Kabuki theater.
The way to keep it going is to not give us another Democratic candidate and be sure that the Republican candidate is off the chart so to speak.

Actually as I was typing candidate, I accidentally came up with condidate and you know what, it fits, doesn't it?

Then found word is in urban dictionary.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CONdidate

Think we could start using that term here locally, is this one a candidate or a condidate?

To return to the Clinton tax rates, all Obama had to do in December 2010 was NOTHING. Instead, he signed a bill to extend the BUSH tax rates. I will never understand.

And we thought it was Rick Perry who was leaving his political success to prayer.

...he signed a bill to extend the BUSH tax rates. I will never understand.

The rationale is that you don't raise taxes in the depths of a recession, when GDP growth is stagnant or worse and unemployment is double-digit.

Drop out he should.

But being the smartest person in the room, and the most egotistical, we know that is the last thing he will do. And at least he should elevate somebody else to VP, so that when they lose, there will be a front runner. But he will go down in flames with Joe by his side, spouting off Bidenisms all the way down.

Dear Boycat,
The recession ended in the summer of 2009 (as economists define the term). In any event, I don't understand the Obama flip flop. He cut taxes on January 1, 2011, and then started proclaiming in the summer of 2011 that he wanted to raise taxes. What changed in those six months?

Joel, that's not by any means agreed upon by economists, and meanwhile the economy continues to wallow in the loo by just about any measure you want to look at.

I agree, let the party know he's not running again in 2012 and get Hillary in. What a waste Obama has been.

Dear Boycat,
I agree the economy is sick. I understand your logic for not raising taxes. Do you understand why Obama is calling for higher taxes in the middle of 2011 after just cutting taxes on the wealthy on January 1, 2011? I understand your logic. I do not understand Obama's logic.

Want to get your eyes opened in a hurry?

Check out the CBS/NYT poll:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/250094/new-york-times-cbs-poll-results.pdf

Notables:
Obama's approval
Congress's approval
Gay marriage
Abortion

Lessons for both parties.

Thanks
JK

Doesn't matter who runs. The funding system of American elections can only give you one sort of result. The only difference party makes is the rhetoric. And maybe, MAYBE, some difference in degree. But no substantive difference.

Nothing commissioned by either CBS or the NYT would make me open my eyes in a hurry.

LL,

Is that a gut reaction or did you actually open your mind and read the answers for a change?

Hillary Clinton would win by a landslide. He is toast this guy. Had his shot right after the swearing in & blew all this precious time with old ideas that are proven losers. YES! For the good of the party say it is time for someone who can be a game changer. She is one bright lady & sure better than any GOP choices out there.
On another note...Could Rick Perry be more challenged than Bush JR...Could that be possible? I think so.

CBS, NYT, Hillary, NPR, and the BBC. All proven winners leading us into the future.

Obama is an extreme rightwing (totalitarian) agent. Indoctrinated since birth, given up for adoption, (a 'mixed-race' baby, 1961), into the CIA's guardian grooming.
Yeah, you can't imagine that -- such complications; until you can read this:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/18/wayne-madsen-obamas-cia-connections-part-i-and-ii/

And that's only a tenth of the story of Obama raised and controlled by the CIA-types (totalitarian). His mother, and her mother and father, were all three on CIA payroll in WWII years (as OSS), before there was a CIA. READ at the link instead of blinding and paralyzing your mind with self-imposed stupidity.

What we see is NOT the ego of Obama. Coercion and threats beyond death overrules whatever ego he has with the EGO of TOTALitarianism, (which is what controls 'Why?' he behaves flip-floppy -- fake-good talking, true-bad acting). That's not Obama's ego,
it's the CIA's ego driving through him intent on being The One ruling over you, us, humankind.

Getting you to believe the hoax (that Obama is a 'liberal' or 'Democrat' or 'humanitarian'), overpowering your own judgment that he's Bush III based on what you see him do and, instead, have you hold only the 'judgment' of him which you are told and commanded to hold, is an easy hoax to perpetrate on the vast ready masses who fell for (and go on holding onto) the Nine-Eleven Op hoax. ... the trauma affect: you're prepped to flinch and cringe quicker the next time, in the next hoax.

