Of course the ultimate "compromise" is to go back to the drawing board and scrap ObamaCare in favor of single-payer - then this doesn't even come into play!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I second that. There were at least two groups of "alls." There were the "alls" proselytizing the doom and gloom of this country via Obama's eventful demise and the "alls" predicting something a whole lot less sinister.

Cheers

ETA: When Obama mastered the debt ceiling debacle without creating a Constitutional crises, he proved his politics proficiency in teasing out the latter.

I aspire to his level of equanimity.

Oooo, I do as well.

Cheers.

The compromise preserves women's rights to contraception through insurance so I'm not going to complain. However, I cringe at the way the White House is so terrified of doing anything that makes Obama look like what the Republicans say he is. Since in many ways I wish he were more like what they say he is, it's depressing. However, politically he was doing very well while they tore each other apart, and I'm sure they didn't want to move the focus to themselves. Which makes sense.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The compromise preserves women's rights to contraception through insurance so I'm not going to complain. However, I cringe at the way the White House is so terrified of doing anything that makes Obama look like what the Republicans say he is. Since in many ways I wish he were more like what they say he is, it's depressing. However, politically he was doing very well while they tore each other apart, and I'm sure they didn't want to move the focus to themselves. Which makes sense.

He might as well act the part if that's what he actually believes is right. Most of my right wings friends and family HATE Obama. My own parents are more reasonable. They don't demonize the man even though they may not agree with his ideals. What is true of my parents is not true of my other relatives especially in the south. Last year after the Arizona shooting Obama came on to give a speech and they were just disgusted that people were applauding him and were like "Change the channel." I was shocked how anti Obama they were. It's all from demonizing of the man though. Calling him socialist and what not. If any of it were true I think he would be a dangerous president. His goal was never to be leftist as president as far as I can tell, but to bring compromise back into politics. That just isn't happening though. Point being is that no matter what he says or does many on the right think the man is a socialist who wants to attack our freedoms.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The compromise preserves women's rights to contraception through insurance so I'm not going to complain. However, I cringe at the way the White House is so terrified of doing anything that makes Obama look like what the Republicans say he is. Since in many ways I wish he were more like what they say he is, it's depressing. However, politically he was doing very well while they tore each other apart, and I'm sure they didn't want to move the focus to themselves. Which makes sense.

This is about posturing and spinning. The Republicans tried to make this about "religious liberty" and Obama, as he frequently does, came up with an elegant solution and played the perfect game of political rope-a-dope with them.

In the end, he looks reasonable, and they look shrill and ridiculous.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The compromise preserves women's rights to contraception through insurance so I'm not going to complain. However, I cringe at the way the White House is so terrified of doing anything that makes Obama look like what the Republicans say he is. Since in many ways I wish he were more like what they say he is, it's depressing. However, politically he was doing very well while they tore each other apart, and I'm sure they didn't want to move the focus to themselves. Which makes sense.

Like you, I favor the result, but not the process of achieving it. Liberal policies will remain in the pariah category unless someone, or preferalby many someones, start promoting them as correct, proper and wise. Hiding in the shadows is, frankly, humiliating.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

This is about posturing and spinning. The Republicans tried to make this about "religious liberty" and Obama, as he frequently does, came up with an elegant solution and played the perfect game of political rope-a-dope with them.

In the end, he looks reasonable, and they look shrill and ridiculous.

Good on the tactical level; not so good on the strategic.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Like you, I favor the result, but not the process of achieving it. Liberal policies will remain in the pariah category unless someone, or preferalby many someones, start promoting them as correct, proper and wise. Hiding in the shadows is, frankly, humiliating.

Exactly. I'm trying to think of an earlier parallel in our history and I'm coming up empty.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Good on the tactical level; not so good on the strategic.

I'm not sure that grand strategy is needed at this point when the opposition has proven so good at tripping over its own feet.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Exactly. I'm trying to think of an earlier parallel in our history and I'm coming up empty.

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Both were, in objective fact, moderates. Both were excoriated in a manner completely irrational as dangerous radicals, nay, even incarnations of Satan, by their political opponents. Both also were excoriated by the hard core on their own side as little if any short of traitors. Both ended up presiding over profound changes to the nation's governing and economic institutions, despite lack of ideological inclination to do so, because of the pressure of events. Regarding Lincoln, someone, I think it was William Lloyd Garrison in a letter to another abolitionist, made no effort to disguise the president's shortcomings, but presciently described him as a pawn capable of queening under the right circumstances, which in due course presented themselves.

