How this President is able to get done as much in the right direction as he has, considering...

[FrenchieCat]

The large number of Conservative Democrats in both houses of Congress
that makes it difficult to pass any legislation more progressive than the most conservative one of them,

and
a Party of No that have stood in front of Obama's agenda starting at day one,
no matter if the country falls apart,

and
the very loud voices of the opposition Teabaggers who compare Obama to Hitler,
and have been nurtured, protected and promoted loudly by the media day in, day out,

and,
the very loud voices of the "Liberals" on the Internet who don't think that anything
Obama has done or is doing or will do is praiseworthy ever,

and
the giant bullhorn cues from a media that won't even allow a day of credit on any of the
significant legislation pushed by the WH, and only highlights the rants of Republicans and
their disguised Teabaggers, and whomever on the Left is pissed, and distorts this
President's approval ratings in the hopes of deflating them some more....

and
the apparent no-no of anyone on television having anything positive to say in support of this President; which is apparently "OUT" at this time, immediately following Chris Matthews reference to having a thrill sent up his leg.



It's a true wonder, IMO!

SIGNING FAIR PAY FOR EQUAL WORK BILL




SIGNING STIMULUS BILL




SIGNING HEALTH CARE INSURANCE REFORM & STUDENT LOAN REFORM BILL




SIGNING THE MATTHEW SHEPARD HATE CRIME BILL



OR INCREASING FUEL EFFICIENCY IN OUR AUTOS AND TRUCKS




OR REDUCING OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL




OR SAVING THE AUTO INDUSTRY




OR GETTING 20 BILLION FROM BP



OR

the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009, which repeals tax breaks for companies
that ship jobs overseas and replaces it with incentives to create jobs in the United States,
and a crackdown on U.S. citizens and companies using offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes
(22,000 parties identified and $210 billion in back taxes and penalties to be collected over next 10 years).

OR

Giving Expanded Benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees,
including the strengthening of the Family and Medical Leave Act,
that now allows under the law for a gay federal employee to take leave
to care for a child with a gay partner.

OR

The 100 billion in the military budget cuts that Sec. Gates has been charged with locating

OR

His public stance against the Bigoted Arizona Immigration Law


OR OTHER what some like to term as "small victories".....

Signed: Monday, May 17, 2010
Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act


Signed: Friday, April 23, 2010
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010


Signed: Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act


Signed: Thursday, March 18, 2010
Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act


Signed: Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Emergency Aid to American Survivors of the Haiti Earthquake Act


Signed: Friday, January 22, 2010
2009 Tax Breaks for Haiti Donations


Signed: Friday, October 30, 2009
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009


Signed: Thursday, October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act


Signed: Thursday, August 6, 2009
Cash For Clunkers


Signed: Monday, June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act


Signed on July 13, 2010
To permanently authorize Radio Free Asia, and for other purposes


Signed on July 07, 2010
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act


Signed on July 02, 2010
Homebuyer Assistance and Improvement Act of 2010


Signed on July 02, 2010
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part II


Signed on July 02, 2010
National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2010



Signed on July 01, 2010
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010


Signed on June 25, 2010
Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010


Signed on June 17, 2010
Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act


Signed on June 15, 2010
A bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill


Signed on June 09, 2010
Extension of Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enhancement and Reform Act


Signed on June 03, 2010
Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010


Signed on May 27, 2010
Minimum Essential Health Care Coverage by Veteran's Affairs


Signed on May 27, 2010
Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2010


Signed on May 27, 2010
Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010


Signed on May 24, 2010
Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010


Signed on May 14, 2010
To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during
fiscal year 2011


Signed on April 23, 2010
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010


Signed on March 31, 2010
Prevent all Cigarette Trafficking Act


Signed on March 26, 2010
To permit the use of previously appropriated funds to extend the Small Business Loan Guarantee Program,
and for other purposes.


