, there’s a very good chance that 2014 will go down in the record books as one of those years when America took a major turn in the right direction."

thanks Newsjock and Paul Krugman

my guess would be because of the repuke monopoly in media, their propensity to lie, and their reliance on propaganda to keep the GOP alive.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks?
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.

On the major issues, this remains a Third Way, predatory presidency. On health care, the ACA still guarantees massive profits to insurance company middlemen, and the president just opened a major loophole that will shift costs from insurers to patients. On climate change, the president continues to support drilling, fracking, and the most environmentally predatory "free trade" agreement in the nation's history. And on economic policy, the forthcoming "trade agreements" will destroy jobs and lower wages for over 90 percent of employed Americans.

No, the chocolate ration has not been increased.

After all, it does list changes......

He talked about the ACA. I updated what the president has been doing on that, which is to shift costs from insurers to patients.

He talked about the environment, conveniently leaving out massive, environmentally damaging aspects of the president's policies. You can't leave out the push for drilling and fracking and the looming effects of the TPP when talking about this stuff.

And he mentioned economics and finance, even qualifying himself that the policies are not what they should be. Well, he ignores the upcoming trade agreements, he ignores the continuing push for austerity, so it's not all it should be taken to an exponent.

It's not a long article, Jeff. You're acting as though there's huge, new news in there that totally undoes the broad, predatory nature of MOST of the president's policies that Krugman doesn't even mention. There isn't.

in order to push their complaints.

For example, you utterly gloss over the main benefit of the ACA: The battle for single-payer is now in the states. Exchanges give us a framework from which to offer single-payer, and that's a battle we can win in the blue states. Additionally, other parts of the law, such as the "Cadillac plan tax", greatly help to push that along. Victory in the blue states gives us concrete examples to destroy Republican FUD about single-payer, letting us spread across the country.

But it isn't single-payer right now, so you're ignoring that. Only your complaints matter.

Yes, VT doesn't exist. Nor do it's plans to roll out single-payer. And CA politicians aren't talking "public option". Which will out-compete private insurance since they're non-profit.

Nope, we're all fucked and there's nothing to do but whine on the Internet.

Look, I realize you really, really like doom and gloom, but you aren't going to fix a damn thing by clinging to it. These are our problems to fix. And it's going to be a long slog - it took us 60 years to get here. So we take the holes we get, such as the exchanges, and expand them into the change we want.

I wish cali were here. She is much more eloquent at taking apart this attempt that bobs up every once in a while, to pretend that what is happening in Vermont has anything whatsoever to do with what corporate politicians have been doing.

You have lost the argument when you shift to trying to make it about me, Josh.

It's about the policies.

... gotten a few good things done, but overall things have gotten worse, much worse, under his leadership. Not all of that is his fault, but some of it clearly is.

"Sorry Jeff, but the criticisms are valid, and it's important that they be aired. Yes, Obama has ... gotten a few good things done, but overall things have gotten worse, much worse, under his leadership. Not all of that is his fault, but some of it clearly is."

...is absolute nonsense. The fact that some of the problems decades in the making and the crises created by Bush were exacerbated by his wars and the economic meltdown does not mean there has only been a "few good things done" and "overall things have gotten worse."

That's simply ignoring that some really big things have changed and many other problems are being cleaned up.

If Obama got his way...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024972225

Al Gore: The Most Important Step Taken to Combat Climate Change in Our Country's History
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025045078

Obama just announced the most anti-war foreign policy doctrine in decades
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025014216

America Is Becoming a Bit More Liberal. That's Pretty Unusual Six Years Into a Democratic Presidency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025027305

The polarization (racists/wingnuts coming out of the woodwork) is part of the transformation.

Lots and lots of people on DU are far more interested in whining on DU than actually fixing the problems. 60 years of work by supply-side wackos wasn't undone in 6 years, so clearly we should just give up.

Take the bits that are positive and expand them into larger programs. But most importantly, get off our asses and actually change the world instead of whining about someone else failing to do so.

