Aw, Charles, ask yourself why liberals not get out the vote in 2010? Perhaps if had yielded to the voice of the American people as it was expressed in the election two years earlier, things may have turned out differently. Polls even today on all of the key issues show the majority of Americans are far from insane or stupid. Frustrated and disappointed are probably two adjectives closer to the truth.
^^^^ The poll that counts more than the others is the 2010 election. In that the American people voted insanely and stupidly, Marv. The American people should be frustrated and disappointed with themselves, and should have been upset with the Republicans, not Obama, in 2010. The liberals did not get out to vote because they didn't listen to those of us warning about the danger of the Tea Party. I don't agree with your line that Obama's actions as President are responsible for the failures of liberals to vote enough for Dems in 2110 It is the liberals and progressives' own fault. Now the situation is worse, and Obama has to compromise even further to the right. If liberals fail to turn out again for Obama and Democrats in 2012 , it will get even worse. This phony claim that liberals or American people are victims of Obama is very foolish and navel gazing. Both liberals and Americans are victims of themselves.
Nor did the American people not vote for a progressive program in 2008. Obama didn't run as a progressive. He ran as a rerun of Clinton, which is a centrist , not left, liberal. Clinton had several anti-working class main acts; NAFTA , reducing welfare, cutting Wall Street regulations. Your version of the 2008 election and what the majority voted for is not accurate. You can be sure Obama knows exactly what the political location ( as far as any sense of it can be made; in some ways that location is has a Heisenberg uncertainty about it; can't get the speed and location at the same time) is of the majority of people who voted for him; they weren't radicals or progressives Hell lefts around here are always talking about how unimportant and non-political elections are, urging non-voting. Why would Obama follow directions of self-declared shaky voters or anti-voters ? Most of the people who voted for Obama probably have concerns about the budget deficit, and Obama knows it because his people poll his people.
The budget fight negotiations now going on here should be examined more closely here. For one thing it is in historical rhyme with 1995 in the Clinton administration, especially given that the Tea Party surge parallels the Gingrichite's takeover of Congress then based , as then, on Health"care" Corporate money fueling rightwing nuts against Clinton's first effort at healthcare reform. Where exactly are the Republicans ? Will they go unharmed by a government shutdown ? Will insanely anti-Obama tendency in the US population which surged in 2010 twist minds to blame Obama and not the tea-Republican House of Representatives for federal government shutdown ? Will the Republicans' exclusive Masters in finance stop the Republicans from causing a shutdown because of the default implications ? This may be an historic game of chicken.
From:
If Obama cuts Social Security... The president indicates that funding for the hallmark Democratic program is on the table. Is this the last straw? Salon.com July 7 2011
"For most of the president's tenure, he, his staffers and his devoted-but-dwindling army of sycophants have insisted that the political fallout from the crushing recession reflects unrealistic expectations of Obama in the wake of George W. Bush's destructive reign. It is, dare I say, an audacious claim, especially coming from a candidate who asked us all to have the "audacity of hope" -- and it's more than a little insulting. After all, much of the complaints about the president have been about campaign promises that he didn't just fail to fulfill -- but that he refused to even try to fulfill.
"Indeed, when a political candidate promises to try to pass a public optionto compete with private insurers, attempt to crack down on Wall Street abuse, do what he can to stop unfair trade deals, oppose extending his predecessors tax cuts and avoid initiating initiate costly new wars sans congressional approval, and then once in office works to kill a public option, refuses to prosecute Wall Street crimes, presses the rigged trade deals he opposed, supports the extension of his predecessor's tax cutsand starts a new war in Libya with no congressional authorization -- whose fault is it that he ends up in reelection trouble?"
More: http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/07/07/obama_social_security_cuts/index.html