Signed on March 25, 2010
North American Wetlands Conservation Act


Signed on February 27, 2010
Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009


Signed on February 27, 2010
Social Security Disability Applicants' Access to Professional Representation Act of 2010


Signed on February 24, 2010
Jobs for Main Street Act, 2010


Signed on February 16, 2010
Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act

Signed on February 12, 2010
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010


Signed on November 06, 2009
Credit CARD Technical Corrections Act of 2009


Signed on November 06, 2009
Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009


Signed on October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009


Signed on August 07, 2009
Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program


Signed on June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act


Signed on May 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009


Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009


Signed on May 15, 2009
Protecting Incentives for the Adoption of Children with Special Needs Act of 2009


Signed on April 24, 2009
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009


Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act


Signed on March 30, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act


Signed on March 20, 2009
To extend certain immigration programs


Signed on February 04, 2009
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

In Progress

Expand Veterans' Reimbursement for Non-VA Emergency Care


Public Debt Limit Increase

Extension of the Commercial Space Transportation Liability Regime


H.R. 5502 - Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act Effective Date Amendments


H.R. 4213 - American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010


S.1508 - Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010


H.R. 4173 - Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010





Yes, he's also supported some things that I don't support,
but hey, I never expected that I would like everything.....
AND I knew that when I dropped my ballot into the mailbox! :patriot:

[spoony]

1. Poor Obama!

We are just AWFUL. We don't desrve heeem!!!1!1

[FrenchieCat]

4. Well, for once you and I can agree.

Keeping one's foot up this President's ass since Inauguration day is a past-time for some....
and even when presented with facts, they still can't seem to be able to say anything
positive....rather they stubbornly come up with snarks as a reaction to a list of the good.

You certainly didn't disappoint!

[Phx_Dem]

43. Amen Frenchie!

[FrenchieCat]

69. And I am adding these accomplishments.....

Cause that's what they also are.....




coming soon....

[Hawaii Hiker]

108. And when Goodwin Liu gets confirmed to the 9th. circuit, that will be, IMO,

President Obama's most significant non-SCOTUS appt....

He has already cleared the Judiciary Committee, the full senate vote awaits, just a matter of WHEN..

http://www.confirmgoodwin.com/

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

29. I dunno about him...

But I think that if a person is going to be a leaking asshole as a hobby, they need to suffer. it's only fair; the rest of us are suffering from their presence

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Butch350]

106. Hey! Sarcasm - my favorite sport.

[donco6]

121. ...

:rofl:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Oh, Frenchie... sigh...

This is DU. You *know* you're not supposed to post positive stuff about Obama. The dogpiling begins in 3...2...1...

[Ozymanithrax]

3. As a member of the choir, I think this is one of the most informative posts...

I've seen here in a while.

It is absoltely convincing except of people whose political ideology was enunciated by "Queen."

[NJmaverick]

5. Barack Obama is a talented and brilliant man that surrounded himself

with the best he could find. It stands to reason he would have an impressive list of accomplishments no matter the obstacles

[w4rma]

6. It's okay to complement Obama on getting stuff done, but not on surrounding himself with the "best"

that he could fine, unless you consider DLC empty suits to be better than progressives.

[NJmaverick]

7. I am sorry that the President's team didn't meet your ideological purity tests

however in the grand scheme of things that doesn't take away from their talent, ability and accomplishments.

[spoony]

19. You said today's secret word!

Purity!!!!

You win a happy face certificate with "Junior Message Disciplinarian" and your name. Congrats.

[Hardrada]

114. LOL!

[Hardrada]

115. Have we got Habeas Corpus back yet? Huh?

You can phone that in too if it ever happens which I doubt with this admin
and all the Gleichschaltung going on around here.

[babylonsister]

8. Excellent post-thank you, Frenchie and Mr. President, for all of

your doggedness in the face of so many skeptics!

[Uzybone]

9. He is working hard

The left over shit from 30+ years of conservative rule, the media, conservatives of all stripes, and your assorted gaggle of haters and ankle biters are all tough things to overcome.

But President Obama is continuing to surge forward and lay a foundation that Progressives can continue to build upon.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Here Hear......! For the long term benefit of Americans as opposed to

the short term satisfaction of those seeking revenge because for them, nothing else will do! :patriot:

[femmocrat]

10. K&R

Too bad this isn't out in the general public. I follow the news and politics and I never heard of many of these accomplishments.

