Skip to main content

View Diary: Only Obama can enact the sh!t GOP ideas that the public just rejected. Austerity now. Insanity later (283 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well, aren't you special (10+ / 0-)

    I'm happy to have voted for Obama, rather than against Romney.  Only a fool would believe Obama had zero positive accomplishments such that the election was only ever framed in the negative, and yes, Romney would be worse at mitigating the consequences of a Republican House.  Romney himself said we wouldn't have to worry about the sequester because he'd have already pushed through larger cuts.  Anyway, given a Congressional Democratic majority similar to the one in Boston, Obama'd be even left still.  And if Bush's attorney general had testified re drones with the same caveats and reservations as Holder, it'd have been just as unremarkable.  The left isn't neutralized by anything other than the refusal of some of its more narcissistic members to participate in the electoral process.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:11:06 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It goes like this: (10+ / 0-)

      The democrats would be much more likely to stand up to president Romney than president Obama, and therefore, Obama can be more dangerous to things like Social Security.

      There is definitely something to that argument.

      •  A very small smidgen (0+ / 0-)

        It assumes an adversarial relationship between Obama and either confessional Dems, social security, or both.  And I didn't see how in that scenario, congressional dems would be effective without the power to originate tax bills.  

        I believe Mitt Romney also said his first act would be to approve the keystone pipeline, and without any real insight on what Obama might ultimately do, that illustrates all the damage Romney would do just on his own.  Filibuster enough Court nominees, Romney nominates Goodwin Liu?

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 08:34:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Newsflash: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          k9disc, glitterscale

          Obama was calling for Social Security cuts back in 2006. The corporate media wasn't trumpeting that in the 2008 primaries - I wonder why?

          Could it be that Obama was the corporate media's candidate? His relationship to Social Security is certainly adversarial, and has been since before he became President.

          "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

          by Australian2 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:56:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you must not consume a lot of media (0+ / 0-)

            he's their candidate relative to whom?  Not Romney.  Maybe Kucinich.  Adversarial is a considerable overstatement based on isolated statements and parts of negotiation positions.  

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:54:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  well (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          k9disc, glitterscale

          Obama DOES have an adversarial relationship to SS. He keeps trying to cut it.

          And Congressional Dems could block things without having the power to originate bills.

          •  and yet it keeps not being cut (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            the interesting question is whether there's anything in return, scale and scope, etc.  If the goal were to cut benefits, full stop, it'd have happened. Remember when he expanded Medicaid, by the way?  

            We had this scenario in Bush's first term - Dem senate by a slim margin, and Republican President and House.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:50:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wait (0+ / 0-)

              So now the president can always get what he wants no matter what? By waving his magic wand or something?  

              I'll tell you how he usually ends up with what he wants, and that is persistence...which is what he's doing by the repeated attempts at cutting SS and Medicare.

      •  Really? They would have stood against Pres. Romney (0+ / 0-)

        as they did against Pres. Bush? You guys are certifiably INSANE!!!

        •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

          The dems helped shut down bush's SS platform after the 2004 election. It happened.

          Moreover, the argument was that they would be more likely to oppose Romney on it to oppose Obama, not that they would for sure.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site