... is folks who take any and all criticism of Democrats as a personal affront. I think it's important to call out Democrats when they don't act in our best interests, just as it's important to work to get progressive candidates elected. I only wish the Third Way/DLC agreed.

If we just stop at call outs, we stay in the world as it is. Lots and lots and lots of people here stop at call outs.

We are the people we are looking for. Not Obama. Not Warren. Not Sanders. Fixes will not be delivered from on high. We have to build them.

Sometimes that means lesser of two evils. For now. It's going to take a bit to rebuild what the DLC destroyed.

Not everybody is capable of running for office, but that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to air their feelings.

And while literally running for office would be the strongest effect, you can also look for someone who shares many of your beliefs and help promote them.

The DLC-types are powerful in the party because they built a large pool of federal, state and local candidates and potential candidates. While we only aired our feelings.

Thanks.

name. But whenever we try to point at them, we are disparaged as criticizing DEmocrats.

That poster is one of them. His/Her worst nightmare is that somewhere, someplace, someone might actually be having a good time.

DU wasn't around in the 90's, but I can imagine the same kinds of back and forth then.

"Whoah. The president supports deregulating the financial industry, and allowing banks to do new things and go onto new services they've been prevented from doing. That could be a disaster. It could lead to the formation of monopolistic massive banks and allow all kinds of mischief."

"Oh stop whining. President Clinton is just modernizing the system. These are just tweaks that will allow Goldman and the otehr big banking houses to better serve consumers. You're just spreading doom and gloom."

"But he also has been pushing for free trade agreements like NAFTA and MFN with China. That's not going to be good for domestic jobs, and it will grease the wheels for companies to abandon the US in manufacturing. That can't be good."

"Oh quit whining. Bob Rubin assures us that this is just a way to make America more competitive. We have the best workforce in the world and this will open up foreign markets to US made reports. China will be a great market, and they can't possibly take away our jobs because we are the most productive nation on earth."

It's better to get a flawed policy that has some benefits than to get no policy at all.

It's hard to see anything good in your financial deregulation example....largely because it's a supply-sider's dream. And I was very amused to read someone talking about how great the "China Market" will be for the country....written in the 1800s. I really don't know why some keep chasing that unicorn.

But examples like Obamacare give us some good and some bad. That doesn't mean we should lament it or vehemently oppose such policies. That means we should build on the good to replace the bad. "You want more open trade policies? Ok, it's gonna require worker protections and minimum wages."

ETA: We need some calling for large scale changes. But we will get there via incrementalism. Because that's the only thing that ever got there. All of the "big sweeping changes" in our history books have been massively oversimplified for inclusion in those history books. Every single one of those big changes was the result of lots of pushing by lots of people for a long time.

I am all for incrementalism. But the way I see that is taking a small step in the direction you want to go -- not going in the opposite direction, which is what I've seen too often by Democratic leaders.

I fear, for example, the ACA has done tat by making it mandatiry to buy "free market" private insurance with no public alternatives. That further embedded Big Insurance into the marrow of the healthcare system. That,IMO, is going to give us the equivalent of "too big to fail" banks, where it will basically be impossible to dislodge them -- or even reform their bad behavior or offer public alternatives.

I would have preferred to see it start with some small, and popular, steps towards tightening regulations on insurance companies, and putting price controls on insurance coverage to prevent them from gouging us. Also, as a modest step, open up a "public option" to allow people to voluntarily buy into Medicare at a younger age....Things like that. yes there wold have been pushback, but if such things were carefully crafted and actively sold to the public, I think it wold have done a lot more to nudge us in the right direction.

As for free trade -- Well, I'm not against legitimate trade agreeents that are focused specifically on the mechanisms to truly promote free and open global trade. But the Obama administration is doing the opposite by pushing these massive and overly complex corporate giveaways and imposition of "free market over civil policies. And worse they ate undermining the concept of free and open debate. They are doing nothing to enable the public to see or understand the policies that are being drawn up in secret in things like the TPP.

I share your goals, but i do not think we should allow counterproductive policies and actions to be excused or supported when they are more like the drivel the GOP pushes.