[howmad1]

85. Hmmm, kinda makes you wonder about what.......

....piss poor job the democratic noise machine is doing. PR experts they're not. Unfortunately, the rethuglicans can teach them a thing or two about tooting ones own horn. After all, the rethugs have been doing it for about thirty years. Quite successfully I might add.

[Oregone]

12. How many of these a day does it take to convince you this admin is fantastic?

Just curious? In times of doubt, is it beneficial to post more? Are these aimed at converting those who doubt, or reinforcing belief in the benevolence of the administration among fellow believers?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x375811
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x375643
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x374741

[NJmaverick]

13. Are you suggesting that as a critic you are immune to the facts?

That it's a waste of time to post any sort of fact based discussion of the President's accomplishments?

[Oregone]

15. Im suggesting a lot of these are posted daily, and Im wondering what their ultimate purpose is

And is that purpose being served by the quantity being posted?

[NJmaverick]

18. Go figure, who would have dreamed that one would come to a forum called the Democratic Underground

only to find posts supportive of the Democrats. :shrug:

[Oregone]

21. Go figure people can't communicate in an honest, effective manner

I linked to other threads; it is clear I am specifically referring to "SPAM"-like, copycat threads enumerating accomplishments, operating on the premise that all enumerations are "good" policies. These specific threads, that are quite numerous and redundant, must serve some overall purpose, and their repetition must somehow affect that purpose, right?

[NJmaverick]

22. If you want "honesty" you could start by admitting they are all original works

that while on the same topic, they are different and distinct. How many fact based supportive threads would you like to allow DU per day? 1? 2? Who gets to decide who posts the pro-Democratic thread each day?

[Oregone]

24. "fact based supportive threads"

Presenting passage of bills (which are facts), in a "supportive" tone is operating on the unproven premise the policy is beneficial (which is not a fact). Of course, these threads don't seem to be a welcoming place for critical policy analysis about those policies, so what must their function be? Are you really presenting this as simple facts, or as examples of "goodness" (which is not up for debate). These copy-cat threads may be less about the "facts" than you really are letting on

It seems these posts are trying to perpetrate the notion of benevolence. To who? Those who don't yet believe the narrative? Or is it rather to reinforce it to those that already feel that way? What necessitates the constant perpetration or reinforcement of this benevolence?

If people are engaging in a specific behavior, repetitively, is it wrong to question why they are doing so, and if the activity is really accomplishing what its intended?

[Bobbie Jo]

26. Oh the irony.

"If people are engaging in a specific behavior, repetitively, is it wrong to question why they are doing so, and if the activity is really accomplishing what its intended?"

[Oregone]

27. Are you meaning to ask me a question?

You could do it more directly.

[Bobbie Jo]

28. You understood just fine.

Just pointing to the incredible irony of this statement.

[Oregone]

30. If you are asking what the purpose of my own "negative" posts are...

Id respond, "self-expression".

I don't see myself engaging in producing copy-cat OPs, repeating similar content already produced countless times in the same day with any specific, continued overall agenda (shared among multiple people). Ive started only 71 OPs personally (many of which are regarding the subject of Capitalism), which amounts to .4% of my overall posts. Most of which, I do not think were loose duplications of other threads posted that very day or week.

If these are all mere cases of "self-expression" coincidently popping up at the exact same times, repeated countlessly, than hey, thats how the cookie crumbles I guess. Thus far, no one has really provided that answer.

[NJmaverick]

34. Based on your apparent definition of "copy cat" I am afraid you are also

guilty of the same act you accuse other of.

[Oregone]

36. Hm. To each their own

Even if that were the reality, it doesn't quite address the realities at hand regarding these, which are devolving into the comedic sphere with the addition of each one.

[NJmaverick]

44. I don't find information that is useful in debates against republicans and tea baggers

to be all that comical

[Oregone]

47. Most people didn't find Cable Guy all that funny either

But I still think its one of Carrey's best

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. Nailed it!

:fistbump:

[NJmaverick]

33. You skipped my question, who gets to decide who posts the one post a day

that is supportive of the Democrats? I am also curious why you have no problem with the same negative article (as opposed to original ideas) being posted over and over again. At least that is the implication, considering you don't call out the repeated negative threads.

