General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen I look at Obama, I see a man who is trying very hard to do right by the people
Unlike the last guy, who allowed his sociopathic vice president to take over for the first 4 years, and then revealed his incompetence in the next, Obama has been trying to do the best he can with the bad situation he is faced with.
The fact is a president is not a king. And unlike other countries where parliamentary systems allow the government in power to make changes much more easily, Obama needs to work with this broken American system which involves a corrupt, gerrymandered, bought and paid for congress; a gridlocked, dysfunctional Senate; a propaganda network owned by the wealthy known as the mainstream media; outright election fraud, and a dumbed down, uninterested, uneducated population that's too busy trying to survive in the ruined Reagan economy than to pay any attention to politicians who they've long lost any faith in doing what's in their best interests.
Obama can't just snap his fingers and say "On this day forward, every man, woman and child shall have free, universal, single payer health care". He can't just raise taxes on the 1%. He can't just end the wars instantly or get money out of the military and back into education.
He has to deal with congress. A majority of them in the house are Republicans. A good chunk of the Democrats are Democrats in name only. They're elected by an ignorant population, brainwashed by the media, disenfranchised at the ballot box, in gerrymandered districts. He has to deal with the Senate, the vast majority of them more corrupt than an ancient Roman senator at the height of the barbarian invasions.
He has to deal with the supreme court, one justice away from having a majority conservative slant.
In short, Obama has been forced to take on this middle of the road, work together, kumbaya deal that we've all been seeing for the last 3 years. His only recourse when it doesn't work being to hopefully pin the blame on the corrupt halls of congress and get some actual decent people elected in the next cycle, despite all the gerrymandering, election fraud, and propaganda. To get people like him, working with him, who go into politics because they actually CARE about doing what's right for the common man, instead of lining their pockets.
No, I can't say I blame Obama for some of the decisions he's been forced to make. I can only hope that people wake up and take back their country. Occupy Wall Street is a good start. But make no mistake, it's just a start. There's a long, long way to go.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Hulk
(6,699 posts)You put into words exactly how I feel. He is a hell of a lot better than anything else out there...and he's doing the best he can in the shit hole he is stuck in. Poco a poco is the Spanish phrase...and it applies here.
Social Security didn't morph into what it is today from the start. It took years of twinking the system and making it better. It's going to be the same with the Health Care Reform. We didn't get "single payer".....yet.
But, should we be just lazy or dumb enough to allow the repukkkes to take over again.....screw progress. We'll be right back to square one, if they have their way.
Wake up America! Pull your head out of your ass and patience may be a bit necessary with the Congress we have and the Supreme Court thugs we have to deal with. It may take time. All good things do.
babsbunny
(8,441 posts)
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Because it's enough that we believe he is full of good intentions. And that illusion we can supply entirely by ourselves. He doesn't have to lift a finger to help us.
The same old shit is the best he can do, but since we are sure that he means well (a conclusion derived by a intuitive process of divination that does not submit to rational analysis), that's good enough for us.
Anatos
(179 posts)and he's provided far far more than "the same old shit". So: lame.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)If his hands are so tied as they like to say, I'd be happy if he just told the truth about what has gone on in this country. In fact back before he was inaugurated I said that he would have to level with the people about the reign of crime as a first step absolutely required beginning on Day One to begin reform. If he failed to level with the people about our situation I said he and the Democrats would find themselves locked into the same policies. The Repukes and Blew Dogs can stop reforms in Congress but they couldn't possibly stop him telling the people what the banks were up to, what the Bush Administration was up to in starting illegal wars and violating the Constitutional rights of every US citizen. And for three years he consistently refused to level with the people about the hole Reaganomics has put us in, about the serfdom the financial industry has plunged us in, and he blithely continued Bush era attacks on civil liberties.
People admit he's been ineffective at best but they say his heart is full of good intentions. And as long as they delude themselves this way, he doesn't have to produce anything recognizably Democratic. He can even pass off Republican ideas such as NewtRomneyCare as Democratic programs and foist them on the country when they were rejected time and again from the hands of Republicans.
Anatos
(179 posts)He has a responsibility to not destroy the economy, and it doesn't matter how evil you think that economy is. He has a responsibility to not allow terrorists to attack us, even if he can't prove they will in court. He has a responsibility to be Chief Executive, and is therefore more focused on making the right calls himself than making it impossible to make the wrong ones.
Mr. Obama started leveling with the people about the hole Reaganomics has put us in before you ever heard of him. If you did some research you'd be aware of that. Did he make it his first priority? Well, yes, actually, he did, because the deepest part of that hole was dug by the unrestricted ballooning of medical costs thanks to the advancement of (expensive) technology and the legal mandates of Medicare. I wasn't aware we were required to wait for him to consider Reaganomics a bad thing, but if he was too late in saying it clearly enough for you, I'm sure that was a failure on his part, not yours.
He's been extraordinarily effective and anyone who says otherwise probably has other reasons for being unable to respect his accomplishments. Some day when we finally get an open public option/single payer, we'll call it ObamaCare, for good reason. Makes no difference at all what you believe.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)and then there are the rest of us. It doesn't matter anymore if you're poor or middle class. They want it all.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)I was quoting one of his speeches.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)liberals?
Eliminator
(190 posts)How many districts are gerrymandered to such a point that the only way to ever get a Democrat elected in those districts is if he or she is conservative? How many states have conservate senators? The two that come from California, with one of the largest populations, are cancelled out by the two that come from Utah, with nothing populations.
The system is rigged.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)retards. And here all this time I thought it was because he was a conservative dickhead.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and you continue to harbor this idiocy and then go about repeating it. Good lord!
Charlemagne
(576 posts)But let’s be clear – he apologized to the disabled community, not the liberal community.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... the only way to get a Democrat elected is if he/she is really a Republican? C'mon.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Seems you'd have to defer to them during such years.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)no, there is not. "It's a big club, and you ain't in it"
AnOhioan
(2,894 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I am a buckeye in exile, but plan to return in the future. I miss autumn in Ohio.
AnOhioan
(2,894 posts)
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)I genuinely feel like he is trying to constantly do right by the American people.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)As much as we might God-awfully hate the Republican Party, the United States does not break down into liberals and Tea Partiers. There are plenty of people who have legitimate, honest differences of opinion. Some of them may be uninformed or underinformed, but the fact remains that Obama is the President of the WHOLE United States, not the President of People Who Agree With Me, making it his responsibility to respect--and, when possible, educate--those people too who honestly disagree.
That's the difference between a Democratic President and a Republican. The Democrat feels the obligation of his office to govern, for the benefit of everyone. The Republican wants to rule, for the benefit of his side.
rsmith6621
(6,942 posts)Why would he sign something that could be used against US.
Yes I think you should get your eyes check.
bhikkhu
(10,714 posts)...that's why the vast majority of our representatives voted for its passage, and that's what the ACLU asked for. Basically the bill just states a mild form of the detention policy we've had for 10 years of "the war on terror".
on edit - I have to remind myself to add: what we really need is a plan to end the war. And that's one thing that I would really like to see from the president...
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and open to different interpretations.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Rather than working to give the man a commanding *PROGRESSIVE* majority in BOTH houses of Congress, many here on this forum will just sit and blame the president.
Thank you for your post. It was critical but fair-minded.
rsmith6621
(6,942 posts)Obama had both houses for the first two years and still surrendered to the conservatives.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Eliminator
(190 posts)On paper he had Democratic majorities. In reality, enough of those "Democrats" were blue dogs as to make it a majority in name only. If not in the house, then most definitely in the senate.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)That is FALSE!! (And you know it!)
Obama had a majority in the Senate for about 4 months, then Teddy Kennedy died and Robert Byrd was incapacitated for most of the time.
Added to that, let's say you're telling the truth: "Obama had both houses for the first two years."
The problem with that statement is that Obama had Blue Dog Democrats and Corporatists like Blanche Lincoln and Joe LIEberman who joined Republicans to block votes. Not to mention the unprecedented number of filibusters that kept legislation passed by the House to get through the Senate.
But, of course, rsmith6621, you know all these facts. You are simply regurgitating mistruths; either that or feigning ignorance here.
Again, give the president and overwhelmingly PROGRESSIVE Congress (one that he DID NOT have before), and you'll get your change.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Obama could not get what his supporters wanted and what he had said he wanted when he was campaigning even with a Democratic majority in Congress during the first two years of his presidency. He has been too willing to compromise with conservatives. As a result he appears weak.
Do you like the results of Obama's economic policies. Three new trade agreements accompanied by promises of new jobs -- although the evidence indicates that prior trade agreements have cost us far more jobs than they brought.
Obama is too beholden to Wall Street and the banking sector. He should be acting to organize the break up of the too big to fail banks. I am not impressed.
And Obama's performance on human rights issues, the legal stances of his administration on various issues including, for example, the matter of Siegelman have been appalling.
Obama has taken contradictory stances on the surveillance of American citizens, but nothing has improved since the Bush regime.
Also, anti-terrorist measures are needed but those that have been adopted are too extreme. I haven't met any terrorists. Have you? I have great difficulty believing that there are enough terrorists or that those who exist in our country pose enough of a threat to our nation to justify the excesses to which Homeland Security has gone, or the weapons that have been provided to our local police departments.
The reaction of our government seems to be so exaggerated that I fear our government will begin to look for something to do with all the anti-terrorism hardware that it has accumulated and start picking on minorities or independent thinkers among us.
Environmental threats are more serious than terrorism in my opinion. Yet Obama is not doing anywhere near enough to protect our environment.
We are paying for Bush's mistakes and will pay for them for a long time. Obama needs to at least make a much stronger case against the Bush policies.
Obama's compromise on the extension of the Bush tax cuts is completely unacceptable -- and it was made, if I remember correctly, at a time when there was a Democratic majority in Congress -- in 2010, but after the election.
Ending the Bush tax cuts would have brought revenues that Obama could have used to put people back to work. That would have been better than extending unemployment benefits.
certainot
(9,090 posts)"Do you like the results of Obama's economic policies."
the bush people did and have been sabotaging the economy may still get their major depression so they didn't have to deal with the 'black guy in the white billionaire's house problem' for another term. remember they were even talking impeachment.
lazy america has allowed this to become a pseudo democracy and if you'd been paying attention to politics the last 20 or 30 yrs you'd know obama is the best, by far, the left can get in there. read the second paragraph of this diary again.
you're not going to get a whole lot more until the left gets off its ass and stops letting the right take free pot shots at its reps all day.
primavera
(5,191 posts)Interesting you should reference the last 20-30 years in politics as evidence that Obama is the best we can get. What I see when I look at the last 20-30 years in American politics is a steady slide to the right. During those decades, we've disassociated ourselves from people like Kennedy and Carter, and have instead embraced more centrist, accommodationist leaders like Clinton and now Obama. And where has that gotten us? The Republican field is so far to the right that even their patron saints like Ronnie Raygun would look on them with horror if they could see them today.
I don't know for sure that the left's eagerness to compromise has necessary been the primary causal factor in that nightmare slide to the right, although it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense to me that, if one side lays down their arms, the other side will be only too happy to take advantage of it. But what does seem indisputable is that, whatever it is we're doing, it hasn't prevented the country from drifting farther and farther to the right. Since we've tried the be-reasonable-and-try-to-make-everybody-happy approach for the last 30 years and it hasn't paid off, if anything, it's enabled a terrifying trend in American politics, do you think there's a valid argument to be made that maybe we need to stop trying to be so middle of the road? Maybe if we took more principled positions, we'd be doing better. Observing the demands of today's Teabaggers, it's hard to imagine that we could do any worse.
certainot
(9,090 posts)years.
politics in a democracy means compromise, which depends on the relative strengths of, in this case, two sides. the RW radio monopoly allowed the karl roves to take lee atwater to national levels. the think tanks are full of them now and in RW radio they have the biggest megaphone by far, and can dominate messaging nationally and locally with it. the left has ignore RW radio, it is invisible to liberals, and while they blame fox (a tick on limbaugh's ass) radio continues to dominate.
so the left evaluates in a radio vacuum while it kicks their ass and they wonder why and blame their reps for not having balls while allowing the limbaughs and local wannabes to take free pot shots at them and threaten them daily from the same stations that broadcast local uni and pro sports along with the weather and traffic as if they're responsible community members.
the left has had NO coordinated response to the right's best weapon and that is largely why the center has moved right and why the MSM presents it as even farther right than it is. and why dems compromise- whether they want to or not.
below are a couple of recent responses i made that relate.
xxxxxxxxx
we allow team limbaugh to create made-to-order constituencies to enable the 1%'s politicians
re public option/single payer that americans do want, there is NO organized opposition to the think tanks using public airwaves from radio stations licensed to operate in the public interest, endorsed and advertised by universities and pro teams that broadcast sports on them, to create armies of misinformed teabaggers/dittoheads or whatever you want to call them- enough to enable and intimidate the entire corrupt talk radio GOP and a bunch of blue dogs and a corporate MSM to doing what they want.
RW radio dominates most or all rural states with too many senators, and to a large degree local races in alll states, and it's because the left allows it to, and in 20 years has hardly put up a whimper of complaint.
for 20 years it happened with health care from our radio stations. the teabagers screaming in town halls intimidating pols and media were dittoheads and the left should have called them that but had no clue. they're the same bunch that shouted down the protestors and critics of the wars, and enabled the 2010 elections and idiots in congress to create teh debt ceiling 'crisis'- ---- all this obstruction would go nowhere without their talk radio base/monopoly. it's fucking ridiculous the left spends so much time chasing their tails and playing catchup because of it.
xxxxx
obama does not have the bully pulpit-
RW radio is louder. it is a coordinated repeated message from the think tanks reaching 50 mil a week.
obama has it while he's talking and a maybe a short time after. he reaches the mainstream as is and people looking for it. much of america hears the RW analysis and overmessaging. delivered by blowhards who can say anything they want because call screeners prevent them from being challenged. prompted and reinforced and stroked by paid callers from those same think tanks.
the talk radio monopoly can create a buzz that madison avenue would kill for. it can turn a molehill into a mountain in a day.
if obama or any dem or any event makes headway the PR pros at the think tanks will come up with a campaign to message over it and feed it first through the radio to make it acceptable and ubiquitous. the GOP politicians and media operatives will repeat on other media knowing team limbaugh is already pounding the same thing into tens of millions of earholes who live in areas where there are no free alternatives for political talk while driving or working.
OWS is one of the few that has been louder than RW talk radio- for now.
obama and liberals have to rely on common sense and truth and for 20 years 1000 coordinated radio stations have been able to use unchallenged volume and repetition to short circuit the normal feedback mechanisms democracies depend on.
the GOP politicians don't have to listen to 'the people' because they have that talk radio made-to-order base at their back.
when the left finally challenges talk radio the modern GOP will finally die and much of the obstruction will fall apart.
primavera
(5,191 posts)Great reading, I appreciate your thoughts, thank you for sharing them!
certainot
(9,090 posts)i think he's doing a well or better than i would have expected given what he's been up against and the often naive overestimating and expectations from many on the left (as i explained).
there's a lot more i want but i think he's the smartest and best thinker we've had in a while and many are confusing what he wants to do and what he can do. we got lucky, we just need to push him and get dems backs better by taking on the right's monster messaging machine- that starts with radio.
Kahuna
(27,311 posts)
MH1
(17,595 posts)who mostly gave Bush what he wanted but wouldn't fight for what Obama wanted.
Kahuna
(27,311 posts)people voting them in or not voting. Imagine what shape the country would be in right now if all the Dems who voted in 2008 had voted in 2010, instead of sitting it out because we didn't get a perfect healthcare law. Maybe if they had voted and given the president the congressional reps he needs to get the Democratic agenda through, they would have much less to bitch and complain about.
Ultimately, I blame voters and non voters more than the politicians because they keep voting these jokers in.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He should use the leverage of his control over campaign funds to show members of Congress that they have to unite behind his policies. I cannot understand that he campaigns for Congress members who vote against what he claims to want.
primavera
(5,191 posts)If Obama had total, unquestioning, unwavering support from all branches of government, I don't doubt that he could perform great things - under such ideal circumstances, who wouldn't be able to? Under those circumstances, a five year old could accomplish great things, there would be no need for someone with strong leadership abilities. A pity we're unable to offer such a perfect setting to Obama, as his leadership abilities are apparently not up for the challenge of dealing with the real world.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)getting all of his shit through congress with not even close to 60 votes.
Oh wait...
The excuses never stop.
Wake up.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
Eliminator
(190 posts)He had Republicans and he had BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS voting with him. That's kind of what we're all saying here.
certainot
(9,090 posts)the dems can always be broken up and many counted on to actually do what the MSM 'decides' or is told is the will of the people, or what their constituencies actually, in their fucked up ignorance, actually might want.
and since the lazy ass left allows a bunch of talk radio blowhards to take free pot shots at their reps all day and sell the big lies to make those enabling made to order pro-corporate constituencies while the left waits for an ipod in every pickup, it is the right that has been winning the last 20 years.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Are you saying that the Republicans have never had a majority in the Senate because I remember running against one in 06.
You do know that 51/100 is a majority, right? It isn't rocket science, first grade math will probably get you through.
The phrase you seek is filibuster proof majority. Hell, we've had the ability to deal with the filibuster at the start of the last three sessions and clearly would rather flog it as an excuse in power while refusing to utilize it in the minority and allowing horrible right wing policy to become law while playing the"adults in the room" angle which sounds nice until the "adults in the room" means the fucking house is on fire and won't be put out.
Then you choose to use Lincoln and Lieberman as why Obama can't even articulate a good initiative much less inact one, when he actively campaigned for both in their last primaries. That is funny stuff. He helps lead the charge against his own reenforcements but he isn't part of the problem, no-no.
I'm thinking you are indulging in circular logic that cannot be escaped from on this one. You have to go around the President and the party with no fucking money to even shift Congress a hair, just trying to slide over to Halter from Lincoln (even with Halter with better GE polling) one must fight Presidents past and present, all the gobs of money, and the entire party.
FDR demanded and worked for a Congress that would work for him, Obama campaigns for those that hinder him or even the slimy asshole that two years later that would actually team up with McShame to defeat him and who he would welcome back to the fold with open arms.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)in and given a brilliant response to your false meme.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)newspeak
(4,847 posts)to get what they want if it is for big business--apparently, it's harder to get something passed if it's for the undeserving proles. See, those proles, they're lazy, need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they're users--they're not like the hard working rich or big business who deserve our undivided attention, time and money.
Yes, much easier to pass policies that affect big business and wall street.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Al Franken was delayed, if you recall. There was a very short window of time that we actually had both houses. Throw the Nelson twins and Lieberman into the mix, and you've got ...
deadlock, mostly.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)By saying that it shows you know nothing about our political system for the last three years O has been President. It's naive, and pathetically humorous.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I think you need to admit that your hate tends to taint your ability to see facts.
http://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/the-democratic-super-majority-myth/
"Many critics of the Obama administration often claim that the President has failed to accomplish anything even when he had a super filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Most mistakenly think that he had a sixty vote Senate for the first two years of his first term and that he squandered that opportunity.
......
The 60th Senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, was locked up for months in recounts and legal challenges from a very close race with incumbent Norm Coleman. Finally, on July 8, 2009 after eight months of delays, Franken was sworn in as the 60th Democratic Senator (this includes the two independents who caucused with the Democrats). This was the first time Democrats had a filibuster proof majority since 1958.
......
But six weeks later on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy passed away.
As we all know after Kennedy's death, there was disarray and confusion and concern over the vacant seat, and interim guy was set in, few important policies were brought before the Senate. There was a hiatus, February, 2010 Brown was elected to take over Kennedy's seat. "
Stop spreading lies!
sendero
(28,552 posts)... he's not going to be progressive no matter what. He only advocates progressive positions when he knows he has no power whatsoever to get them into legislation.
I've never seen so many blind people in one place since I visited a Republican forum for kicks. OBAMA TALKS PROGRESSIVE WHEN IT SUITS HIM, WHEN HE WANTS VOTES, BUT HE NEVER EVER EVER TAKES ANY MEANINGFUL PROGRESSIVE ACTION IN THE ECONOMIC SPHERE.
Once again, we won't get a tax on millionaires to pay for the payroll ded cut because DEMOCRATS CAN'T GET ANYTHING THAT WILL HELP THE COMMON MAN, but REPUBLICANS CAN AND DO GET EVERYTHING TO HELP THE RICH, EVEN WITH A MINORITY IN CONGRESS.
Go Fucking Figure.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's a matter of choosing the better of two bad possibilities.
boxman15
(1,033 posts)Sorry to break it to you, but based on my experiences with fellow liberals, there are very few who think like you and so much of DU does.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)you are talking to.
I'm not that partisan or that far to the left, but I recognize an unworkable policy when I see it.
The economic policies of Geithner and Bernanke are not working.
And Obama's record on human rights is almost as bad as Bush's I am sorry to say.
Kahuna
(27,311 posts)aren't as as partisan as you would like them to be.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)All Indian Pueblo Council endorses Obama
By JERI CLAUSING
The Associated Press
Published: 6:56 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011
A council representing the majority of New Mexico's Native American tribes on Thursday endorsed President Barack Obama's re-election bid, saying the president has kept his promises to tribal communities.
The endorsement by the All Indian Pueblo Council was presented to Obama campaign manager Jim Messina at a special ceremony on the Sandia Pueblo. It came a few weeks after the White House hosted its third summit with tribal leaders, where Obama told them: "You have a president that's got your back."
While the endorsement of a Democrat is not surprising, the vote of support came nearly a year before the 2012 presidential elections. Campaign officials attributed the early vote of confidence to its early and aggressive grass-roots outreach to different ethnic groups.
After the meeting with tribal leaders, Messina met with a group of some 30 Hispanic supporters who gathered at Albuquerque's campaign headquarters for a phone bank targeting Hispanic voters.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/all-indian-pueblo-council-endorses-obama-2034930.html?printArticle=y
This President has earned much criticism. But the good things he does accomplish seem to be muted, almost silenced under the deafening crescendo of disappointment.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)I mean, I think many here know this, but have you even considered the possibility?
To some, any accomplishment of Obama's in the economic sphere is by definition "not progressive." Why? Because it is an Obama initiative. That's it.
Obama could pass a bill that allows tens of millions who were previously unable to see a doctor when they were sick, to actually see a doctor when they are sick (without bankrupting themselves in the process) -- half of which would be insured through the government (Medicaid). But to you, this wouldn't be an accomplishment, since it was proposed by Obama.
Similarly, Obama could pass the largest re-regulation of the financial sector in 75 years, and you would not call it a progressive economic accomplishment. Why? Because it was Obama's proposal.
I'm not sure if your comment about people being "blind" is true. But if it is true, it is true in a different way than you think.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)the war on pot-heads goes into hyperdrive...