As a result, it looks like things have always drifted right. Because for our lifetimes, they have.

But the polling of millennials and the dwindling numbers of the WWII generation indicates that is coming to an end. As a result, future incrementalism will likely be in our favor.

No kidding. We would have been having the same arguments.

Looking back on what happened with trade and finance during the Clinton administration from today's perspective, it is clear which side was right.

And it was the Bob Rubin team installed by Pres. Obama that failed to do much of anything constructive about the Great Recession except give money to the big banks. And they're the ones pushing for another destructive trade agreement.

I wonder how the Obama administration's policies will look 15-20 years from now? Clinton's don't look so hot from where I type.

option so we wouldn't have to pay profiteers a quarter of our health care money. WE also voted in huge majorities of his party in Congress. Instead we got the very worst possible solution

Even the cheerleaders are predicting a 50 to 60 year wait for non-profit health care. If you really think this deserves big rounds of applause for the perpetrators, you are part of the problem.

No matter how much you want it to be instantly fixed, it's going to take a while to fix it. It took 60 years for the supply-side fanatics to get us here. It's going to take a while to dig our way out.

despite strong opposition from the racists in his own party. So a 60 year projected implementation is a very good sign that the president was not really very interested in healthcare for all. Especially given all of the corporate loopholes that have been added.

Medicare had been a Democratic project since at least the 1930s. LBJ was the one who signed the law, but it required decades of work to get to that point. For example, FDR tried to pass Medicare, but Dixiecrats blocked it.

Similar with every other example you give. LBJ signed the final law, but that signature was after decades of work by other people.

You have to really twist history to make Obama into an actual functioning dem. Don't bother. The BOGers are already convinced, and the more clear headed never will be

Although you are desperately attempting to turn passing those laws into just a flick of the pen by the President.

LBJ and FDR did push for the things they passed. But that pushing only worked because of decades of ground work.

We have 60 years of groundwork by the Randians and DLCers to overcome. That isn't going to be overcome in a single presidency. Much less the single year you are demanding of Obama.

Its time we wake up and quit falling for the BS that's being dished out to us.

I'd also wager Bernie Sanders thinks way more highly of the president than you do. He's been a constant ally in the senate, supporting a great deal of the legislation you probably deride.

Your entire tone is dismissive from the start. You're not looking for an actual debate here.

I've seen the same argument over and over the last few months in many threads that even hint of praising Obama. So, yeah, why even go down that road when it's clear your tone from the start is to be completely negative.

You know, I could make a list longer than yours about FDR that would, if you just went off it, make him out to be a pretty lousy president too. That's the beauty of nitpicking. Obama's legacy will be more than what you've mentioned.

the policies and overall direction of this administration and the Democratic Party.

Your comment about FDR is a very poor analogy. FDR authored the New Deal, which provided sweeping assistance to Americans devastated by the Great Depression. Obama's record is overwhelmingly one of corporate predation. Even the signature achievement, the ACA, is fundamentally a Heritage Foundation plan that entrenches corporate profiteering into our health care system. Inequality is skyrocketing, not reversing, under Democratic policy, and our Constitutional protections are under constant assault. The overall trajectory of this administration is corporate/authoritarian.

That's not debatable, unless you choose to misrepresent reality. Please see this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025104323#post14

It's about the overall direction. And the overall direction of this administration, and of the Third Way which now controls the Democratic Party, has been and remains corporate and predatory.

Krugman praises the president and you're quick to point out how awful he is. Then get butt hurt when I suggest there is no valid path to having an active debate with you. It's clear you're going to push a narrative no matter what and anything I say will be ignored.

The thing is, Obama isn't FDR. I'm not even suggesting he's nearly as great as him - only pointing out that even I could make a list of FDR's stumbles and it would make him look absolutely awful. In fact, while FDR's accomplishments have been greater than Obama's, so has his faults. Obama can't touch FDR on a great deal of the bad things he did - so, yes, it's all relative.

Your overly critical attitude toward Obama makes it impossible to have any rational discussion.

