I don't get it. I've been baffled at almost every turn of the negotiations.

Obama is a moderate. Always has been. For some reason people like to project their greatest hopes and/or fears on him, as opposed to listening to what he actually says or reading what he actually writes. He's a center-left Democrat who would prefer the reasoned compromise over the political purist position.

When people on the far left see him as a sell-out, corporatist, etc, and the folks over on the far right see him as a socialist bent on destroying free enterprise, you've got to figure he's probably somewhere in the middle, if you're capable of looking without partisan filters confusing things.

The problem with the "center-right" thesis is that many policies that have been dismissed as too liberal [and for which the president refused to put up even a token fight], such as Medicare for All, progressive taxation, protecting SS and Medicare, etc., all poll very well. The popular support was/is there. The question is do you have a leader with good rhetorical skills willing to fight for those policies?

For example... Link

Rant away, but American voters are center-right and drifting ever more right-ish

Ok, then :)

According to American National Election Surveys and General Social Surveys data 1972 to present concerning questions of policy, that has been absolutely untrue across the entire spectrum of political sophistication from the ignorant to the elite except for one brief glowy morning in 1980. Furthermore, the recent trend in policy mood from 2003 to 2009 has bent sharply liberal but has admittedly given a scant amount of ground since then. Scant.

However, voter preference for "conservative" self-identification and symbols is another matter entirely, and they think liberals look silly in an American flag cape and mask.

I think a simple explanation for the paradox is that a majority of voters want progress, but they don't want to pay for it, and they've rarely trusted Congress to work together to do anything progressive in modern history. Clinton's ratings plummet in 1993 showed that even if they do vote in progressives they don't want a lot of it all at once, especially if it looks liberal (see self-identification and symbols), like taking away assault rifles and giving them to gays.

In another article in the Financial Times, Schoen contends that President Clinton's first two years in office constitute "a clear warning that a centre-left coalition can fall apart quickly if the policies are seen as too far left. In 1993, Mr. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, adopted the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the military, proposed and lost universal healthcare and adopted gun safety measures, banning assault rifles. In just two years his ratings plummeted to 35 per cent favorable and 65 per cent said they would never vote for him again. The mid-term elections brought a stunning loss of both Houses and the emergence of Newt Gingrich's Contract for America."

2012 side note: "techno-utopian political fantasy"?

Big names have quietly launched an Internet presidential race that will offer the winner a real election ballot spot in all 50 states.

Unfortunately, we have low-information, low-intelligence voters voting for guys who look good smiling with their families on TV commercials. Never mind that so many of them want to destroy Social Security, Medicare, and everything else that helped to create the middle class.

Unfortunately, that category of politician now includes our friend Barry in the White House.

Polls indicate that half of those on Social Security believe they have never benefited from a government program.

There is their side, and the money they work for, and there is the peoples side.

The contest is actually them, against us, and always has been (at least as long as any of us can remember).

What I find most disappointing is how people still believe in the left-right fairy tale, how we are told politics works. It only works that way for the things which do not matter - when it comes to what is really important, what is really killing us (like the wars for israel, like bailouts for wall street criminals, generally cousins those who want the wars for israel to continue).. then there is no debate, there is no fight except for the real one which is them against us.

A child can see the real contest, but the adults run around pretending, and waving their plastic Chinese-manufactured American flags. Its pathetic that anyone is "disappointed" in Obama, just like it was pathetic that anyone was "disappointed" by Bush. (Maybe one could be surprized by his extreme display of willing malice against the populace in order to start a few wars)

"Disappointment" in these front men indicates a serious lack of honesty with ones self, or a serious case of brainwashing.

"...the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."

Whichever side "caves", or whatever theatre is played out, the only things NOT on the chopping block will be anything that may effect the ongoing wars for Israel, or the protection and infrastucture being built to protect those who want those wars. (homeland security services for warmongers and their fans, the continuing palestinianization of the populace by the TSA and continuation of plans to expand checkpoints beyond airports, protection of the criminals in the banking and financial sector, etc.).

Everything else is fair game, like your bridges, your grandmother, your children's future.

Just watch and see - it wont matter which side "wins" - just watch.

I have been studiously avoiding the budget debate. It's bad Kabuki theater and we all know how it will end.

The terms of the debate are real simple. The debt and deficit are a big problem. The only way to fix it is to cut wasteful spending and raise taxes.

The argument is about what spending to cut and what taxes to raise. It's that simple.

The problem is that there's too much special interest influence and not enough leadership to reach a realistic solution.

It seems hopeless at times.

If McCain had been elected these things would not have happened:

• lowered income tax
• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
• Public lands bill
• Credit card reform
• Stem cell research restrictions eased
• Don't ask, Don't tell repealed
• Ben Laden killed
• End of media blackout on war casualties
• Moved Net neutrality in the right direction
• Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan appointed (That's enough right there for me)
• Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
• Seek verifiable reductions in nuclear stockpiles
• John Duncan pissed off
• health care bill...

There's a lot more, AND a lot of missed opportunities. But I'm willing to give him another 4 years. I guess I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy. Especially since the opposition wants to take the glass, throw the water in my face and beat me with it.

See you on the Pragmatist Express.

Dean Baker offers some perspective on our rightward shift...

(link...)

"It is invariably up to each citizen to know what the limitations of a president entails so they are able to make informed decision when it comes time to vote. There are calls for making primary challenges to President Obama for the purpose of “pulling him farther left,” but the only outcome will be a divided voting bloc in 2012. It is telling that the usual list of primary challengers includes self promoters and long shots who could not win a presidential election."

Read the article here.