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Response to BzaDem (Reply #35)
sendero This message was self-deleted by its author.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)Professional Left
Retarded Left
Extreme Leftists
etc. Hey I thought sources around the W.H said they didn't need "the Left", so why is it different NOW?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Liberal. You can't blame me for your irresponsibility for failing to learn about the candidates that YOU supported or voted for. You can issue ad hominem attacks all you want, but the bottom line remains that we need to get off our collective ass and work to get more progressives elected to office. PERIOD!!!
tfsoccer
(66 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Almost everything I read about the NDAA was blaming the President. I would have liked to see some calls for people opposing it to email or call their Senators to vote against it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The GOP wants the US government to do nothing at all, and they, plus the blue dogs in Congress, can cause that to happen. That is what they want.
If Obama does not compromise, the government does NOTHING, and that is exactly what the GOP wants.
And so, to do ANYTHING at all, Obama has had to make hard choices. And the GOP and the Blue dogs make sure that when he has been able to do something, there are elements of it that the left will HATE.
If they can't stop all government activity, then they do everything they can to weaken what does happen, and piss of those who want the government to do more.
I hope that at some point, Dems figure this out.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)nm
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I've learned that some on the left also see the world in that way as well.
And so, if a piece of legislation has ANYTHING that they don't like in it, then the entire thing should be scrapped.
That is your point right?
If a piece of legislation does not solve all problems, then why do any of it??
If we can't get a millionaire tax surcharge, AND unemployment extensions, and a public option or single payer ... do nothing.
The position you are advocating is "do nothing", unless we get everything we want.
And so again, the GOP wants the government to DO NOTHING. And you want to give them exactly what they want.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)PURELY progressive, and therefore he's just like Bush or worse, he's in with the big banks even as those banks sit on trillions of dollars rather then hiring people. The black-white dichotomy rules on this forum, and I'm sorry about the way that I feel, but I am becoming more and more convinced that Melissa Harris Perry is correct. 
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Good excuse, bad bargain. The devil lies in the details.
It also isn't exactly true the Republicans want to do nothing, they want to do all kinds of horrible shit and usually Democrats can be snookered into executing them if hemmed in by this same logic.
Of course many times when some truly shitty goes down, our shitstains are as eager or more than the TeaPubliKlans to "get something done" like the vote on this defense bill or de-funding ACORN.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)Let the country fail completely because we can't get what we want. Progress always starts with a first step. Here, we expect it to jump on a rocket and propel us into the future.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Give them a chance. The wealthy should get more, bigger, better tax credits. Social Security and Medicare should be privatized and they aren't kidding about making kids work for the cheap ass school lunches. It's not a joke. It's a clear and present danger.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)like the new long title space, btw hehe
Charlemagne
(576 posts)Its not like he present liberal legislation and then waters it down to compromise with the republicans. He presents the republican plan and then makes it even more draconian when the repugs throw their tantrums.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)State rights approved, medical marijuana clinics, which are a danger to the profit margin of Obama's friends over at the Big Pharmaceutical world.
But in other matters:
Does your corporation produce a GM substance that could lead to famine in a mere fifteen years?
Hey, the FDA head, Mike Taylor, created the "scientific" doctrine that states that GM foods are similar to conventional foods. SO no action is taken by our government to stop the GM famine foods. What did Mr Taylor base his words on? Nothing except the fact that his owner and puppet string master, Monsanto, wanted him to create such a doctrine.
We had MMS overseeing the oil rigs in the Gulf. Hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the agency alive. Did its oversight help the American people much? Given the tragic BP explosion of April 2010, any thinking person would say that the MMS agency failed in adhering to its mission statement.
BP wanted to use Corexit, an extremely toxic substance, to help it disperse the oil on the top of the water of the Gulf of Mexico. The advantage to BP - it helped produce the substance, so it made a profit on every ounce it bought and used.
Scientists and business people familiar with oil dispersion measures said it was one of the more toxic, least effective substances to involve in the "cleanup" of the Gulf.
And since Corexit forced the oil to disperse into micro-structures that sank to the floor of the Gulf, BP paid billions of dollars less than it would have in penalties.
Too bad for the people of the Gulf region, if this product taints their marine catch, and no one on the West Coast wants to buy seafood from them any more.
Obama's response? His EPA looked into research data that comprised only one 1 week study of Corexit, and then approved the product.
I could go on and on, but that is what the Democrats and all their handling of government oversight does.
I should also mention that after Nancy Pelosi achieved her victory of having a Democratic majority in the House, Impeachment of George Bush was suddenly "off the table." Meanwhile raising the postal rates for individuals and smaller businesses became the focus of that Congress. Meanwhile, significant "rebates' and discounts were offered up to the largest Media Companies in our nation.
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)He's far from perfect -- flat wrong on some things and not strong enough on others -- but better than anyone else who could have been there or who could be there in 2013.
He's too conservative for me, but so is most of the rest of the country and damn near all of Congress.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 17, 2011, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)
I am a member of the Pacific Green party, and will be voting more like one, unless I wind up at Gitmo for doing more shifts in the trees at forest protests, or doing ground support.
I'm not happy where we are going as our rights are vanishing with out nation being given to the military as a theater of operation.
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=USA&article=5051
From link:
"We as Americans have a right to a speedy trial, not indefinite detention," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). "We as Americans have a right to a jury of our peers, which I would argue is ... not enlisted or military personnel sitting in a jury. You cannot search our businesses or place of business or our homes without probable cause under the Bill of Rights."
"You cannot be deprived of your freedom or your property without due process of law, and that, I would say, is not indefinite detention," added Kirk, who voted for the bill. "I would actually argue that no statute and no Senate and no House can take these rights away from you."
Robb
(39,665 posts)Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)WE have American troops training for martial law, a lot of it going on last summer in Texas which included searches of people's cars and the military inviting law enforcement to consider themselves availible assets to call in.
This is everyone's fight, everyone's problem. I have a problem with Republicans and Democrats who voted for the NDAA law, and the President I voted for who signs it.
I fully withdraw my support of Barack Obama for supporting this legal rape of the Rights guaranteed in the U.S.Constitution. I've been a donor this autumn and canceled my monthly because of this. I was a Democrat for a long time before I became a Green. I re-registered Democrat long enough to vote the last primary election for Obama in Oregon and worked for him doing grass roots work in the campaign.
This is an agonizing time for me. And don't posture that I am against or fighting Democrats. I am against and wil be fighting the rape of the U.S. Constitution by anyone who supports this crime.
Robb
(39,665 posts)My point is there is nothing in this year's defense appropriation bill that wasn't in the AUMF. Contrary to much howling, we are not learning new things but being reminded of old problems.My vote will go to whoever has the best lasting plan to defang the AUMF and render it meaningless.
It's the keystone this whole awful mess is based upon, and like a cancer it's invaded so much case law that without it's demise, no one's liberty -- civil or otherwise -- will ever be safe.
So you need to ask yourself: under what circumstances are laws struck down? Who adjudicates their application? And how soon can we expect a challenge, e.g. a US case where an attorney can successfully argue that AUMF no longer applies because al Qaeda is no longer a threat?
I think that's within the next two to four years or so. That means the Supreme Court we're talking about, and one maybe two new seats chosen by the next guy in the Oval Office.
Under no circumstances do I want those seats to be filled by anyone the GOP would nominate. This is an exceptionally important time to have a decent USSC, and Obama, right now, is the path to that.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)Not that I am supporting him for the office of President of the United States mind you.
But it is an important issue, and we do need a decent POTUS if we are going to ever get the Supreme Court back on the side of the people again and away from the influences that have got it to make so many bad rulings in recent years.
many of them were horribly crimnal like the gutting of campaign finance law and the theft of the presidential election from should have been President Al Gore.
However, I am less than thrilled by President Obama's lack of willingness to stand up to the measure by not vetoing it and fighting it tooth and nail.
I want less management and more leadership in the White House. I agree I would be better off pragmatically in voting for Obama again. But in good conscious i can't vote for a man who let that become law without a fight.