It's also fascinating that you'll happily tag Obama with the Third Way attack and yet openly support a man who has supported every major domestic policy pushed by Obama. But then, you'll just excuse that away. So, what's the point?

No, I didn't get "butt hurt." I posted the actual policies to show the critical information Krugman omitted and to show how this administration and Third Way Democrats are still moving, overall, in a corporate, predatory direction.

Nothing changes until we are honest about what we are facing here.

No, Obama isn't FDR. FDR fought hard for the interests of Americans devastated by the Great Depression. Obama is, in most policy areas, fighting hard to continue, entrench, and expand the very policies that are impoverishing Americans and stripping us of the Constitutional rights and protections we need to defend ourselves.

You did the exact same thing in Robert Reich's thread. Anyone praises Obama and you list everything bad about him as proof he's terrible.

Nobody said what FDR did was not deplorable. But we are witnessing sustained and relentless assault on the very foundations of our representative government and Constitutional protections.

When Obama imprisons 110,000 American citizens without due process, we'll talk.

American citizen imprisoned by this administration wwithout due process.

So it's OK then.

We elect the government we deserve.

Certainly not true for spying. Certainly not true for austerity. Certainly not true for cutting safety nets. Certainly not true for most things on that list, I'll wager. Particularly if you are talking about Democrats, whom the president claims, at least during election years, that he wants to represent.

I'm not aware of polls on the TPP. There's a reason its being shrouded in secrecy, remember?

$1 says I get elected before you do, because you're simply out of touch with American politics.

All the Third Way has is its bullying. It's a piss poor way to run campaigns. And it's a damned shame they are so money-corrupted, because this country is hungry for real representation.

That's why you are seeing this:

Let's do this. FYI I googled the relevant bits that I think the American people support. I'm not going to play your games. You are simply wrong. Google polls for all of the things you ramble about. Note: your poll questions will have to be rational, like "common core poll" or "snowden support" or "support drones." It's really easy.

Let's go. Find a district you think you can win in 2016. It'll be a Presidential election year, Democrats should be OK. PM me if you want to try. If not, then wallow in your self-aggrandizing narrative which lacks any real political analysis or appreciation. No sense of civic duty. No grasp on how politics works in the United States.

Huge hat tip: if you live in or around a MIC-indebted district, then sorry, choose another, because then you'd have to pander to win. Want proof? Warren, DU liberal hero, fought the medical device tax, why? Because her state manufactures a huge chunk of them. Liberal hero my ass.

American politics are fucked up. But I'm willing to join the fray. Are you? I fucking doubt it. Shit I might run just to spite the out of touch, out of their league, forum posters who don't know shit about American politics. Might have to change my name first though.

Not.

Your self-aggrandizing attitude tells me you haven't spent an iota of time in actual politics. Be it canvising, registration, whatever. You are absolutely clueless. It's pathetic.

The poster is saying is ... "Rather than posting your complaints and grievances, every single day, at every opportunity, why don't you run for office ... then you can show how easy it is to get stuff done.

And I am not ashamed for realizing typing stuff on an anonymous message board is a poor substitute for action.

You're stifling dissent, and that's a bad thing.

There is dissent and there is permanent whining. One is useful, the other is found here.

Even the "why are you trying to stop dissent" part, along with the "you should be ashamed of yourself" part.

The policies need to be debated.

and the ACA is providing healthcare to so many people who did not have it.

The thesis of the article is on the successes that are being overlooked.
He has had successes and he's fallen far short on other things.
But to try and frame his administration as being a complete failure is untrue

Successes don't bring a string of worse problems trailing after them.

Band-aids over cancers do.

2016?

I assume you feel Hillary is similar to Obama on most of these issues?

If so, knowing a 3rd party cant win, what do YOU do on election day?




And what you are NOT getting is how much Obama has accomplished given the obstruction (unprecedented) and the fact that he comes from a moderate background, he never said he was a left wing liberal...

Wow, you know what I see, and this will piss off some people.

I see a standard set by the left, some on the left, applied to Obama that was NEVER applied to ANY prior politician liberal or otherwise.




