jon, jon, jon

you are assuming obama actually wanted to negotiate legislation, all he wants to do is appear to be negotiating so he can pass his corporate agenda

this gun bill is possibly his method of claiming to liberals that he is a liberal in the face of the otherwise obvious

Obama always preferred the cover of actual bipartisan support for advancing his agenda.

Agree.

Obama does not cave. He succeeds in his original plan, part of which is to seem to be be caving.

His agenda is corporate and, by his own words, that of a moderate Republican of the 1980s. Indeed, Obam overstates even that some because Reagan was to Obama’s left on some things.

Main difference: Reagan freely and often proudly owned most of his beliefs. Obama is a lot more covert.

That seems to shift the emphasis of perris’s comment.

I think there’s also another motive, contained in the executive order (issued yesterday) calling for the development of a national database to identify “dangerous or untrustworthy individuals.” Shock doctrine.

So what’s essentially the “Brady Bill” of 1993 (which was supported by Ronald Reagan, among other Republicans) now represents the liberal end of the gun control spectrum? Kind of typical, isn’t it?

this gun bill is possibly his method of claiming to liberals that he is a liberal in the face of the otherwise obvious

I might even suggest an even more radical aim for Obama might hold.

The reason why the NRA has so much power, and also why anti-abortion advocates succeed in rolling back access to reproductive control, despite clear majorities of the public supporting at least some kind of control control and abortion under at least some circumstances, is that the “gun nuts” and the anti-abortion true believers elevate their agenda to be the #1 issue on deciding how they vote and how they donate, whereas the majority in opposition does not. That is the reason for their electoral power, and why Democrats have become so skittish about even bringing up gun control and only talking about abortion in terms of the rape and incest cases, and not about it being a fundamental right for women.

So–is it possible that one of Obama’s goals this term is to anger and re-invigorate religious and social conservatives, by things like touching the hot-button gun control issue, while depressing the liberal/progressive vote by still trying to gut the remnant of the social safety net, to make damn well sure that the next president who follows him will not be a Democrat but a Republican?

Note that while Obama still refuses to take any unilateral executive action to head off the debt ceiling crises, despite plenty of learned opinion which has offered these as both legal and proper, and which moreover where he would have the vast majority of the public supporting him, he has no problem taking unilateral executive action on guns, and angering the gun nuts, which could bite the next Democrat who runs for the presidency.

-stewartm

This has given Obama the freedom of nothing to lose.

Presidents always have something to lose, starting with their good name.

For one thing, they are thinking of their respective legacies. Nothing will change the fact that Obama is the first African American. Or the fact that, whatever one may think of ACA, he is the first President to pass a national health care program, although every (almost every?) President since T. Roosevelt has professed to support such a program.

Still, the more accolades and breakthroughs in a legacy, the merrier. No one wants to leave office in ignominy, either. He is not going to want to go down in history as able to accomplish things only in the first 2 of 8 years in office. (I don’t think that will be the case as I don’t think Republicans are going to do well in 2014 midterms.)

Presidents are also the heads of their respective Parties. Whatever else being a President may entail, it affords the POTUS and his family 4 to 8 years of power, glamour, and living a lifestyle most billionaires cannot have. Recent example; flying a veritable phalanx of professional decorators in from all over the country to decorate one’s home for Christmas and a kitchen staff that produces a 400 pound replica of the White House as only one tiny part of the holiday festivities. And it goes on and on. And on someone’s dime to boot. And when billionaires plug in the lights on their tree for the first time that season, no one outside their home gives a rap, let alone national television and future generations.

Any POTUS very much owes his current lifestyle to the PTB of his party and he or (someday) she knows it. No POTUS wants to repay that incredible gift by reducing the future prospects or viability of his Party. And, from a less altruistic perspective, no POTUS wants to be disinvited from the next national convention of his Party, ala Bush the Lesser in 2008.

There is probably a lot more, but that is what occurs to me right away.

It’s what Jon is saying, plus a heaping helping of “pay no attention to the shitty, still-stalled-out economy.” He knows his legacy is going to be pinned to the economy, and he knows he’s not even going to be able to inflate a bubble without some Republican cooperation, so he’s grasping at anything to glue in his presidential scrapbook.

“Untrustworthy?” Gee, nothing unconstitutionally vague about that!

Very good point, caleb.

Remind me what difference it will make if the next President is Democratic or Republican?

The next Republican President will do things that a Democratic President would have a very hard time getting away with, as with Reagan’s several tax increases. And the next Democratic President will do things that a Republican President would have a very hard time doing, like repeal of Glass Steagall, ending “welfare as we know it” and putting “entitlements” on the table for cutting.

Either way, the corporate agenda will advance seamlessly.

That said, I would bet that the next President will be a Republican.

Either way, the corporate agenda will advance seamlessly.