It looks increasingly like Obama will be reelected. It will be interesting to watch what happens in his second term. In terms of saecular time-position, Obama's second term equals Roosevelt's first, and also what would have been Lincoln's second term but for Booth's bullet. The most important lasting changes of the Civil War Crisis occurred at that time (the 13th-15th Amendments, and the Reconstruction compromises). Most of the really important lasting changes of the Great Power Crisis also occurred in FDR's first term (Social Security, the Wagner Act), although the unionization of the workplace happened in his second and the move to superpower status in his third.

What I'm saying here is that we may see a very different course of events in Obama's second term than we did in his first.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm not sure that grand strategy is needed at this point when the opposition has proven so good at tripping over its own feet.

It's always a good time to show you have a backbone. I have to hold my nose when I vote for most Dems, because they are patently unreliable. This year, Mittens has that franchise, so being stalwart will be even more impressive. They need to try it ... and soon.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Both were, in objective fact, moderates. Both were excoriated in a manner completely irrational as dangerous radicals, nay, even incarnations of Satan, by their political opponents. Both also were excoriated by the hard core on their own side as little if any short of traitors. Both ended up presiding over profound changes to the nation's governing and economic institutions, despite lack of ideological inclination to do so, because of the pressure of events. Regarding Lincoln, someone, I think it was William Lloyd Garrison in a letter to another abolitionist, made no effort to disguise the president's shortcomings, but presciently described him as a pawn capable of queening under the right circumstances, which in due course presented themselves.

It looks increasingly like Obama will be reelected. It will be interesting to watch what happens in his second term. In terms of saecular time-position, Obama's second term equals Roosevelt's first, and also what would have been Lincoln's second term but for Booth's bullet. The most important lasting changes of the Civil War Crisis occurred at that time (the 13th-15th Amendments, and the Reconstruction compromises). Most of the really important lasting changes of the Great Power Crisis also occurred in FDR's first term (Social Security, the Wagner Act), although the unionization of the workplace happened in his second and the move to superpower status in his third.

What I'm saying here is that we may see a very different course of events in Obama's second term than we did in his first.

We can hope, though that didn't work so well last time. This time, we can demand, and see how that goes.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can hope, though that didn't work so well last time. This time, we can demand, and see how that goes.

Agreed, and, well, we are. That was what was missing originally. Probably it's the norm. Millennials are the generation driving the Crisis, just as we drove the Awakening, and they were at that time younger and more naive than they are now.

Mind you, not as naive as WE were.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Both were, in objective fact, moderates. Both were excoriated in a manner completely irrational as dangerous radicals, nay, even incarnations of Satan, by their political opponents. Both also were excoriated by the hard core on their own side as little if any short of traitors. Both ended up presiding over profound changes to the nation's governing and economic institutions, despite lack of ideological inclination to do so, because of the pressure of events. Regarding Lincoln, someone, I think it was William Lloyd Garrison in a letter to another abolitionist, made no effort to disguise the president's shortcomings, but presciently described him as a pawn capable of queening under the right circumstances, which in due course presented themselves.

It looks increasingly like Obama will be reelected. It will be interesting to watch what happens in his second term. In terms of saecular time-position, Obama's second term equals Roosevelt's first, and also what would have been Lincoln's second term but for Booth's bullet. The most important lasting changes of the Civil War Crisis occurred at that time (the 13th-15th Amendments, and the Reconstruction compromises). Most of the really important lasting changes of the Great Power Crisis also occurred in FDR's first term (Social Security, the Wagner Act), although the unionization of the workplace happened in his second and the move to superpower status in his third.

What I'm saying here is that we may see a very different course of events in Obama's second term than we did in his first.

Then in 2016 we have to work out butts off so the next president is Liz Warren.

I'm actually quote pleased with Obama's compromise, he just made the social conservatives look like the hysterical whiners they are.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Both were, in objective fact, moderates. Both were excoriated in a manner completely irrational as dangerous radicals, nay, even incarnations of Satan, by their political opponents. Both also were excoriated by the hard core on their own side as little if any short of traitors. Both ended up presiding over profound changes to the nation's governing and economic institutions, despite lack of ideological inclination to do so, because of the pressure of events. Regarding Lincoln, someone, I think it was William Lloyd Garrison in a letter to another abolitionist, made no effort to disguise the president's shortcomings, but presciently described him as a pawn capable of queening under the right circumstances, which in due course presented themselves.