I dont disagree with the standard, i just disagree with it being applied NOW to Obama, lets hope this continues when Hillary is president.

lets hope we try and hold her similarly, then we will see progress, slowly but surely

class. They haven't. I will give the president credit for rescuing the economy from Stupid. But all but a crumb of the recovery has gone to the hyper-rich. TPP, ACA, RTTB, KeystoneXL, more fracking, and NDAA are not progress. Can you really not comprehend this?

I comprehend way more than you are giving me credit for, and I am looking at the big picture and the reality that NO politician who would do what you and i want them to do has ANY chance of being president until we change campaign financing laws.

We must choose from the current crop, which will NOT include Elizabeth or Bernie because they are not fully on board with wall street and they must be to be allowed to win.

On Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:22 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Oh really? What here has changed?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5104353

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is DU where we come to get away from the constant propaganda spewed against our President. This poster does nothing but bash Obama day in and day out and then pushes the propaganda that "both parties are the same". This is not constructive criticism, this is tearing down the Democratic party and defeating the TOS of the site which basically is about electing MORE Democrats to office, not LESS. Not false comparisons and doomsday propaganda about Obama cutting social security (never happened), about ACA being a gift to insurance companies (not all the lives being saved) and environmentally predatory (when he just passed the biggest reforms ever). This is getting old and pathetic. This type of crap doesn't belong on DU. There are plenty of spaces available on the internet for all day 24/7 Democratic Party bashing. Stop wasting DU's bandwidth with this crap.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:30 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What's in that post that isn't true?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If he's that bad, let the mods stop him, but this post isn't a problem for me.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Perhaps the alerter should read the TOS rules more closely. DU is not an arm of the Democratic Party and criticisms are welcomed.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This isn't the BOG, it's GD. This isn't Barack Obama Underground, it's Democratic Underground. Obama is not up for re-election.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Silly alert. Grrrr

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

If you want those things changed then you need to make compelling arguments to convince people to vote in leaders who believe the way you do. BTW, just complaining on message board wont do it.

Funny how you dwell on negatives and don't list a single positive. Probably because that list would dwarf yours.

How many of the 20 you list are really in Obama's, or any President's, control?

Smile much?

Gays in the military, ACA, federal government recognizing gay unions on taxes, cash for clunkers, ending bush's wars, killing Osama, not giving in to repubs during the shutdown, etc. He's by far the most progressive president we've had since Carter. He's what Clinton wanted to be in the 90's before he was blocked.

the ones that don't make money if they don't have something to complain about? They, in no way, represent American thought, on the left, or anywhere else. "Click & bait".

I guess he's allowed back in the seated area now.

he isn't allowed back in yet

he's decided to join the cheering section instead. A shame - one less voice for the 99% in Big Media.

TEAR down that MAN!!! We can't have anyone praising Obama on a Democratic website!!!

Bitter, bitter

I have no problem with critics of the president or supporters
I do think there's a reflexive he's great or he sucks and they tend to post the most

I don't know how many responses I've gotten that have informed me that, 'he's the most liberal president since...' As if that actually discusses the issue at hand
But you're right, there are the 'single black cloud in the sunny sky' types who can't be happy with success

I get so tired of the trashing, though. The guy can't catch a break.

I think, for his critics, having it come from Krugman is tough because Krugman has been critical of the administration
I read it more carefully because I was curious what he had to say for that very reason
And I do agree with Dr Krugman

Balance and perspective are good things.

But of course, we won't know for sure until a couple years down the road...

...especially when it came to the Bush tax cut deal in 2010 and Libya.

But Obama has more than exceeded my expectations in his second term. He's been great.

Some people on this board won't even realize it until he's gone.

@#%&@#DLC##!@Corporatist@#&@@#warmonger#@^#^@!!!!

Whether it's the ivory tower effect, the 1% isolation effect, or wishful thinking/mooching for a govt. post, I haven't determined yet.

called Rmoneycare. Now he likes it. Unfortunately the president is now more important to him than the country or the people who inhabit it.

