From the president’s press conference today, in which he answered the final question with an address to the disgruntled left about his lines in the sand and his frustration with sanctimonious purists:

With respect to the bottom line, in terms of what my core principles are, yeah look, I’ve got a bunch of lines in the sand. Not making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low income families, that those were preserved, that is a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions of earned income tax credit or other important breaks for middle class families, like the college tax credit, that those had gone away, just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for, for a hundred years – but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get, that would have affected maybe a couple million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for a hundred million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves, and sanctimonious about how pure our intensions are and how tough we are. And in the meantime the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service.

That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat.

This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. You know, the New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America – neither does the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Most Americans, they’re just trying to figure out how to go about their lives, and how can we make sure that our elected officials are looking out for us? And that means because it’s a big, diverse country, and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done we’re gonna compromise.

This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare started it was a small program, it grew. Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal.

This country was founded on compromise. I couldn’t go through the front door of this country’s founding. And you know if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a Union.

And so, my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there. What is helping the American people live out of their lives? You know what is giving them more opportunity, what is growing the economy, what is making us more competitive. And at any given juncture there’re gonna be times where my preferred option, what I’m absolutely positive is right, I can’t get done. And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way, or tack a little bit that way, because I’m keeping my eye on the long term, and the long fight, not my day to day news cycle, but where am I going over the long term?

And I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised. Take a tally, look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I have not gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.

And so, to my Democratic friends, what I’d suggest is, let’s make sure that we understand this is a long game, this is not a short game.

And to my Republican friends, I would suggest, I think this is a good agreement, because I know they’re swallowing some things that they don’t like as well, and I’m looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years.

Eli Sanders is The Stranger's associate editor. His book, "While the City Slept," was a finalist for the Washington State Book Award and the Dayton Literary Peace Prize. He once did this and once won this,...

21 replies on “You Hate Obama’s Compromises? Here’s What He Thinks of Your Complaints.”

  1. Wonderful. Now if one expects a president to govern in some sort of way discernible from the opposition party, it makes one a “sanctimonious purist.” Good to know.

  2. “This country was founded on compromise.” If that was remotely true, much less Obama’s brand of “compromise” (read: preempive capitulation) we would still all be English subjects, paying excessive taxes to the crown.

  3. “And I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised. Take a tally, look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I have not gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.”

    Ha! What utter bullshit. The only way this statement could be true is if it were opposite day.

  6. The thing that bugs me the most is that while he keeps harping on “compromise”, all I hear is “knuckling under”. Someone should explain to the GOP that they’re expected to compromise as well.

  11. I’d write something witty here–something like “yet another first for Obama…first African-American Republican president”–but it’s all just too depressing.

  13. “How’s that third party sounding now?”

    As disappointed as I have been in the lack of a spine from the Obama administration to tell the Republicans to suck it…we still have a two part system and that isn’t changing. I picked one…the one that sits closest to my ideals. I’d rather be with the Democrats than tossing my vote to a guy with no prayer of winning.

    Whenever I think of voting for a 3rd party I just remember about the one time I did…In hindsight man was it a bad idea to vote for Nader instead of taking the lesser of two evils in Al Gore. You may say I have no backbone myself but I also understand politics and I understand what wins. It will never ever under any circumstances in our electoral system today be a third party.

    Obama-Biden vs. McCain-Palin…yeah I think we’re still better off with who we elected.

  15. Everyone here has drunk the koolaid of the so-called progressive blogosphere. Even Paul Krugman said this plan is better than he expected. And yes the repubs also compromised by extending unemployment, increasing earned income tax credit (more $ for poor people) and a few other goodies on the left wing christmas list. Both sides compromised. You lame asses have ruined the word progressive for me, I am now referring to myself as a democrat.

  18. Not Mel,

    With all respect, you’re full of shit. The compromise for the Republicans is still a significant decrease in the EITC. We should be making permanent the EITC levels in ARRA, but instead settled for extending the Bush tax cut levels, which means something like 90,000 Oregon families will be ineligible for it next year. That’s a whole lot of working families getting screwed because the Democrats compromised.

  19. Blacked out: If you are against the war machine, wall street stealing everything that isn’t nailed down, and the evisceration of our constitution, than you have no choice but to vote for a third party…sorry. I wouldn’t even consider it a ‘third’ party because the dems and repubs are run by the exact same interests, with the exact same agenda, regardless of the rhetoric the espouse.

  21. Jesus, people. I’m really starting to understand now why people hate Liberals. I never really got it before, being a progressive type person myself – I thought “we’re logical, we think about the big picture…” But these comments show that’s absolutely not true.

    Dems hated it when Bush was president because he governed as if only conservatives and millionaires lived here. The Democratic and Liberal agenda was not on his radar. Now Obama is governing as if *both* Liberals and Conservatives live here and the Liberals are crying their eyes out.

    Whatever you think of Obama’s compromises – the PotUS doesn’t have that much power. He is the face of our government and he sets the agenda. He can’t wander about creating laws willy-nilly. In a 2-party system compromise is absolutely the name of the game and I’m glad we have a president who feels it’s more important to gain *some* victory than to garner political points and lose everything else.

    The people who have health care, who didn’t before (including several members of my family) are pretty thrilled that Obama didn’t make his fight about how big his balls were and how he won’t back down. Because they wouldn’t have that coverage if he had.

Comments are closed.