All laudable if unattainable goals?
Obama has never been the bottle neck or the cork preventing progressive reform!
If you must make someone do it, you need to make those democrats that stood tall, as self serving roadblocks in the path of reform, like the former speaker, to just stop doing it!
And indeed, twist the arms of obstinate recalcitrant tea party types, whose entire input to date, carries with it, enormous negative economic consequences, if ever adopted!
Obama simply doesn't have the power, you seem to think he possesses.
He is a President, armed only with a veto; and not a benign dictator!
Albeit, that is exactly what America, Europe and all the other failing economies, need just now!
We Australians armed with our own unique sense of black or extremely ironic humour, would probably ask, what would Putin do?
Rhrosty.

>>They could not forget that he [Obama] bailed out the huge banks>>

Errr,

I think you'll find that happened during the final days of the Bush administration.

See: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

As for the rest, well this is the usual wishful thinking one expects from the self-proclaimed "progressives."

The only time Romney looked like getting anywhere near the Presidency was when he attacked Obama's environmental programs. If Obama has any sense -- and he does -- he will accelerate the provision of cheap energy and industrial development which is necessary to get the US out of its economic slump, and cut back on the environmental issues as much as he possibly can without disillusioning too many of the Green Left. The fact that climate change never made it into any of the presidential campaign statements or debates is a pretty good indication of just how unimportant Obama -- like most rational people -- regards it as.

So is any and every one who puts forward a progressive point of view a "self-styled" progressive. And by contrast any one who puts forward a conservative and/or right-wing point of view a disinterested 100% reliable "officially" certified truth teller.

Seems like entirely laudable goals to me.
It also seems to me that some kind of progressive politics is the only way to go too.
This reference describes the situation that occurred in the 8 years of the Bush mal-administration http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1116 The 8 years of the Bush mal-administration were of course easily the worst 8 years in the history of the USA.
Such was the dreadful legacy that Barack obama inherited.
Romney and Co (especially via the influence of the Koch brothers) would have accelerated everything described in the above essay.

Does any reasonably sane person pretend that the dreadfully dark politics advocated by such right-wing so called conservative outfits such as The National Review, The American Spectator, First Things, or any of the multi-various outfits associated with the GOP Noise Machine offers any kind of positive future for Earthkind altogether.

LOL Daffy Duck

You write

>>...is...any one who puts forward a conservative and/or right-wing point of view a disinterested 100% reliable "officially" certified truth teller.>>>

Nope. Most self-styled "conservatives" are nuts or dupes or, more usually, both.

GK Chesterton put it thus:

>>The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.>>

@Daffy Duck: "The 8 years of the Bush mal-administration were of course easily the worst 8 years in the history of the USA."

Worse than the Depression?

Worse than the Prohibition era?

Worse than World War I?

Worse than World War II?

Worse than 1814, when the British burnt Washington?

Worse than the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, which killed 8,000 people, and the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906?

Worse than the US Civil War, with an estimated 750,000 casualties?

Agreed, Bush was a pain in the arse, but your left-wing sensibilities have led you badly astray if you think his Presidency was in any way comparable to the genuine catastrophes and tragedies of the past.

And of course self-styled "conservatives" have a highly effective world wide net work of think tanks and "public relations" firms (that is professional liars) outfits to argue their case. As described by Sharon Beder in her classic book Global Spin, and also in This Little Kiddy went To Market.

By the way anyone who quotes Chesterton as an "authority" on anything, especially in the now quantum world of 2012, is just being intellectually, religiously and morally lazy.

Chesterton is also of course much favored by all of the usual right-wing Christian propagandists that infest the National Review, American Spectator, First Things, etc, etc.

Some people pretend that Chesterton was even in some sense a saint. Such a claim is of course absurd.
What lived example did Chesterton actually represent. In his later years he was a self-indulgent grossly overweight obese GLUTTON, possibly even an alcoholic. Obesity is of course the result of years of consistent self-indulgence. Which is to say he did not even any capacity to exercise the necessary self-discipline or practical intelligence to control what he put in his mouth.

How does one assess the authenticity of anyones religion and thus whether they are worthy of being listened to or taken as an authority on religious and cultural matters? Especially in the case of Chesterton.

What is the lived quality of their existence? What do they actually do in every area of their life? Do they look happy and healthy? Are they sane and balanced? Is their experience real and also profound and extraordinary or are just mumbling the usual true believers nonsense about "Jesus"? If so they must be doing something appropriate to be in such a good state.

But, in the case of both Chesterton, and more importantly, especially his now-time admirers, are they a bunch of crazy fanatical people who obviously have no profound or extraordinary experience, no clarity, no humanity, no love, no ability to inspect and therefore discipline and thus transcend themselves, then you can know with certainty that they are "religious" phonies. Such is of course the case with all of those who write and talk religion-speak at the National review, American Spectator, First Things etc etc.

If you are not bringing order to your life, if you are not becoming balanced and tranquil and more capable of existing in a higher, pleasurable state, then you are not practicing real religion. Because real religion is a Process of literally transforming the body-mind via love-surrender to the Living Divine Reality.

You will not even a smidgin of such evidence at any of the big "religious" talkers/promoters at the above outfits.