Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

What makes Obama's most ardent supporters think he and Democrats would be any more successful achieving on our behalf in a second term?  More importantly, should Obama win, what do his supporters believe that Obama will say he has a mandate to do?  In his first term, he didn't do anything that he pledged to do in the 2008 campaign.  As a matter of fact, he flip-flopped on just about every promise.  

After the 2010 midterms, do you recall what Obama said that election's mandate was?  "More of the same", "more bipartisanship", more caving to Republicans, watering down legislation to satisfy conservatives.  It was in that lame duck session that Obama prevented Bush's tax cuts for the rich from expiring, and set Social Security up for failure with the payroll tax holiday (which was to be temporary, but it's been extended once already).

Do you know what Obama said he'd do if re-elected to a second term?:

Explaining this spring how he would manage to enact his agenda in a second term, Obama was still looking forward to sitting down and cutting deals. This time, he said, Republicans would be nicer because he’s not running for re-election.

Obama's either corrupt or he's the very definition of 'insanity', "doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome".  Or his supporters are.
 
Whether it's Obama Watering Down Regulations More Than Bush, Study Shows, or making Americans more enemies by stepping up drone attacks on sovereign nations, or instituting Simpson-Bowles as he's expected to do, or pushing the job-outsourcing Trans-Pacific free trade treaty through like he did with the S. Korea and Colombia and Panama treaties, how is any of that good for us or any different than what Romney would do?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost