....these are taken from the transcript, helpfully provided by Daily Kos, of a round table discussion help by President Obama with five prominent left-wing bloggers. Some glimpses into the future, some things to hold him to, some insights, and some laughable instances of a shocking lack of self-awareness - like this one:
Q. ...What’s your feelings on the thought of a Rand Paul supporter actually stepping on the neck of a female MoveOn supporter?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I think that one of the things that I’ve always tried to promote is civility in politics. I think we can disagree vigorously without being disagreeable.
This from the guy who was out last week urging Hisoanics to vote against their "enemies", aka Republicans and any Americans who are oppsoed to open borders. really, has there been anyone more "disagreeable" on the campaing trail in the last few election cycles than Barack Obama? None come to mind, save Alan Grayson...
On being asked about his desire/ability to work with a likely Republican Congress:
THE PRESIDENT: Look, the -- I’m a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to, on the one hand, trying to get cooperation. I don’t give up just because I didn’t get cooperation on this issue; I’ll try the next issue. If the Republicans don’t agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they’ll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don’t agree with me on infrastructure, I’ll try to see if they agree with me on education.
We'll see. remember in the last two years, he hasn't even attempted to work with Republicans at all - shutting them out of the stimulus planning, the health care debate....hey, this is a guy who met Mitch McConnell for the first time last week!
We've also learned that he lives in a bubble:
A concern I have right now is that the main economic idea that the Republicans seem to have is continuing the tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and then a vague statement about cutting spending without identifying what those spending cuts might actually be. And I don’t know any economists who would say that’s a recipe for more job creation.
Well, actually, there are hundreds who say it is a recipe for job creation. You just ignore all of them because you're an ideologue. Are we clear on that?
And here come the tax hikes! On Social Security:
Social Security is something that can be fixed with some modest modifications that don’t impose hardships on beneficiaries who are counting on it.
And so the example that I used during the campaign was an increase in the payroll tax, not an increase -- let me scratch that. Not an increase in the payroll tax but an increase in the income level at which it is excluded.
Bullsh*tting much, Mr. President? Currently,you stop paying Social Security once you've earned approximately $108K. If the president raises it to, say, $200K, or eliminates it, working Americans will fork over thousands of dollars in additional taxes to the government - money that most of them use for Christmas shopping. But it's not a tax increase! When Obama's deficit panel proposes it, watch for the media to chant the same line, while millions of Americans who count on a 2-3 paycheck "tax holiday" to buy presents wail and gnash their teeth...
And again, he complains about American democracy, and pines for a more...European style:
And that’s a problem, because unfortunately we now have essentially a 60-vote requirement on every single issue, including trying to get judges confirmed who’ve passed through the Judiciary Committee on a unanimous basis.
...But I guess I’d make two points. The first is, I’m President and not king. And so I’ve got to get a majority in the House and I’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.
... If we had a parliamentary system, then this critique would make sense to me because you do as much as you can to negotiate with the other side, but at a certain point you’ve got your platform and you move it forward and your party votes for it.
...But that’s not the system of government we have. We’ve got a different system. I will say that the damage that the filibuster I think has done to the workings of our democracy are at this point pretty profound. The rate at which it’s used just to delay and obstruct is unprecedented. But that’s the reality right now.
Well, maybe if her wasn't so hard-left, he could get a few Republicans to vote with him, and wouldn't have to work just to keep all 60 of his members in check. But that would be compromise, something the president talks about at length (see above) but doesn't really actively engage in...
I'll leave you with an idea of what will be pushed in a lame-duck session: The abolition of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Well, can I ask you just about “don’t ask, don’t tell,” just following up? (Laughter.) I just want to follow up. Because you mentioned it -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sure. Go ahead.
Q Is there a strategy for the lame-duck session to --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q -- and you’re going to be involved?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Will Secretary Gates be involved?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not going to tip my hand now. But there is a strategy.
There's plenty more in there; read it all. And weep...