Obama's best move — politically and practically — would be to meet Republicans somewhere in the middle and be willing to change parts of his agenda. For starters, he could include tort reform as an add-on to the health care law. It's not giving Republicans everything, but it would be a meaningful olive branch and show a willingness to go against the Democrats' trial lawyers base.This liberal Democratic strategist goes on to say that "Obama has a rare chance to make good on his campaign promise" of "bipartisan civility." He adds that "if both sides made a serious effort to compromise, the voters would reward them." Oddly, the strategist doesn't say what the Democratic Party's natural supporters among the dwindling American middle class are supposed to get in return for seeing Obama push their party yet further to the right. Has not Obama spend the better part of two years pursuing appeasement? Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
If the Democrats lose Congress in November, it will be because voters question whether the Democrats have principles. "Less" of the other party's prescription does not a conviction make. Yet Democrats continue to offer less -- often only marginally less -- of what the Republicans propose: less tax cuts for the rich, fewer job losses, less war-mongering, fewer uninsured patients, less capitulation to Wall Street. For example, when Bob Beckel speaks of the need for a "Congress that puts the United States on a fiscally sustainable path," he has already conceded the core of the Republican economic agenda, prioritizing fiscal discipline and budget cutting over fiscal stimulus and job creation. Presumably, the Democrats would cut less.
What if Obama and his party began from a position of saying "none" instead of "some" to various corporatist propositions?