I appreciate your point of view, as i understand the role of the Supreme Court quite well, and the late former Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas are personal heroes of mine.
Bill Douglas was actually FDR's first pick as V.P. until party hacks scuttled that notion putting the mediocre and foolish Harry Truman onto FDR's ticket the forth time he ran.
Which is an example why I firmly believe that adherence to principle over pragmatism is seldom ever wrong. Thus my decision to vote third party over this issue come November 2012.
Robb
(39,665 posts)"Fighting tooth and nail" on AUMF in the back pages of an appropriations bill would ensure an immediate court challenge -- USSC has already ruled recently in favor of AUMF provisions, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld -- and we would lose that fight if it came today, and probably a lot of GOPers would take seats they might've not otherwise as a result.
Terrible idea.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)as I certainly understand your point of view and sentiment on this. And I might mention that I still have the '2012' Obama sticker on my car, and I'll let you know if and when I get a change of heart.
I always appreciate good feedback.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)America, Jobs! Jobs! Jobs.
Anyone wanting to inform on their neighbor will get a handsome reward.
Remember how after Nine Eleven, so many of those people arrested in Afghanistan and detained by US troops were simply put there on account of neighbors willing to get a $ 2,500 reward for snitching on the neighbors who happened to be a bit different from them.
We already live in a nation where one out of every three hundred people works in some way for Homeland Security.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)call it what it is
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)This is not the Change I voted for. I know from the deepest part of my heart this is evil and wrong, and nothing good will come from this. Here is one of my favorite Walt Kelly sayings in a cartoon that is timeless where the punchline has proven to be prophetic:
libodem
(19,288 posts)Ya gotta hand it to him.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And all the other stuff he does. I wish I could see him as hapless but well intentioned, but many of his actions point in a different direction.
OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)He is doing the best with the hand he has been dealt. I appreciate that fact. I hope we as a country can do better in many areas. We need to elect more progressives in so many positions (state legislatures, governors and Congress) before we have any chance at systemic change.
alp227
(32,013 posts)Many people who complain about Obama probably are clueless about the many branches of american government!
arendt
(5,078 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Zhade
(28,702 posts)He did that himself, it's documented on video that he in fact did run on it, and that's undeniable.
I have no doubt your post is sincere, that you really see him that way despite the numerous reasons not to. And that's really kind of heartbreaking.
certainot
(9,090 posts)and do you really expect a US politician to keep all their promises?
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)wanted a public option, the only place where a majority didn't want that in America just happened to be D.C.
certainot
(9,090 posts)re public option/single payer that americans do want, there is NO organized opposition to the think tanks using public airwaves from radio stations licensed to operate in the public interest, endorsed and advertised by universities and pro teams that broadcast sports on them, to create armies of misinformed teabaggers/dittoheads or whatever you want to call them- enough to enable and intimidate the entire corrupt talk radio GOP and a bunch of blue dogs and a corporate MSM to doing what they want.
RW radio dominates most or all rural states with too many senators, and to a large degree local races in alll states, and it's because the left allows it to, and in 20 years has hardly put up a whimper of complaint.
for 20 years it happened with health care from our radio stations. the teabagers screaming in town halls intimidating pols and media were dittoheads and the left should have called them that but had no clue. they're the same bunch that shouted down the protestors and critics of the wars, and enabled the 2010 elections and idiots in congress to create teh debt ceiling 'crisis'- ---- all this obstruction would go nowhere without their talk radio base/monopoly. it's fucking ridiculous the left spends so much time chasing their tails and playing catchup because of it.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Just asking.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But would never listen to the President at all.
The M$M does not even cover the President's side of things, quite often.
I heard someone today say what does POTUS have against the pipeline? I was thinking, no one knows. The media may have covered it, but never bothers to look for the President's side of the story.
Prosense and other posters sometimes seem to have to dig it up! Yet people go off half cocked, sure he's wrong, only having heard one side of the argument.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)obama has it while he's talking and a maybe a short time after. he reaches the mainstream as is and people looking for it. much of america hears the RW analysis and overmessaging. delivered by blowhards who can say anything they want because call screeners prevent them from being challenged. prompted and reinforced and stroked by paid callers from those same think tanks.
the talk radio monopoly can create a buzz that madison avenue would kill for. it can turn a molehill into a mountain in a day.
if obama or any dem or any event makes headway the PR pros at the think tanks will come up with a campaign to message over it and feed it first through the radio to make it acceptable and ubiquitous. the GOP politicians and media operatives will repeat on other media knowing team limbaugh is already pounding the same thing into tens of millions of earholes who live in areas where there are no free alternatives for political talk while driving or working.
OWS is one of the few that has been louder than RW talk radio- for now.
obama and liberals have to rely on common sense and truth and for 20 years 1000 coordinated radio stations have been able to use unchallenged volume and repetition to short circuit the normal feedback mechanisms democracies depend on.
the GOP politicians don't have to listen to 'the people' because they have that talk radio made-to-order base at their back.
when the left finally challenges talk radio the modern GOP will finally die and much of the obstruction will fall apart.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)call themselves democrats?
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)i don't want to denigrate russians but that's them.
but what is the opposite?
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)the opposite is FDR Dems, not the blue dogs
certainot
(9,090 posts)fair to the russians
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)Eliminator
(190 posts)Does he have the power to dictate his will upon congress? Again, is he the president or is he a king?
Of course he wanted the public option. In fact it is documented on video that he wanted a SINGLE PAYER system like Canada, but that would never pass in congress. After he couldn't get the public option, of course he'd lie about it. He has to work around the media just like everyone else.
There's what you want, and then there's what you can actually get. It's something all people learn when they stop being children and grow up to be adults.
certainot
(9,090 posts)while it spent years, since clinton, making it unacceptable while dems/liberals just walked by those blowhard son their soapboxes on every corner.
years and years of myths and lies pumped out about how bad the canadian system is.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It was called the Tea Party.
Did you recall seeing the Tea Party rallies meeting huge Liberal counter-rallies? I don't.
thescreaminghead
(37 posts)In the absence of direct information, the best we can do is pontificate based on the view of an insider we trust. I trust Suskind, and if you trust him and read his book "Confidence Men," you will see Obama as kind of incompetent. Tim Geithner, himself a huge fail at life, didn't even listen to him.
The President didn't have a plan, basically, so his underlings ran all over him. In the middle of all that hope he forgot to get a strategy together.
Maybe if he put Axelrod in as Chief of Staff he'd get some shit done, cuz Axelrod's a beast. HE can get shit done. I actually hope Newt wins, cuz that's gonna bring all the guns out of the highly competent Obama re-election staff, and that will be epic to watch.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)My eyes bugged out a little when I read "I actually hope Newt wins".
Then I reread the paragraph and caught the meaning. Don't you think all the guns will be out regardless of who wins the primary?
Maraya1969
(22,474 posts)Osama bin Lauden you would be calling him someone with no strategy?
Oh wait? They already did PLAN and kill Osama Bin Lauden and you still say the man has no strategy!
Did you even think this man does a lot of his planning behind the scenes?
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)I almost flipped when I read "I actually hope Newt wins"!
I completely agree with you though, watching a highly competent Obama re-election staff will be epic to watch!
boxman15
(1,033 posts)(technically from Election Day through the passage of health care reform)
Alter really lays out what Obama's leadership style is, with plenty of evidence. Suskind's book (which I read) seems more like gossip than anything else. Alter really lays out what the Obama White House is like and its successes and failures.
In short, Obama relies heavily on his advisors, but overrides them on key decisions all the time. This makes the White House more efficient, but it can also lead to inconsistencies and shortcomings. Alter also goes into details about how the Obama administration accomplished so much, largely due to Obama's vision and leadership (the stimulus is an especially good example of this, as Obama got a stimulus more than twice the size of what even the most liberal congressmen were proposing at the time).