[Besides -- besides all that -- the Touch-the-TV (no paper ballots) computerized voting machines are preprogrammed for 2012 already, so it doesn't matter what he does, or who the opponent is, or what TV-radio jabberwockies say about what-are-supposed-to-be issues you or 'everyone' thinks or is concerned about -- voters and their magpie reasons for the way they vote totally have no effect.]

Furthermore, a pinch of education might awaken us from our American Dream nightmare. A grand history lesson teaching us what has worked in the past and how to solve The Problem we face today, can save your life ... further, into the future.

A 2-hour movie, here: The Secret of Oz, (2010), directed by Bill Still reveals the LONG-going HOAX still oppressing us today. (Especially see in it the published plan of the totalitarians to cause side issues and distractions uproar which keeps us from seeing and thinking about the really BIG scam HOAX inflicted on us.)

In essence and content the movie is a film adaptation of the book Web of Debt, (WebofDept.com), by Ellen Brown, who appears in the film, (in scenes giving a strong sense of her purpose and position). However, 2 hours of education for some (attention-deficient) people could be asking too much time commitment for the measly worth of saving (their) lives.

Supremacist Totalitarian Lars Larson commands that you NOT see the movie and says that you should be outcast and die for knowing so much privileged insider information, (as 'elites' like him know).

I'm just saying hey, the movie material dispels some mighty mysteries. Understanding what's really going on, LONG going on, leaves you with no more questions 'Why?' Obama acts as he does.

I'm glad he made the December 2010 deal. The deal extended unemployment benefits for 13 months, which the Republicans -- remarkably and callously -- weren't going to allow to happen. It also extended the earned income tax credit expansion that was put in place in the Recovery Act. That helps poor working people to the tune of $40 billion. (Anyone care about them? Poor working people?) The very progressive payroll tax holiday was also a good thing. Not a big deal to rich folks, but for the guy making $50,000, an extra $1,000 in the pocket at the end of the year doesn't hurt.

Sure, just letting the Bush tax cuts end would have solved the deficit problem. No argument there. If you believe that the deficit RIGHT NOW is a higher priority than jobs, I can understand opposing the deal. But because of the timing, no deal would amounted to a cruel, cruel blow to millions of struggling Americans. Mark Zandi -- a pretty straight-shooting economist -- figures we'd have a a million fewer jobs right now without the deal. In other words, we'd be deep, deep in double-dip recession, with unemployment over 10 percent.

As for the question that was asked, about why "He cut taxes on January 1, 2011, and then started proclaiming in the summer of 2011 that he wanted to raise taxes," actually, he started talking about raising taxes when he made the deal. He allowed the tax cuts to remain in place because that was the price to pay not to tank the economy. "It will become apparent that we can't afford these tax cuts any longer," he said at the time.

I'm glad he made the December 2010 deal. The deal extended unemployment benefits for 13 months, which the Republicans -- remarkably and callously -- weren't going to allow to happen.

Gag me. He had complete control of both houses of Congress for several months in 2010, when all of that should have been settled. He either punked out or was lying to begin with.

He's done.

Obama never had complete control of both houses of Congress because Congress is still controlled by the 60 vote super majority requirement. Lieberman and the other blue dog democrats would not, and still do not, support a Buffet tax". That is why I agree with Pete, it was the best deal Obama could have passed under the circumstances.

Lieberman and the other blue dog democrats would not, and still do not, support a Buffet tax".

The election rhetoric was that there would be tax increases on those making $250K a year of income. That's what America voted for. It's not Buffett territory, not even Jimmy Buffett.

With 60 Democrats seated in the Senate, for the President to say he couldn't get the taxes he campaigned on -- and got elected on -- is either a lie or conclusive proof of his stunning lack of leadership skills. He's supposed to be the leader of his party. Clinton was. Johnson was. This guy's like Carter, only weaker.