[Oregone]

35. Its a bit of an invalid question

Im not talking about posts that are "supportive of the Democrats".

Im specifically referring to a certain "flavor" of copycat threads involving the enumeration of all bills, presented on the premise that such legislation is beneficial.


"I am also curious why you have no problem with the same negative article (as opposed to original ideas) being posted over and over again"

If I notice a dupe article, Ill post 'dupe' unless its an intended cross post. These aren't really duped articles anyway that I am referring to, but copycats in the same forum perpetrating the same narrative. They are unique and curious in their very nature IMO

[NJmaverick]

38. Legislative accomplishment is a big deal and speaks directly to the effectiveness of

a presidency. The idea that various threads on the topic are "copy cat" is disingenuous at best. So while there is plenty of room for specific policy discussion, the topic of how well a President is accomplishing their agenda is certainly worthy of in-depth discussion. You can take President Carter for instance. Great man with great ideas but he struggled to get them past the idea phase. Much of a presidency is judged by legislative success and so I would think your curious nature would be more than welcoming of all the various takes on the matter.

[Oregone]

41. Ok. So how many OPs highlighting them will be effective in illustrating that?

:)

Full circle


"Much of a presidency is judged by legislative success"

Which lowers the bar somewhat for the actual quality of the legislation

[NJmaverick]

45. That's the question I have been asking you all along

what is the limit you want to put on DU?

[Oregone]

46. Thats a different question

I'm asking about how the quantity of these threads alters the effectiveness of them

You are asking about what regulations I want on DU

[truth2power]

125. Oregone, you've articulated the most significant issue in this thread...

"Presenting passage of bills (which are facts), in a "supportive" tone is operating on the unproven premise the policy is beneficial (which is not a fact)."

Everything else is secondary to that. Picking and choosing from the extensive list of signed legislation on the WH website says nothing about whether such legislation is supported by, or beneficial to, the American people.

President Obama also signed an extension of the Patriot Act. Quantity isn't as important as quality.

[Bobbie Jo]

23. Interesting....

I often wonder about the "ultimate purpose" of the multitude of daily negative posts much the same way.

Indeed...what purpose is being served?

[FrenchieCat]

49. If you were only this tenacious discouraging the negative threads here at DU.....

as well it would be nice to see some prolific ops posted spreading negativity
about the Republicans here at the Democratic Underground.

I could understand this thing here that you are doing in this thread....
a thread that I will add I put together based on various websites as well as
googling images for various ceremony and such earlier today, if you did any of the above.
Add to the fact that you completely ignore my preface to the various accomplishments
within my op says that you simply don't care for the idea that there is a list of accomplishments out there, but those of us who want to see Democrats win the upcoming election are not going
to be intimidated into somehow feeling "guilty" that we are posting these
accomplishments to be dessiminated far and wide.
In fact, we could use your help, instead of your ire.
But then, perhaps we have a different goal, if you have to wonder
as to why one would even bother highlighting the positives of the term-to-date of this
administration. :shrug:

[Oregone]

51. Ill work harder

Im still
not
sure how these
stanzas answer
any of my
questions

[FrenchieCat]

52. Most of us are not in this to please you.....

That's as good an answer as any.

[Oregone]

53. Thats unfortunate

Sometimes I like to think of the whole world as that drunk circus clown I saw on my 3 year old birthday

[FrenchieCat]

65. sometimes I think that there are many grown folks in this country

still acting like 3 year olds.

[moriah]

92. Bravo, Oregone.

When all else fails, mock someone's posting style.

[HughMoran]

112. yep

[Smashcut]

77. Call them reaffirmations of faith.

They have to keep repeating these things day after day to maintain the euphoria. Don't harsh their buzz, man. :smoke:

[donco6]

122. It's part of the main ceremony in church.

So it's got to be important.

[slay]

16. It is better than a Republican would do

but i feel like so much of it is propaganda to give the appearance of change. i just wish he wasn't so pro-corporate. we are fast approaching just being slaves to huge corporations and i HATE they have so much power and influence in both parties. i don't know what the answer is but i think deep structural change is needed not just tinkering with the existing structure which fails so many. that said, he is better than a republican - and the reality of our sad situation is, that is our only other option we are given.