Obama's biggest failure, as Alter lays out and as Obama himself has admitted, is that he and his administration have been TERRIBLE at communication. Had the president broken up the stimulus into several smaller bills instead of one big piece of legislation, as FDR did with the New Deal for example, he probably would have gotten more credit for it. His inability to communicate and connect with the American people has cost him politically and has left the political left feel alienated, and has probably cost him his chance to do what FDR or Reagan did when it came to shifting the narrative from one side of the spectrum to the other (maybe Occupy will do that for him).
The Promise is a really revealing book. I was almost in the "Obama sold us out!" camp until I read it, and now Obama's actions make much more sense. He's a long-term thinker, and he usually ends up getting what's good for this country.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)He doesn't have to try to do the right thing, it's impossible for him to do a wrong, mean or ignorant thing. He's just not built that way - can't do anything but the right thing.
And he's alone...
donheld
(21,311 posts)
Maraya1969
(22,474 posts)and that is all they will talk about especially when they come here. And some try and convince others that that is the most important thing about our president - that he is a failure, (don't ask me the motivation for this because it just makes blood spurt out of my eyes) And they can't get the connection between the real possibility of one of those dingbats at the republican debates taking his place because too many people like them took away what is a real honest positive assessment of the man.
Maybe it is still racism. We forget that is still a factor.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)there are millions of Americans SUFFERING-THAT is why they see the President as not doing enough. THAT is why OWS
Maraya1969
(22,474 posts)even OK a 1% tax increase on people making more than 1 million dollars a year in this country? And that they won't vote for or bring up any jobs bills because they want the economy and consequently, the people, to suffer? Have you not figured out that that is their way to do things?
And yes, I still stand by my racism comment. People who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
And mods - Why don't I have a spell checker?
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)America generally. If whites are 89% of the population & falling, that means alot of votes came from them, & Republicans targeted Mexican/Latinos so there was that segment that also voted for Obama.
My comment on personal suffering stands, on reasons why people are upset with Obama.
certainot
(9,090 posts)the left, which still evaluates obama in a talk radio vacuum
americans still allow a few radio blowhards to undermine democracy on behalf of the 1% think tanks that use them to create made to order pro corporate constituencies for the blue dogs and GOP to point to.
little of the obstruction would be possible without an ignored talk radio megaphone dominating messaging and intimidating politicians. much less compromise would be necessary.
unfortunately the left has no organized response to the right's best weapon and will continue to play catchup.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)no real Liberal radio networks & tv channels?..........really? kabuki I say.
In fact Obama's system in 07-08 really SHOCKED & IMPRESSED me, he was VERY effective & destroying the GOP at EVERY TURN. I really felt that, at last! A lefty with gumption, with fire!
certainot
(9,090 posts)obstruction and the 2010 elections would have been nothing except for the talk radio monopoly that has dominated politics for 20 years because it is invisible and ignored while it beats the crap out of everything liberal.
the monopoly does not operate on market forces and liberals are wasting time thinking it can be fixed with legislation of market forces or liberals with more money than the right.
liberals are going to have to shame it's sponsors and university sports teams until they leave and the stations go broke or are forced to put balance on.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)because those associations are so clearly antithetical to their mission statements. the global warming denial alone should be cause enough but there's also the racism sexism and partisan lying.
15 of 16 NCAA b ball finalists last year broadcast on limbaugh stations.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)greater profits.
You push this one talking point but refuse to rfeally look at it, no amount of shame or cost will shut it down, the only thing thing that would stop it is if it doesn't work.
You can only change the laws dictating how they operate or force balance, that or forcubly shut them down.
The money is not directly the issue.
certainot
(9,090 posts)rely on local sponsors to pay salaries and rent.
in blue areas the local sponsor support is soft- i've spoken to some of them- bi owners who admit they don't like limbaugh etc. but don't really listen to them and never thought of them as more than entertainers.
many are just making business decisions and some i've talked to found alternatives. call them and convince them those radio stations played a big part in getting 4000 troops killed and tens of thousands maimed by selling the lies and they start to think differently about where they're advertising.
a few universities shamed into looking for alternatives will get a lot of sponsors thinking twice.
climate change won't let us wait for legislation to fix this problem, especially since as long as it dominates a big chnk of media and politics they'll put as much effort into stopping it as they did into stopping health care. no two words get more immediate attention when spoken by a prominent dem than 'fairness doctrine'.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)programming. The benefit to them far exceeds any revenue, the benefit also outpaces college sports revenue and they are without shame.
If you understand the purpose of the programming so clearly, it would seem you'd get they aren't going to stop over walking around money, the profits were/are a bonus over the perception management.
Put yourself in their shoes, what would make you give up such an insturment?
Wouldn't you do it at a complete loss? Wouldn't you go deep into the red, knowing the broader systemic outcome? As long as it has the desired effect it is worth its weight in gold to your agenda. You"ll have to think much bigger to unravel this.
certainot
(9,090 posts)ing.
they've always used the argument that they're there because market forces demand the RW radio over the progressive. and a lot of progressives buy that lie.
they still need to be able to pretend they're a profitable business. they need that cover.
themadstork
(899 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)However, he did NOT have to appoint useless parasitic bankster assholes to key positions in his administration.
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)I didn't vote for the Bipartison Party (which seems to have strong Republican principles!). I voted for a Democrat!
I will scream if I hear the word Bipartisan again. It just means we have capitulated to the Repugs once more.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Our government by it's very nature is bipartisan. Or quapartisan if you want to be technical. Although the other two groups tend to caucus with the larger to groups. In any event...it is made up of democrats and republicans. Hence the fact it is a bipartisan government. The President isn't gifted with full power. And if you are looking for sweeping changes...well then...talk to CONGRESS. They are the only ones who can really change the laws. The president just signs it or not.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The ruling party is the oligarchy party. We all know it. It is bloody obvious who is in charge.
Response to Eliminator (Original post)
OccupySamizdat This message was self-deleted by its author.
OccupySamizdat
(68 posts)I see a smooth opportunist who's great at rhetoric and making speeches: a charming debutante, extending her hand and welcoming you to be another whore at the capitalist gangbang.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)Perhaps all that you say is true, and Obama really does mean well and is just trying to make everybody happy. If so, then he's an ineffective advocate and not what the country needs in the most adversarial period in American politics within memory. Maybe Obama's not a Quisling, but more of a Kerensky, but it doesn't really matter - Kerensky was just as catastrophic as Quisling was. What we need is a strong leader who recognizes that it's impossible to make everybody happy and uses the power of his office to advocate for what is right. And maybe such a leader would lose a few battles and would sacrifice some poll points. So what? By trying to be Mr. Nice Guy, Obama's surrendered every battle before it was even fought and his approval ratings are still at historic lows. Conservatives hate him and always will hate him no mater what he does simply because he's not one of them; liberals are having a hard time supporting him because he's not championing their causes. How has his strategy helped matters?
mmonk
(52,589 posts)with partisan bickering. Democrats were fed up with what the Bush administration had done to the country. These are two different things. He made a fateful mistake that Democrats wanted a middle and that, coupled with no understanding of economics, chose more Rubinomics (or Clintonomics) not understanding the dot com bubble hid its flaws and like many Americans, drew the wrong conclusions. He was chosen by Democrats due to his speeches that almost had a Roosevelt like feel to them and thus, real progressives or true progressives thought he might tack towards simular solutions to the nation's problems. It ended up that his politics "of our better nature" was the wrong path to take. We needed someone who was going to fight corporatism and not yield to flawed economics of replacing public with private. He further disappointed many by pledging to bring the executive banch back under constitutional restraints in his pledge to the American Freedom campaign but has not pushed in that direction. His propensity for striving for striking a grand bargain between a radicalized Republican Party and a Democratic Party without backbone or principles made change a word in label only. The can to a better tomorrow has been kicked to some future date uncertain.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)while not really practicing the religion at all. A typical homophobic hypocrite, nothing much more than that.