Yet sometimes the corps screw up and there is an FDR elected. That’s probably still more likely to happen with a Dem rather than a Repug, and thus with a Repug Obama’s “legacy” would be in safer hands.

-stewartm

Or…. He could lead an informational and legislative 4yr. campaign, ( Truman style ) directly going to each state and region, to show a clearer concept of what ” the middle ground ” actually looks like outside of Washington, D.C. A ” political and economic chataugua ” of sorts. With dialogues, not speeches. Because more of this ” same, same ” ain’t cuttin’ it. We are heading for another civil war; this time between the haves and the have nothings. And as Bob pointed out ” when you have nothing, you got nothing to lose. “

Honestly, I wish the Democrats would nominate a blueblood instead of an apple-polisher like Obama or Clinton. Bluebloods seldom need the ego boost of serving corporate masters. Or, at any rate, they would be okay with the status quo and wouldn’t feel the need to *constantly* pull toward corporatocratic utopia.

With his pride in cutting spending back to the 1950′s level, I have called him an Eisenhower Democrat

It defies my imagination that, after the antics of Newt and his merry men starting in 1995, any Democrat could have thought it possible that the Republicans were doing business in good faith. Which, unfortunately, leads to the conclusion that the Democrats are complicit.

Don’t expect Obama to give a farewell address attacking the military-industrial complex as Ike did.

“So–is it possible that one of Obama’s goals this term is to anger and re-invigorate religious and social conservatives, by things like touching the hot-button gun control issue, while depressing the liberal/progressive vote by still trying to gut the remnant of the social safety net, to make damn well sure that the next president who follows him will not be a Democrat but a Republican?”

The same thought crossed my mind. He doesn’t have to kill the earned benefit programs like SS and Medicare. He just has to set them up for kill by wounding them – bankstas orders.

I heard t

Accidently hit submit, but to finish:

I’ve heard talk about how he’s mobilized his election apparatus for the gun issue. I doubt there will be the same mobilization on behalf of “progressive” candidates during the mid-terms of 2014, while there could be some attempt to mobilize the Obamatons for whatever status quo (excuse me: “lesser of two evils”)presidential candidate the Democrats throw out there.

“Any POTUS very much owes his current lifestyle to the PTB of his party and he or (someday) she knows it. No POTUS wants to repay that incredible gift by reducing the future prospects or viability of his Party.”

Yeah, but a party that’s viable for whom?

Whatever Obama has done about guns has really shaken up the right wing nuts. A few are even threatening impeachment. Rand Paul is taking the point. Needs to burnish his libertarian roots for 2016. He vs Paul Ryan. The NRA is beside itself.

How to stir up a hornets nest when you don’t play nice. Will the left do that if Obama messes with SS?

Will the left do that if Obama messes with SS?

sadly, no

Funny that no one on the left seems to care about gun control, except Jon Stewart. Ho hum. You have to believe this whole thing will go nowhere.

That’s my point. You could get the feeling anyway that the left doesn’t care much about anything.

We have such a list. It is called the no-fly list.

What’s that quaint clause:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

and just how will the

a national database to identify “dangerous or untrustworthy individuals.”

be managed?

A few questions (where list and database are synonymous):

Managed? By the justice system or by the executive?
How will people be added?
How will people discover they are on the list?
Who decides if a person is “a dangerous or untrustworthy individuals?
What evidence must be produced, to decide who is “a national database to identify a dangerous or untrustworthy individuals?
What proceeding is required to add a person to the list?
How can person on the list challenge the entry?
Will the list be a public record?

And so on. This “list” is designed to manage rights of citizens, and deprive certain citizens of a right. We have the experience of the management and use of such a list, the no-fly list.

The no fly list’s management and procedures are opaque, the process by which a person is added opaque, and the procedures surrounding the list secret.

I’m no supporter of the current interpretation of the second amendment, because a full reading could require ownership of a gun be concurrent with being a member of the militia (national guard).

The Government with another list not subject to judicial process? What happens when the Government decides to combine and cross reference lists?

The issue we face is this:

There are four results from managing such a list or set of lists:

1. The list is too exclusive, and excludes people who should be on the list.
2. The list is perfect, and only contains the people who should be on the list, no exclusions and no extra inclusions.
3. The list contains many who should not be on the list (false positives).
4. The list is imperfect and excludes some who should be included and includes many who should be excluded.

Option (2) is extremely difficult, and probably impossible. It’s my view option (4) is the most probable, which reopens the question “how is the list to be managed”?

Yes, because his priorities are far more in line with the GOP than “Democrats” (or really just the Democratic “base”) generally. With DADT, he didn’t want to do the right thing, so he used “bi-partisanship” as an excuse for doing nothing. That’s one of many examples. If you don’t want to do what your base wants you to do, you find political cover for doing nothing wherever possible. Bi-partisanship is the perfect foil against one’s own “base.”

