Link

I think Ezra is on to something in that the GOP is now seeing concrete evidence that obstructionism is going to make them look bad at some point.  Obama has shown a willingness to bargain and the fact that the left has killed him for it adds to his legitimacy.

Ironically, his the left's criticism of him over taxes and his harsh response may have the effect of decreasing the GOP's bargaining position.  

The polls seem to indicate that.

And worse, maybe, is that the much-stronger conservative coalition in the Congress is singing the same song, so I don't know that we can or should expect more than the usual noise being made by quasi-progressive contingent before they completely capitulate to GOP demands.

If he cuts Social Security, you can be sure that the segment of the population that does not have other income or assets to fall back on will not vote for Obama in 2012; they may not ever vote for a Democrat ever again, but I think Obama has written off that demographic and simply doesn't care if they vote for him - as long as he can make up for their votes from another sector.  Maybe he hasn't considered the trickle-down effect of cutting SS - I imagine there will be more than a few children of the SS generation who will withhold their votes if they end up having to help support Mom and Dad as a result - how much more mental and economic strain does he think people can take before they walk away from the Democratic party?

The Deal has helped secure the economic futures of many whose futures looked pretty damn good, but I think it has put the economic futures of millions more on much shakier ground - two years is a long time to teeter on the brink, and not enough time to make such a significant improvement that it is likely to be felt by average people; the numbers always lag behind what people are feeling as they try to pay bills and keep food on the table.

My thoughts on any rollback of SS or other safety nets...

Ils ne passeront pas. Same phrase used in 1915 by the poilus around Verdun. The battle of Verdun was supposed to, in the words of Ludendorf, "Bleed the enemy white."

The French, however, didn't concur, and didn't pre-agree to give up.

ABG, here's my worry, my huge and overarching worry. President Obama negotiates terribly. I might go further and say he has his specific policy areas over which he's concerned, and Social Security, for one, isn't an area of concern. He doesn't seem motivated by reasonable spending cuts. Look at SDI and its continued funding. No question, it gets funded this year... it's part of 'Defense.'

No question Iraq, Afghanistan, ethanol, 'new' tankers for the military, continued war on drugs and concommitant with that prisons, will continue to be funded.

ABG, and also BTD, I do not know what this administration fights FOR. I lost the notion that this administration fights for 'me and mine' in 2009.

The issue ought to be what's done for the least of Americans.  Ought to and are don't equal.

Since the end of Clinton years, the democratic 'leadership' in the legislative branch has been inside-the-beltway directed, instead of main-street-directed, in my opinion.

In other words, the congress has worked for its self-interest, not for the interests of the people.

President Obama was anointed by the inside-the-beltway crowd. He works for THEM, in my analysis, not for me, not for those here in the margin who don't spell too well or express themselves too adroitly, the folks who go to work, have children, want a better life for their kids, and want to keep taking care of their parents and, if living, grandparents.

I fear that the current administration doesn't even KNOW what's going on in daily life here. I have no confidence in this administration.

I know, Bill Clinton is in many ways anathema here. But Bill Clinton could explain complex issues so that people where I live could understand why he would choose a certain solution. Yes, lots of the folks I'm talking about reviled him, but if polls are to be believed, he had tremendous approval ratings at the end of his terms.

Simply because folks had peace and prosperity? Hardly. He explained his positions, and he fought for the little folks.

Yes, welfare reform is an example to the contrary. He'll never be able to take that one back.

But Obama is handing the keys of the bank to the same folks that owned the bank (and the grocery store, and the land, and the factory) before 1933.

ABG, I fear. I fear that 75 plus years of social legislation is "on the table," but the military-industrial, prison-industrial complexes are not on the table.

I keep reading posts to try to find something to assuage or beguile my concerns. I find either abandonment or potential for abandonment of certain fundamental issues instead. I find strengthening of the sick, incestual, corrupting relationship between government and corporate america growing stronger.  

the $850 billion billionaires deficit exploder, another defeat of sanity. Holding employment payments hostage to give ever more yachts to the yacht set - absolutely disgusting; an "achievement" of pure indecent evil.

DADT and START - slam dunks, long overdue made into torturous self-indulgence in vapidity.

All of it completely forgettable if it wasn't so outrageously awful.

Obama and the dems cannot win as the party of flaming liberals. I hate that that is the case, but our opponents are better at marketing and more unified.  Might change in the future, but let's assume that that is the case. In this environment, dems have to win with the middle while conservatives CAN win with their extremists. That's just the demographic numbers.

I think a lot of anger on the left is generated by the frustrating and infuriating fact that although many of our policies individually are supported in large majorities, there are still more conservatives than there are progressives (or heck, "liberals", let's take the word back).   In short, we want to act like the right does. We want to dig in our heals. We want our leaders to give no ground.   But unfortunately, reality does not allow that.  The numbers and demographics don't yet allow it (although they will thanks to my latino/a brothers and sisters who are making their presence felt).

But right now, we can't do what the republicans and their base does.

And it pisses us off.  Rightly so.  But that doesn't change the facts.  And it shouldn't make us less angry about our situation necessarily.  We should fight harder to get our message out.

But it does explain why Obama caved on taxes when a conservative might not have if faced with the same choice. The wave that washed Obama and others into DC was fueled by a lot of votes by those who disagree with us on a number of issues.  I honestly think that this tax concession and some of the other concessions that Obama has made (and let's be clear here, will make again) reflect the pragmatist in him seeing that state of facts and making a decision to deal.  Others could see that and decide to fight.  Some here argue that Hillary would have. But I don't think either call necessarily signals weakness or stupidity or lack of faith in the progressive ideal or whatever.

It simply reflects two reactions to the fact that 36-46% of the population identifies as conservative while 19-30% of us identify as liberal.

I think that if you view the world as 50/50, conservative to liberal, then darn right. That Obama guy is screwing it all up.  He should be battling it out up and down the line.  But if you view the numbers I give above as roughly accurate, it generates a different set of "correct/acceptable" choices. Especially if the goal is not only to pass good law, but also to remain in power so the conservatives don't pass even more horrible laws.

I tend to get yelled at a lot on various liberal forums and one of the things that gets people most fired up is the concept that liberals are the minority.  We don't want to hear it. It's the one thing sure to get you kicked off of some of the more sensitive sites.  It's funny, because you can state that you are conflicted by the Wikileaks stuff and even the most liberal of free speech supporter will debate the issue, but if you tell that same person that liberals are in the minority, he's going to eventually start calling you George Bush and questioning your identity as a liberal.

I think Obama is hated because he's conceded a bunch of stuff, but he's particularly irritating to many of us because he's fairly honest about the fact that we are outnumbered. Not just in congress but generally.