I'll add to the OP that your opinion is odd, that 'all' are represented when some of us are opposed. It says much that you do not know you are saying.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)the opportunity it had in 2009 to effect real reform by going small rather than going big, by consistently starting from the middle and moving to the right in all negotiations and by absolutely refusing to stand and fight, or frequently even recognizing that the opposition, far from being honorable, had only one goal in mind: the destruction and defeat of this president, at any cost.
This glass isn't even close to half empty.
stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)didn't have to read the rest. i will after i post this reply.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)If you thought W was okay, Obama's your guy! Unfortunately, there is no other candidate worth mentioning.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)He needs to use the bully pulpit to tell the American people they have a bought Congress, a corrupt media, and the 1% is ripping us off with a stacked deck!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)DireStrike
(6,452 posts)He tried, he just couldn't complete his signature. It's hard.
Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)it's the walk I am concerned with. He doesn't have to approve the pipeline, and it was him who wanted all the powers in the DAA. He didn't give a rat's ass about our civil rights.
actions speak louder than words...like how single payer and public option never had a chance...but all along he spoke highly of it.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Center/right policies and business as usual was not what people voted for when they put B. Obama in the presidency.
You can argue he will do better in a final term in the progressive arena, but I think it's a tough sell. I do blame him for bad decisions, he is responsible as the President, that is his job, he gets the credit for things and the blame for things.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Kudos to you. Was this some sort of challenge? If so, well done.
He can veto legislation (this recent defense bill debacle, SOPA if that comes to pass).
He can choose who his advisers are (Timmy, Larry, Duncan, etc.)
There are plenty of things his administration can approve or not approve (Plan B, Keystone Pipeline)
It's those areas where his actions speak louder than his words and belie the flowery talking points.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)I think he is doing the best he can with a House controlled by republicans. I do think he wants to do the right thing for the people of the US.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)But that would be true of a ham sandwich. I am so disappointed in his lack of commitment to the environment and animals. He should have followed his hero Reagan's example who shut down Japanese whaling with sanctions.
gateley
(62,683 posts)help us all.
Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)i agree
Enrique
(27,461 posts)
h2ebits
(642 posts)And I support your thoughts. I've read through the comments being posted and all I can say is that we need to be looking at how to fix the goddawful mess that this country has become rather than trying to tear people into shreds and take down the country. We have enough truly evil people already trying to do that.
Each and every one of us is responsible for the world that we live in. What action(s) have you taken to improve the country and your lives? What positive thing have you done for yourself and this country recently?
Have any of you decided to run for office to replace an elected official who is clearly not acting in the interest of the people? Have you worked to try to get a person elected who would actually represent the people? Have you cast aside the amazing BANK MARKETING MACHINE to ease money out of your pockets with swipe fees and stopped using your debit and credit cards, which are giving big banks HUGE profits on our backs and raising the cost on all goods and services we purchase? Have you worked to educate yourself and analyze the issues or just gone along with the pap and sound bites being spewed 24/7? Have you worked with a local group to join or form a co-op with the purpose of providing goods or services in a healthy and sustaining manner? And I could go on. . . .
We ARE the people that we are waiting for.
madokie
(51,076 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)that a brainwashed, ignorant electorate in a thoroughly corrupt political system elects a nice guys from one of two dysfunctional political parties to the highest elected office of the land in a country rife with electoral fraud and bribery, and that this man has the best interest of the "common man" at heart but is powerless to do anything about it because the system that financed and empowered him is corrupt and he is not?
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)dotymed
(5,610 posts)Look at the polls taken on everyday questions,ie.. health care, corporate personhood, taxing the wealthy, just a few. The vast majority of Americans AGREE, no matter what party they belong to. Obama could take real progressive legislation to the people, get their support (it is already there) and pressure conservatives to go along or be fired. They all know this, but it is a status quo game for them. Represent the 1-2% to keep the money rolling in and act like your hands are tied when it comes time to help the majority.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)
jimlup
(7,968 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 17, 2011, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)
The fact is Obama has given lip service to the people while acting as a faithful servant to the elite monied interests. It isn't that we are just malcontents who will never be happy. It is the simple truth. Sorry to be the bearer of the bad news and I understand why some folks here are uncomfortable with this information. Unfortunately that doesn't make this straightforward observation false.
ecoalex2
(12 posts)Obama's "change" started before his election win,after his nomination,he immediately gave the telecoms immunity for spying on all of us brokering a deal with bush,after that he chose the very people,Rubin Summers,Geitner,the Goldman Sachs alums that caused the depression we still have today.He has sold out the people,the environment,our rights,liberties,you name it.The reason the Republicans have such a weak field is that Obama is their best choice.hate to pee on the Obama parade,but the truth must be said.He has a few 'wins" ,but in the serious issues we needed a FDR to address the criminal bansters,that didn't happen,he told us he would,instead we got bush,including keeping his "Justice Dept except for Holder ,who refuses to prosecute the banksetrs,polluters,the list is long.
Justice is what is lacking.Obama was a Constitution law professor,he knows better.He sold us out.
bottom line
(94 posts)I'm 60. I've never seen a President have so much to deal with and manage so well, despite.
To start:
Corrupt Wars.
Belly Up banks is not a recession, that's a Depression. Paid back with Corruption.
Accomplished 100 years of trying to overhaul Health Care reform.
Saved Americana Automobiles
I could go on & on...
What gets me the most, is when they were working on the Reduction Deficit Deal, a first time in history maneuver by the repukes, the time for defaulting was critical, the Egyptian Revolution was at a crucial apex. Boehner had a meeting scheduled in the morning with Obama, He didn't show up. Obama called, he didn't return the call.
If a Speaker of The House, did that to a repuke president, they would still be screaming, yelling, & hollering about it to this day & it would be on mumstream, up to election day.
You Obama bashers, naysaying, peacewartime naderite backstabbing climatewarcriminals are the Boehners of the world.
We finally have a Roosevelt Democrat who knows how to fight & END war. Period. It ain't easy.
Thank You
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)"a Roosevelt Democrat" ? Really ?
blindpig
(11,292 posts).........................................................................................................................................................................
There is no good reason, nothing can mitigate that. Capital rules in this country and the President is it's minister. Any president.
ecoalex2
(12 posts)I don't see any parallels between Obama and Roosevelt.I don't see any bold initiatives outlined,I don't see the leadership that was seen with FDR.I do see a capitulator,a person comfortable with secret meetings and no prosecution to send a message the frauds must stop.half measures and rhetoric not followed up on with action.Whistle blowers prosecuted while the exposed walk.That's what I see.We must have different looking glasses.
bottom line
(94 posts)I thought, I hope someone doesn't think I'm not for Bradley Manning, a hero for all time, who should be granted whistle blower status or that I don't think the younger generation & the 99% movement isn't the most beautiful energy I've seen, because Happy Birthday, Hurray!
I started with corrupt wars, which Bradley exposed. Can you imagine going to his lame bosses. I hacked into...
Obama got bin laden & his library.
I think our President is groovy to a tune.