I would never vote for a Republican for President, but I wouldn't lift a finger to help Obama again. I supported him over Hillary in '08 because I thought he had a better chance of winning. This time around, I'd much rather have Hillary. Obama will lose to any Republican, no matter how crazy. That bothers me a lot.

Last night's dinner with friends included a long and passionate discussion about all kinds of political hot buttons.

The most interesting point of view is that Obama lacks real world leadership skills. He's a professorial type who expects rational discourse and for compromise. And he thinks that elected officials are supposed to act in the best interest of the electorate.

That's long dead in the American political body.

The other interesting take on what has happened is that the hard right have learned how to operate from kidnappers. If you grab a hostage and make demands, people will give in to save the hostage's life. However, the kidnappers don't care about the life of the hostage in the least. And that is why there is no longer any bi-partisanship and why the Dems and Obama should quit negotiating with the Reps.

Karlock, you missed one thing in the polls, the American people don't think Republicans will create jobs. Duh!

Obama is chasing a sprite in any event. I did a little math last month when Buffett made himself the poster child for soak the rich tax increases. A billionaire tax along the lines of what Buffett proposed and which Obama is mimicking (an AMT for the super rich) would cut out twelve days, more or less, of the annual federal deficit. Pushing down to the super AMT to millionaires might get another 20 or 30 days, but really would kill jobs if not done as part of a major tax reform initiative. As many have said time and again, we have a spending problem. If taxes are to contribute materially to reducing deficits there must be broad based tax reform.

It's time to stop the destructive class warfare rhetoric and get to work -- something that Obama and virtually all the modern Democratic leadership seem to be woefully incapable of.

The right thing for all to do is to eschew party loyalties and get to the issues, not who or what you like but what works for this country in the globalized 21st Century. For that we need a President who actually eats his peas and operates within value creation constructs, instead of borrowing from the future and arrogantly lecturing others for being mean because they are unwilling to be as irresponsible and reckless as he. And we need a populous and political leadership who don't view the country as a closed system with an unlimited supply of wealth to be handed out as political favors. From that point of view, Obama is a disaster. He is a taker -- not a giver. He has to go -- we can't do worse.

I am glad to see that some are coming around to where I was three years ago realizing that Mrs. Clinton would have been a better President, better than a Harvard Law Review BSer, who lives in an empirical vacuum and is clueless on the role and importance of the economic system. Find yourselves a real man or woman, instead of a creator of strawmen. Please, don't make the same mistake again.

LucsAdvo; Your kidnapping analogy makes perfect sense to me.

LucsAdvo; Your kidnapping analogy makes perfect sense to me.
---

Not to me.

Maybe if you tried using the word 'terrorist' and also a Hitler analogy, or two?

The "kidnapping" used to be called "horse trading", was and is practiced by both parties (how many bush judicial appointees were "held hostage" after all), and was perfectly acceptable behavior for democrats and republicans prior to this administration.

Jack is absolutely correct - not only did the democrats have 60 democrat senators until Scott brown's election, but they could also count on one or two votes from "moderate" republicans like olympia snow. Pres Obama could have anything he wanted, but chose to take the easy road and not lead.

I think Obama maybe having 60 votes and ignoring that possibility is more of Obama being pragmatic, but with the caveat that he didn't have the second most important part of being pragmatic-"practice/experience"-but he thought he did. He definitely has the first, "theory".

Obama lectured on hope, change without giving much definition of what he thought that included. So many applied what they individually thought what it might mean. But Obama wanted to be a two-term, great hope president. So he thought at that defining moment "do I force higher taxes", he became a pragmatist and thought he didn't want to alienate the largest hidden contributors to his winning the election-wall street and all the attached entities.

First of all the kidnapping analogy came from one of my dining companions last night. Second of all, it's not at all akin to horsetrading.

The kidnapping analogy is more like this. The lunatic right wing believes that their brand of government is the only one that should be accepted and they would do their damnedest to destroy the country and anyone who gets in their way. They don't give a damned about the constitution or democracy. Just their ideology.

Think of them as a parasite that is willing to kill the host to gorge themselves on the body of the host. (Actually in light of transubstantiation that's really a fitting analogy.) If there is not another host body around, they are too short sighted to care.