It looks increasingly like Obama will be reelected. It will be interesting to watch what happens in his second term. In terms of saecular time-position, Obama's second term equals Roosevelt's first, and also what would have been Lincoln's second term but for Booth's bullet. The most important lasting changes of the Civil War Crisis occurred at that time (the 13th-15th Amendments, and the Reconstruction compromises). Most of the really important lasting changes of the Great Power Crisis also occurred in FDR's first term (Social Security, the Wagner Act), although the unionization of the workplace happened in his second and the move to superpower status in his third.

What I'm saying here is that we may see a very different course of events in Obama's second term than we did in his first.

We have an awkward matchup of the Crises of 1940 and 2020 in that the political equivalent of 2006 (disgrace of the 3T coalition) came in 2006 before the economic meltdown that came from corresponding peaks in and 1929 and 2007. The 2010 election looks like a partial resurrection of the 3T agenda -- but that can be overturned. The meltdown that began in 1929 lasted three years; that of 2007 lasted roughly a year and a half even if it was nearly parallel to that point. The real crashes happened in 1930 and 2008. We effectively had half the severe meltdown of the 1929-1932 meltdown with a change of President and the direction of economic policy in the equivalent of 1930 -- this time. Had the Stock Market Crash of 1929 happened instead in 1931 would we have the same political result? I doubt it. Hoover didn't have bungled wars on his hands and had no political scandals; it was the bungled wars and abuse of power of the George W. Bush Administration that made possible the overturning of the House and Senate possible in 2006.

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshor...-bad-bears.gif

(Would someone please bring up that image?)

President Obama follows what may be the least competent and most dishonest President in our history. Herbert Hoover at the least had a moral compass even if his stewardship of the economy was execrable. James Buchanan was simply a man unsuited to the time in which he was President. Like Lincoln and FDR, Obama had a tough act to follow -- for a vaudeville equivalent, think of an act that requires consummate dexterity of the feet on a stage full of rotten vegetables from a previous act.

A Crisis forces the hand of any top leader, and a budgetary crisis could force changes in fiscal policies. Bad behavior of a 3T must die in a 4T even if that 3T behavior has powerful constituencies behind it. The ethos of Ayn Rand ("You need me, peon, but I don't need you; my greed is noble and sacred and you must defer to it; I've got mine -- $crew you!") that permeates our elites of ownership and management is inconsistent with the necessity of society congealing with common purpose.

Had it not been for the insurrection that began even before Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, Abraham Lincoln might have resolved slavery as Britain did, using taxes and protecting industry through high tariffs to pay off the slave-holders. FDR may have saved the capitalist system in America by forcing the capitalists to make compromises with empowered labor -- the diametric opposite of what Hitler did in Germany in turning working people into serfs if not slaves as a reward to the plutocrats who backed him. President Obama, no angry populist but also no corporate stooge in a time of escalating anger toward tycoons and the executive elite, may be the only person to impose a just solution to labor-management relations.

Despite the fact that it began the same way as the last one and incorporates some unfinished issues, the course of this Crisis will not resemble 1929-1945. We know how to resolve the current economic impasse. We've done it before. What breaks new ground are the environmental, global-economic, and war/peace/empire issues that confront us this time. Those problems grew from the success of the institutions crafted at the end of the last Crisis, while the current recession/depression stem from its partial abandonment. If we resolve that immediate problem by restoring the New Deal as it should be, we will still face the other problems and even exacerbate them. So the fact that our current economic problems are mild compared to the Great Depression should not make us complacent.

There are both good and not-so-good elements of the current economic situation. The good side(or maybe some NSG as well) is that working alone is more possible for people who are well-versed in the new technology and have loads of computer access and knowledge. The good part is that it can help us reduce energy consumption as a long commute five days a week will not be so necessary. Where the not-so-good side comes in is that it makes for a less cohesive society as the camaraderie is lost. But then again, some of the viciousness of office politics may negate much of that disadvantage. But we seem to be a society where peace and quiet is coveted yet often hard to come by.

The not-so-good side comes in where technology has made so many jobs obsolete which can be quite a burden on older folks who don't have the means to retire yet find that their ability to learn new skills has been reduced. With a larger cadre of such folks this can be a huge social problem which, IMO, has yet to be sufficiently addressed.

The Right Freaks Out As GOP Poll Finds 20% Of Republicans May Vote For Obama

Looks like it's gonna be a Democratic landslide, LOL!

A major freak out is occurring on the right as a new poll released by a Republican polling company has found that 20% of Republicans are more likely to vote for Obama.

