To date, the only thing that has stopped the Republican Congress is the women Democratic Senators drawing a line in the sand on Planned Parenthood.

Like it or not, they were very different during the primaries. I saw it and many others saw it too.

If forcing the concept of healthcare for all is a liberal notion in any way, he has moved the country left.

He has not moved the country left on tax policies for the next 2 years or the 6 month budget.

And that's the piece that gets short shrift here.

The liberal blogosphere went absolutely bat sh*t over concessions made in a budget that will cover half a year.

Moving the country left or solving the short term recession and unemployment issues?

In other words, what if Obama believed (for better or worse) that he should make concessions for the short term benefit in order to sacrifice for the long term?  Or what if he believed the opposite and is sacrificing short term for the long term?

I am fairly liberal but it often occurs to me that the liberal position may not be the optimal position for every single issue or problem. In other words, maybe, just maybe, defense spending is a stimulus in itself and slashing defense spending is going to result in thousands of military contractors being laid off. Maybe, just maybe, a showing of seriousness with respect to the deficit calms the markets and allows the them to take the coming hit we are going to see from the tragedy in Japan, the poor performance of the EU this summer, and the double dip housing market stagnation coming down the pike.

In other words, what if the best solutions for a particular issue are not necessarily the liberal position in every situation.  I mean you have to admit that it's possible right?

In that case, #2 really isn't written correctly.  Number 2 should be written as "doing what works to address short term problems while advancing towards a long term solution".  We liberals tend to think our ways are better both short and long term.  But when you are so wrapped up in promoting a certain agenda without question or caveat or even recognition that the other side may have an idea or two, you fall into the same traps that we accuse the GOP of falling into.

I mean as much as it works as a rallying cry, I do not believe that most republicans believe as they do just to line the pockets of some rich wall street type. I believe that the bulk of them actually believe that their policies are best for the country. Is it so impossible to believe that they could be right occasionally or on some specific issue.

I wrote #2 in that way because I had a sense that folks would latch onto it and accept it as primary.

But the statement itself reflects the problem that I see with many of the comments here and the unfortunate demonization of anyone who dares to suggest that the far left viewpoint may not be exactly right.

Something just strikes me as wrong about the fundamental starting place of a lot of the comments I read here. They are right on the substance in many ways, but there is something icky/wrong about the way they frame this whole business, including the Obama=Republican stuff.

The Republicans respond to power.  Beat them, and then they will gladly agree with you.  They do this not because they see the error of their ways, but because as essentially authoritarian, they cannot stand to be in the minority or on the "losing" side.  They thus adapt.

Your argument is that partisanship is more beneficial?

I have trouble seeing how someone can legitimately argue that point.

When the day comes (and it will at some point) that conservatives control all branches, I think you will quickly remember the benefits of bipartisanship.

The trick is that you have to advocate bipartisanship when you aren't  in power to actually effect meaningful change.

And unlike many other former office holders who admit the epic fail only after their term is up, Johnson said the same things as Governor.