Newleaf, giving up "class warfare" needs to start from the top down, buddy. And without a constitutional amendment or two to stop the legal fiction of corporate personhood and complete clean-up of the DOJ (including some of the Supremes - looking at you, Clarence Thomas), there is no reason to assume that the uberrich are going to relent on their destruction of the middle class.

....there is no reason to assume that the uberrich are going to relent on their destruction of the middle class.

Cannot depend on the uberrich relenting, some may see the folly of the agenda, but most may likely think they are "set and safe" from future problems.

Same with the insider agenda here, heard Katz said she didn't like that word agenda being used....
so in my view then, a good word to use.

PWB and those behind them won't want to change course either...

Those running agendas will not want to relent. In my opinion, they have had the advantage of keeping press at bay, and education being changed so as not to think critically or holistically, way too much fragmentation, keeping people busy, fighting with each other,entertained,
...the list is long.

Anyone who thinks the lunatic right wing (more new tone rhetoric - some folks just have no self control or intellectual honesty) has not been compromising hasn't been paying attention. Government will be bigger - much bigger - under the debt ceiling agreement supported by members of both parties. The idea that someone is holding anything hostage so that the government will be smaller is hilarious...and simply untrue on it's face.

John fairplay - I sense you love drinking corporate and religious "right" Kool-aid

LucsAdvo,

I would re-edit your comment to make it more accurate:

The lunatic right and left wing believe that their brand of government is the only one that should be accepted and they would do their damnedest to destroy the country and anyone who gets in their way. They don't give a damned about the constitution or democracy. Just their ideology.

Mike (one of many), I thought the same thing as I read Lucs post. I'll tone it down a little, but Lucs is purporting the same thing that he is accusing the Right of doing. Some might view that as hypocrisy.

Everyone acts so surprised. Obama had one thing going for him - He wasn't McCain.

Other than that, he's never ran anything or had an original idea. He likes giving speeches and hearing applause. Do him a favor, retire him young and let him charge $250K an appearance.

Now if you can get me the people behind the curtain pulling his strings, we might be going somewhere.

As far as raising the taxes on the rich, it'll get spent and then we'll be deepre in the hole. I'd rather find out what exactly they've cut (which I suspect is nothing) and work on that.

Mikey and lw -

First off boys, LucsAdvo is a moniker for the devil's (Lucifer's) advocate. And I like to argue as such. Don't assume you know my real beliefs. You could guess at a few and you'd be so wrong about others.

Now to your fallacious "logic", when has the "lunatic" left insisted that neo-paganism or something else be the national religion and that the legal system codify that ideology and shove it down everyone else's throat? When has the lunatic left insisted that opposite sex couples not be allowed to get married? When has the lunatic left tried to make medical (abortion, right to die, etc.) decisions for other people? I could go on, but I believe my point is made well enough here.

Your hypocritical hats are waiting by the stools in the corner.

lucs, I don't like to use labels like Left and Right because there are so many variables in each. But, when has the Right called for requiring the purchase of health insurance, contrary to our Constitution?...when has the Right....ah, I don't want to continue. And that just proves my point, there's lunatic extremism on both sides. If that's your point, fine. Remove your hypocritical hat, please.

lw - I wouldn't assume the real left wants to force anyone to purchase health insurance. I believe the real left wants health care needs covered by the government. The insurance companies benefit the most if individuals are forced to buy health insurance. Group plans get better rates than individual purchases. As I have been saying for months neither Dems or Reps represent anyone but business. But hey, don't let facts ever get in the way of what you spout.

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

when has the Right called for requiring the purchase of health insurance...

Romney?

LucsAdvo,

I would not presume that my edit represents your beliefs.

Instead, this is how I view the situation.

And all sides have issues due to how they advocate. What is important to one voter is not necessarily the same hot button issue of another.

Lewis, Romney isn't from the Right.

Lewis, Romney isn't from the Right.

I'll just quote LucsAdvo here:
"...hey, don't let facts ever get in the way of what you spout."