The poll done by Republican polling firm Wenzel Strategies for World Net Daily found something similar to my own recent analysis of state polling data that the 2012 election is beginning to look like a replay of 2008. The Wenzel/WND poll turned up the surprising statistic that no matter who the Republican nominee is, one fifth of the Republican voters surveyed are leaning towards voting for President Obama.

The only Republican candidate who doesn’t lose at least 20% of GOP voters to Obama is Ron Paul, and he loses 19%. The poll found that 54% of those surveyed believed that Obama had exceeded or lived up to their expectations, and 47% said that he had not. Sixty percent of Independents thought Obama has met or exceeded their expectations as did 52% of moderates. In the head to head match ups with all voters polled Obama leads Romney, 48%-41%, Gingrich, 50%-36%, and Santorum, 49%-34%. Ron Paul fares best against Obama and he trails the president, 44%-40%.

Needless to say the right wing is freaking out over this poll. They realize that if 20% of Republicans defect from their party to support Obama, they will not win in 2012. Some on the right are claiming that the improving economy is helping Obama. Others are blaming the ugliness of the Republican primary for making all of the GOP alternatives unelectable. Most of their blame is being directed at Mitt Romney, as they use this poll to call for more conservative non-Romney candidate.

We also can’t dismiss the wing nut theories that the 20% of Republicans are really Democrats who are being paid by George Soros, and that white guilt is motivating one fifth of Republicans to possibly support the president.

All of these theories range from the logical to the bizarre, but they all overlook something. The majority of the American people personally like Barack Obama, and the Republican candidates really suck. It isn’t just the candidates’ fault though, the root of the problem rests with the positions of the Republican Party.

The GOP has taken unpopular positions on raising taxes on the wealthy, killing Medicare, creating jobs, birth control, and just about every other issue (minus the deficit) that matters to the American people.

The years of Republicans taking positions that show that they don’t care about what the vast majority of Americans want has not only alienated Democrats and Independents, but also a portion of Republicans. Raising taxes on the wealthy is a popular position with a sizable percentage of Republicans. The GOP has ignored these members of their own party, while at the same trying to nominate a candidate who embodies the one percent. In contrast, Obama has taken the appealing position that taxes need to be raised on the wealthy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the sort of issue that make some Republicans think twice about voting for Obama.

The truth is that the far right is freaking out because they don’t understand how so many of their fellow Republicans could consider voting for a president that they can only see through their Marxist/Socialist delusions about him. The reality is that the imaginary Obama they see isn’t the same as what the rest of America sees.

The right is melting down because they are realizing that not only that Obama may get reelected, but members of their own party may help him do it.

Yes, we can, indeed.

Originally Posted by Deb C

And, the other thing I would do was to insist that pharmaceuticals develop a BCP for men. It's time they had to remember to take a pill everyday.

But there IS a BCP for men ... he puts in in his shoe and it makes him limp.

But, unlike with FDR, it will be do or die in his second term because he is constitutionally ineligible to run for a third.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Agreed, and, well, we are. That was what was missing originally. Probably it's the norm. Millennials are the generation driving the Crisis, just as we drove the Awakening, and they were at that time younger and more naive than they are now.

Mind you, not as naive as WE were.

Yeah, we had the worldly knowledge of today's 10-years olds when we burst on the scene. I'm amazed how much havoc we created ... for good and ill.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Dude, you have no idea what I have and haven't done in my life.

However, I do like it when you all get to this point - even you can recognize how flaccid your arguments have become.

You turned your argument or position to free healthcare which is about the limpest position to take or argument to make with a person who clearly knows that he/she have worked to financially contribute or pay for everything in their lives up to this point.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

You turned your argument or position to free healthcare which is about the limpest position to take or argument to make with a person who clearly knows that he/she have worked to financially contribute or pay for everything in their lives up to this point.

I haven't seen anyone argue for "free" healthcare, since it's not possible. PW and others, including me, have argued for single payer. I haven't seen anyone argue for socializing the healthcare industry, though it may accomplish something similar to that on its own. So I fail to see you point - especially given your concern that you may be expected to be a payer. If we actually get to single pater, then yes you will, just like the rest of us. If you're incorporated, so will your business. If you want to be pissed-off, there's your target.

Odin, I think I saw Coulter showing the effects of that poll at CPAC. She was warning the troops that Obama was still personally popular and that it was not going to be that easy to beat him. A Republican consultant said the same thing.