Oxy, I been thinking along the same lines as you. I was with my quilt club the evening of the speech. I left early so I could listen to the speech on the way home on NPR. I didn't see the faces of the Republicans. My quilting friends did bring up how the Republicans would not let the president ideas pass no matter how much the country needed it. They also was not happy with the budget fight and they were tired of the disrespect for the office of the president by the Republicans. These are ladies in their 60's and 70's. They pay very little attention to politics but this summer the talk of cuts in benefits has got their attention. They aren't buying Republican talking points. Some are life long Republican voters. I say the Republicans keep this up they will be in trouble in the election even down ticket. These ladies have caught on to the fact that the legislature isn't doing it's job and the Republicans are the cause. They would like to see Nancy P. back as speaker because she shows a lot of moxi and class. So we will have to see which Republican party wins the primary. The far right crazy or Mitt. Right now my freinds don't trust none of the R's.

They are definitely going to try to sit on their hands and do nothing. I hope it doesn't work out that well for them. But yeah they will try to make sure there the economy doesn't improve while there is a Democrat in the Oval Office,  and they will do whatever it takes to make sure that happens, because that is their one and only goal. People should wake up to that fact, that Republicans are absolutely willing to screw everyone over to gain control of the executive branch again and they will try to make sure people are suffering to do so... seems to me like they hate America and Americans.

Good post, oxy.

Up until the point where Obama put forward his jobs proposal--limited and flawed, to be sure, but a proposal--and publicly and with conviction pressed the Republicans to pass it, I did not know how to make the argument you and tmac are writing about with people I talk to.  

Now that he has--and in the wake of Republican behavior during the debt ceiling mess and otherwise--I do. And I have some hope that there will be receptivity to it and that this could mark the beginning of a re-assessment of the President for the better by many voters going forward--IF he continues with this MO.  

Speaking of armchair research, there is plenty of dissatisfaction, even disgust, with Obama among neighbors I've spoken with lately.  The common theme among three different people I spoke with over the weekend was a sense of inadequacy, that his proposals and conduct in office, where they haven't been all but invisible, or else misguided or incoherent as on AfPak, just haven't been on a scale up to the deep challenges we face.  None of the three self-identifies as "true-believing" liberal types.  One of them is a lifelong cranky Dem who voted for Obama, one is a Republican who voted McCain and can see the Tea Party types are nuts who have nothing useful to offer, and the other had been a lifelong but increasingly disaffected D who probably voted for McCain is my guess.  What they all observe is proposals and a record that just hasn't been far-reaching enough to turn things around or at least get us on a path that thinking people can see offers some hope.    

Everyone not living in a cave for the last 3 years understands, clearly, that our country faces major, major problems, starting, for most, with the economy.  I think it is just beginning to dawn on some folks who cannot imagine themselves ever thrown out of work, who have investments of some significance, that in the longer run, if Europe and the US are both in the tank, this drags down the whole global economy and eventually effects even investment opportunities in places other than Europe and US.  

You and I might think that would be fairly obvious.  But somehow, it's not.  The belief--the illusion, I would call it--in the "gated community" mentality, that it is possible for people with some means to isolate themselves from the negative consequences of widespread poor-to-miserable conditions in the "real" economy, and the often counter-productive consequences of the political unrest that eventually tends to ensue, dies very hard.  A lot of folks still think they, personally, can escape the nastiness.  They think "independence" rather than acknowledge and accept the reality of "interdependence".

I continue to believe the President is far more likely to lose his re-election bid, not to mention ultimately fail the country, on account of being insufficiently bold than by being too bold.  Thinking people understand that these times really do call for far-reaching measures, not half-measures or timidity.  At least that is what I pick up in the conversations I have.  I like to think that if the President very publicly gets on and sustains his A game, where he is challenging and pushing the Republicans (and balky Democrats) to move on bold proposals on jobs in particular, he will enhance his standing with the public--even though (because?) all the Republicans know how to do is say no.

Running against a "do-nothing" Congress, if that is what it comes to, and making the Congressional as well as presidential elections about going big versus more of the same failed Bush economic policies, is both Obama's best chance to win, and also his best chance to get himself a Congress that might, possibly, with persistent White House and public prodding, go farther in rising to the challenges.  If he goes that route at least the public will know where Obama stands and what he means to do with a second term if they vote to re-elect him--and give him a cooperative Congress.  

I still think he may be able to have some success with portraying what to many of us has been his timidity and excessive deference to the GOP to his favor, as representing his efforts to go the very last mile to make good on his efforts to deal with national problems in a bipartisan manner.  Because of the way he has conducted himself--and because of the widespread criticisms of his MO from frustrated progressives in particular--I doubt there are many otherwise open to voting for him who think he has been too rigid, too inflexible, insufficiently determined to try to get bipartisan cooperation.

So now, having tried and gone the very last mile on bipartisanship, and having run up against a brick wall which the public is finally starting to see, he may be able to make headway going in a different, bolder direction going forward.  Yes, of course, the GOP will block everything they can from now until the election.  He has to help make sure the public sees this more and more clearly.   

The do-nothing Republican House.  Worked for Truman.  It can work for Obama not just to get him re-elected, but re-elected pledged to a bolder agenda and with a Congress that gives him and us a fighting chance.  Keep taking the ball to the basket, Mr. President.

And a P.S. to some of our fellow lefty and progressive-bashing denizens.  I don't see the above as having much, if anything, to do with "moving left".  I think that during highly anxious times such as these, ideological prejudices can become less of an impediment to action where people feel a proposal might possibly work or are at least open to trying it given the visible severity of the problems they observe all around them.  Franklin Roosevelt understood this and was wise enough to stay away from ideologically-tinged characterizations of his proposals and instead spoke the language of pragmatic, ongoing experimentation.  A conservative economist put it this way: "We're all Keynesians in the foxhole, I suppose."  

It's extremely important for Obama and other Democrats to call things by their names and to be crystal clear about what Republicans are up to.

What would people think about a doctor who intentionally fouled up operations so that he could make his Chief of Surgery look bad, and take over his job when the latter is fired?   Is this just "obstructionism"?   Is it just "gamesmanship"?   Is it just "hardball"?  No it would be criminal malpractice meriting the severest punishment.

People who would keep millions of Americans out of work intentionally so that they can win an election are criminal malefactors who deserve to be horsewhipped.

the public while not always sophisticated

Herewith the "Jolly", a new Dayley for understatement