Notice there are lots of areas in which bi-partisanship exists: Building out the police state; Endless wars; Cutting social programs; Destroying public education; Destroying anything resembling environmental protections; Warrant-less surveillance; Hollowing out the federal government; Letting criminal banksters get away with economic murder; Hounding dissenters to their deaths; Further entrenching official corruption…. so on and so forth.

Where bi-partisanship does NOT exist is where most Americans’ priorities lie: Sound economic policies; creating jobs; raising wages and the standard of living; sound environmental policies (like clean drinking water); less war… and so forth.

Bi-partisanship then, is the foil Obama uses against the people who voted for him. This ought to be clear by now.

I have called him an Eisenhower Democrat

Sadly, the Dems of that era (save the Southern contingent) were 1000 % more progressive than the ones we have now.

-stewartm

Will the left do that if Obama messes with SS?

Do as they’re told and vote for Democrats because 2014 is a Really Important Election and do you want a Republican to win?

No one on the so-called “left” – which truly no longer exists in Team USA anymore, at least as some kind of political “force,” – will do anything about anything. I think that’s called: Goal Accomplished! by the PTB.

Sadly, WHEN Soc Sec & Medicare are cut, my trad-Dem voter pals will rush to adulate at Obama’s feet whilst twisting themselves in pretzels to “explain” that it’s all the mean-bully Republicans fault.

My trad-Repub voter friends will blame Soc Sec & Medicare cuts on KenyanMuslinSocialistCommieNazi Obama and find ways to bend themselves into pretzels believing whatever insane bullshit that Glenn/Rush are get shouty about.

What’s the diff?? You tell me, and we’ll both know.

Exactly. The course of Obama’s administration makes a lot more sense if one assumes that he’s trying to hurt the Democratic Party than it does if one assumes that he’s trying to help it. The pattern over and over again is to pick fights that unite the Republicans and divide the Democrats. The latest one–gun control–is a twist, as he seems to be siding with the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but the result will be to push more rural voters out of any remaining sympathy with the Democrats, costing seats from North Carolina to Nevada, and likely resulting in Republican control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress when his term, mercifully, comes to an end.

Where bi-partisanship does NOT exist is where most Americans’ priorities lie: Sound economic policies; creating jobs; raising wages and the standard of living; sound environmental policies (like clean drinking water); less war… and so forth

Sad to say, a lot of “bipartisanship” exists there too. It’s all just “bipartisanship” directed against the 99 %.

-stewartm

Sadly, WHEN Soc Sec & Medicare are cut, my trad-Dem voter pals will rush to adulate at Obama’s feet whilst twisting themselves in pretzels to “explain” that it’s all the mean-bully Republicans fault.

All the while if Obama really did want to protect SS/Medicare, all he’d have to do is to point out that Republicans were trying to do exactly that, and the backlash against the Repugs *FROM THEIR OWN RANK-AND-FILE* would be so great that they’d run for cover.

SS/Medicare’s on the table b/c Obama keeps wanting to put it there. The rest of the Dims aren’t great, but even they don’t do that.

-stewartm

Any politician who was paying attention wouldn’t be very concerned with legacy. Guy McPherson thinks we may be headed for human extinction by 2031. If Obama wants a legacy, he’d be wise to pay attention to what climate scientists are saying and start providing some leadership on that front.

SS/Medicare’s on the table b/c Obama keeps wanting to puting it there.

Just a minor edit to make it even more accurate. I believe we’re on the same page. The thing is: Obama *PROMISED* to CUT Soc Sec & Medicare since he was inaugurated in 2009 (He LIED during the 2008 campaign). And he *PROMISED* to cut Soc Sec & Medicare during the 2d “debate” of the 2012 campaign.

WHY trad-Dem voters wish to be in UTTER DENIAL about this is way beyond my comprehension. When I’ve actually gotten a few trad-Dem friends to *admit* that Obama has *promised* to CUT Soc Sec, they then manage to find some way to blame it on Republicans. Every. Single. Time. Without. Fail.

We are screwed. Don’t expect Democratic voters to do bupkiss about anything ever. The end.

Perris you may think that the Gun bill pays lip service to the liberals, but every gun owner demographic study indicates the 28% of gun owners consider themselves liberals and 29% gun owners consider themselves moderates.
This so called appeasement to the liberals may cost the Democrats the Senate in 2014 with the GOP needing 11 seats and at least 17 seats that are Democrat in states with high gun owner support in contention.
This and as you state, the far left is angry for the Party being to far right the center is angry for the party being to left and the Party itself spending all their time lining up to be talking heads and asking for donations with every email and letter.
Me? I voted Dem for the last 40 years and I am sitting this next one out. I more or less have been rejected by the left wing controlling the party as being to center for their liking.