PS Aquarius
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)That would be the single most important thing he could or try to do as President. America in 2008 had come to the edge of a cliff, dragged to the precipice by a thirty year experiment in Robber Baron Economics and Militarism. It desperately needed to hear the difficult truth about the difficult future it had created for itself by voting for Reagan Reagan Bush Clinton Bush Bush. It thirsted for the Truth as it thirsted for Change. But Barack Obama didn't level with them. He hid everything he could hide. The Bankster reign of crime, warcrimes, torture, unlawful spying on Americans, shredding the Constitution, the hollowing out of our nation's manufacturing industry - EVERYTHING was covered up and most it simply rolled over into the supposedly new era of "Hope and Change. "
He never levels with them. His failures TO EVEN TRY are always hidden behind the eleven-dimensional chess excuse, or else behind the Who-could-have-known-the-economy-was-so-bad! bullshit that typified the previous Administration. I think people should draw the obvious conclusion from that, about his true intentions - no matter how "sympathetic" a character you think he is, or how good looking you think he is, or what you think of Mrs. Obama, or how much you personally identify with him.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Sorry, but the indefinite detention bill sealed the last nail in the coffin for me. The only way I'm going to vote for him next year is if it's close between him and the Repuke in CA. If it look like Obama is going to sweep CA, which he probably will, then I'm going third party. I'm sick of defending and supporting Democrats only to watch them do the same fascist things Republicans do.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's a miracle we even got him elected and managed to have Congress for two years. This country has a lot of dummies in it and they all vote.
And the obstructionism of the Rs is off the charts. The filibuster is routine, even used as a requirement by them now! It shows how our system is geared toward non-change. The Senate functions that way badly enough, and yet now the Rs created a 60 vote requirement!
A parliamentary system does work better - for better or worse we don't have that.
wial
(437 posts)From the perspective of civil liberties he's been very bad, and from the perspective of economics he's neoliberal. Healthcare was a wash, with maybe some good things hidden in the folds of fat. He hasn't been much of a friend to the African American community. The middle class remains under assault in ways even Kerry would have prevented. He's perpetuated unnecessary wars.
So, is there some part of his base he *has* sincerely served and pleased? I campaigned for him hard so I'd love to learn I didn't completely waste my time.
mitchtv
(17,718 posts)He was not my choice in the primary, but I went with him,and contributed several times.People want to see you fight for them, even if you lose. DADT bought his ticket to the next four years for me.I don't expect much from politicians in general, so anything resembling progress,is gravy.He is surely the least of many evils on the horizon. Rah Obama!
Deep13
(39,154 posts)I see a man who is trying hard to appear to to be doing right by the people but who is in league with the same authoritarian corporate whores as everyone else in government.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)...."Obama needs to work with this broken American system which involves a corrupt, gerrymandered, bought and paid for congress; a gridlocked, dysfunctional Senate; a propaganda network owned by the wealthy known as the mainstream media; outright election fraud, and a dumbed down, uninterested, uneducated population that's too busy trying to survive in the ruined Reagan economy than to pay any attention to politicians who they've long lost any faith in doing what's in their best interests."
THAT'S NO EXCUSE!!!! WHERE'S MY GODDAMN PONY???
I really hope no sarcasm tag is needed, but I won't get my hopes up too high. Thanks.
quickesst
samplegirl
(11,474 posts)All these people have pleanty of Obama bashing posts..........with no solutions except to hope for someone else to run which is not going to happen.
More than ever we need to support our president and look at his accomplishments. No matter how small they seem to be even if it was not the one each and every one of us wished for.
alp227
(32,013 posts)Norquist for making Republicans say "NO!" like screaming toddlers in the grocery store whenever the president proposes raising taxes one penny on the richest Americans. And the media for letting RW talking points get away with brainwashing many low-information voters who otherwise spend most of their media time on non-political topics.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Obama was elected to clean up after Bush. That can't be done by coddling war criminals and robber barons. True, we are finally extricated from Iraq, but not Afghanistan. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Osama is dead (another actual feather in Obama's hat).
And, speaking of Osama being dead, just what is the point of all the controversial measures in the Defense Appropriations Act? Why should any one, regardless of the nation of which he is a citizen, be detained without a trial? I opposed all indefinite detention when Bush was president, regarding it as a sweeping violation of human rights, and I still view it as such. I didn't subscribe to an IOKIYAR principle and I don't subscribe to IOKIYAD principle, either. The act leaves Gitmo open for business. Obama promised it would be closed by now. It's still a bad bill and should be vetoed.
To say that Obama is better than Bush the Frat Boy was or than Newtie the Cutie will be is to damn him with faint praise. Unfortunately, that's all we're hearing from his defenders.
webDude
(875 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(128,717 posts) texshelters
(1,979 posts)and people applaud you for it. That is sad.
"No, I can't say I blame Obama for some of the decisions he's been forced to make. I can only hope that people wake up and take back their country. Occupy Wall Street is a good start. But make no mistake, it's just a start. There's a long, long way to go."
NO ONE blames Obama for ALL his decisions, but are you happy with him signing away your rights?
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/16/in-reversal-of-promised-veto-obama-expected-to-sign-military-detention-bill-68109
And also unlike the last guy, Obama doesn't stand for anything and hasn't fought for his constituents.
Yes, Bush is a criminal and we are worse off because of him, but he fought for his failed ideas instead of giving in at the least sign of resistance and got much of what he wanted passed, including the Patriot Act and tax cuts for the rich.
Sure, he's not king. I would settle for a President.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)
wundermaus
(1,673 posts)I would like nothing better than to be wrong about my severely negative assessment of President Obama.
Based on his actions (as apposed to his rhetoric) he is even worse than Bush.
At least with Bush we knew exactly what we were dealing with.
President Obama is nothing like Candidate Obama. (period)
But he reveals a much larger and ominous problem.
Much like Democratic Candidate John Edwards, both are professional liars -
both skillfully mouthed the words and phrases we, the people wanted to hear.
But the really awful realization I had regarding the charade that is Obama,
is the clear and present danger that we as citizens are repeatedly duped and conned by professional marketing handlers.
Corporations and the wealthy elite sell our political representatives to us like laundry detergent and corn flakes.
Thus, sociopaths runs our government and they feed us pretty apples with poison in them.
And we buy them.
And the tainted fruit they sell injure and kill our Democracy.
And our Nation.
And the People.
And the Planet.
We better get a firm handle on this systemic problem right away before it destroys US.
babylon50
(1 post)Obama has been a weak president. Bush made big mistakes. The issue is much bigger than that. Both sides of the aisle, Wall Street and Corporate America who kiss Wall Street's behind (as does everyone in Washington for the money) are the problem. I can recognize Occupy Wall Street had a message in the beginning but then in became pretty much worthless. The Tea Party had a message but the people they put in Congress are too consumed with themselves and think only their views make sense.
The truth was said by Pogo many years ago. "We have met the enemy and it is us." Its time for all of us to understand there are many perspectives on life and our country is very diverse. So stop thinking your man and your side has the right perspective and lets have a little humility and work to understand someone else's point of view. As Buffalo Springfield said in the late 1960's, "if everyone's wrongm no one's right."
First mission is to throw All the incumbents out and have a way to let the ones we vote in know that we are watching them closely. Second is for all of us to realize that many in the USA have lived way beyond our means. Its time to pay the piper; i.e., our standard of living has to go down (and it will still be great to live here). And the piper needs to be paid progressively so those who can afford more need to pay more or get less benefits (except for someone who made plenty during his or her life and spent it all on themselves. Too bad for them)
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)
Meanwhile, in the real world, corporate sponsored Republicans (and a fistful of Democrats) get to shoot down any damn thing they want. So he has to be a little more clever than some people are capable of recognizing.
Seriously... some people need to grow out of their 'super-daddy' fantasies.
proud patriot
(100,705 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)In January 2009 he had probably 90 million people who would have marched for him to enact his "hope and change" promises. Instead he started backpedaling, straddling, appeasing, and tacking to the right his very first day in office. If you believe this is really the best we can do right now, then you have abandoned all hope for the country, because it is a disaster.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)It must be nice to be so certain that he hasn't really had any obstacles and that he could have done any damn thing he wanted.
I wish I could think he was superman too. Unfortunately, like the OP, I live in reality.
You should visit it sometime.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)unionworks
(3,574 posts)I try hard tosee a man who is doing right by the people. Very, very hard.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)n/t
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)You know that around here we only want ponies and rainbows!