Counting the Internet, including this site, as part of the media narrative, your opinion about "too conservative" and "too 1%-oriented" is all I read all day long. You're undoubtedly influenced by this constant narrative.

The issue today is that everyone only reads or listens to or watches the media narratives they wish to hear, whether right, left, or in between. So whatever media you're reading ... they're pushing a narrative you're open to buying.

And he also got some good luck when he was bumbling his way through the Syria thing.

My favorite improvements:

The plan to give clemency to nonviolent offenders with long prison sentences is huge!!!

Letting states legalize marijuana without federal interference is huge!! (Still, he should do more to move fed government and DEA in the right direction)

Reducing forces in Afghanistan is huge!!

He has also improved on border enforcement (less fascist than in his first term).

Not surprising, since DU is saturated with Fan Club members instead of old-school liberals who favor Americans over celebrities.

BTW, I forgot about Obama and the Dems adopting the Paul Ryan budget in exchange for some SNAP crumbs

Please define this term. Thanks.

Living wage, pensions so you don't have to work to the grave, non profit necessities like education and health care, progressive taxes, small defense budget, and....here's the big one...a government that actually tries to improve life for Americans instead of profits for the big donors.

things are seldom what them seem, especially in politics, even more so when transparency is a meaningless chant.

If you didn't like the ACA when Gingrich tried to pass it, but now think it makes Obama the most liberal president in history, you're a hypocrite. Wanting every American to have access to health care is not dogma- it's human decency. Cheering for the ACA shows a decided lack thereof.

Today’s politics that works the media is the problem.

Someone out there can create the list of lists of the good or the bad and the ugly.

Guess anyone could say who’s list is bigger or smaller trying to develop the argument to win the debate.

But in today’s politics to compromise even if it looks bad or appear to agree with the opposing party does not always demonstrate a failed direction.

America with today’s Republican Party in control is in the most embarrassing, corrupt, profiteering, swindling, disappointing socially administered time because of wars developed from lies.

Consequently anyone should deduce the most legislation out of Congress in the last twenty years is loaded with flaws, lies, and convoluted amendments ear marked or secretly attached that intentionally decompose the poor and middle class.

That is solid reasoning due to that common sense phrase Pelosi said “ We don’t know what is in the bill till after it is voted” makes so much sense now.

Previously I criticized Nancy Pelosi for making such a statement but after further reflection my judgment was wrong and she is so right.

It appears that even to do something simple like raising the budget limit introduced the concept of extortion by the Republican party. The televised Journalistic reporting supported by the mainstream media played a wide open political game in national Journalistic constitutionally antithetical commentaries.

The media failed in its responsibility to call out such a treasonous game. That was a monumental Constitutional shuffle that was total disrespect for the basic poor and middle class values Americans support.

The American media for months tortured the public with wide open doubt with intention by the Republican party to disrupt the government. When it is with decisions with the wars, President Obama again compromised with an eleventh hour surge in Afghanistan. From my view profiteering by the Republican Party was and is the only motivation.

The Republican party for years did with abandonment, did not defend the Constitution. Constantly loading rhetoric with the words of "What the American people want". Actually destroying the fundamentals in freedom through out the Bush years.

Too many times to avoid extortion president Obama had to avoid not only government shut downs, or war decisions compromised with the Republican Party did in good faith with all the consequence in the media hypocrisy and Republican Lies try to do his best.

However, with so many decisions to be made the very consequential actions appear to be what was necessary to avoid shutting down the government, or to compromise other legislation needed to move the country forward, and to avoid war.

America went from guns’n butter to guns’ n oil, frack heads and pipe liners worse no respect for the health of the country. Sounds like a Bush Bin Laden perfect profiteering business partnership ending.

I don't always agree with Krugman, but this time I will take his side to support his argument. Also don't always agree with President Obama but I am glad I voted for him and not for Romney.

With that said from an Eisenhower Republican and Vietnam veteran.

nt

Republicans only seek ConservaDem support for the soul purpose of going on Sunday Talk and telling other Dems to shut up.