*on edit - fixed subject line

[NJmaverick]

20. Until we the citizens are able to force real campaign finance reform

we will never have a political system free of undue corporate influence. It's going to be up to us to push through the reforms at a grass roots level. Citizens United has made the task nearly impossible for politicians, no matter how well meaning they might be.

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. "i just wish he wasn't so pro-corporate"

According to EJ Dionne, there's a Washington Post poll that shows that democrats are losing moderate independents because of the constant bashing of corporations by the left. This president has a very fine line to walk between the anti-corporate factions on the left, and the business community. Like it or not, business can hold an economy hostage, and I'm afraid we're seeing some of that now.

You talk about "pro-corporate", but what do you suggest he do? For some on the left, he can't bash corporations enough. At the same time, the left is bashing him for the lack of job creation in the private sector. It's the most schizoprhrenic circular argument I've ever seen. Well, guess who the private sector is? Corporations.

The president can do a lot of things, like advocating for tougher regulations, but what he can't do, is make a business hire you. You can regulate them right out of business, but how many jobs does that create?

[goclark]

118. K and R this thread, finally " A Little Respect" ~ thank you Frenchie

for your magnificent Post.

It deserves to be read as a model for the way that Democrats respect the opinions of others.

What we need around here is "Just A Little Respect."

One thing I have noticed is the lack of name calling and put downs that are evil spirited.

That is refreshing to say the least.

Congratulations to Frenchie for the Post. I hope I am not being naive to hope that this type of discussion can be the tone used at DU.

[Bobbie Jo]

25. K&R

:kick:

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Is that all? What a slacker.

:sarcasm:







:kick:

[madamesilverspurs]

39. I admit it, I enjoy having a President

who does FOR the country instead of TO the country!

And I'm sending your post to everyone on my list.

Thank you!


=

[Peacetrain]

40. I am so proud .. seriously proud

[Scurrilous]

42. Awesome.

K & R :thumbsup:

[fishwax]

48. one of those obstacles isn't really an obstacle

Unlike the foaming at the mouth teabaggers, the conservatives in congress, the obstructionist republicans, or the media, liberals on the internet haven't substantially interfered with the passing of progressive legislation. It's not as though we'd have a substantially stronger health care bill were it not for people clamoring for single payer or a more robust public option, for instance. So that particular element seems out of place.

That said, it's a definite contrast to the "I'll just take August off" attitude of the previous administration. While I don't (and never expected to) agree with all of his policies and proposals, there's no doubt that he's been working hard (and getting some good done) in the face of a great number of obstacles.

[dembat]

50. I TOTALLY AGREE

Thank you Frenchie for this post, I totally agree with you. I am disgusted with some liberals & progressives for the constant barrage to this President. Clinton did not do as much in his first 2 years in office.

I hope that DU people will start spreading this message. Governing is very hard to do, and not everyone can do it it, this President is doing it though, I am damn proud of him.

[Mimosa]

54. I'm aware of all these bills. And most aren't the hard stuff.

These types of lists sound good. But most of us are aware of the bills, many of which leave much to be desired.And what's the point of a long list with no explanations, just titles.


Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 wasn't very effective. People are still losing their homes. About a million so far this year.

The healthcare bill isn't anything to cheer about. A tax on tanning services hurts on business in particular, not to mention pale people who may suffer from seasonal affective disorder.

That cigarette trafficking act hurts Native Americans in particular.

[NJmaverick]

58. If you think getting anything through this Congress is easy

you are sorely mistaken.

[moriah]

94. Actually SAD is much better treated...

... by light therapy, not tanning. It's not the light being absorbed through the skin that helps Seasonal Affective Disorder, but actually visible light. Best protocol for light therapy involves sitting in front of a light box in the mornings with the eyes open but not looking directly at the light source. With tanning beds you had best have your eyes shut....

Now, I admit I'm one of those people who work nights and have to take Vitamin D supplements because I never get sunlight on my skin, but as a ginger I can tell you a tanning bed would do me much, much more harm than good. I would rather NOT be a crispy critter and keep taking my Calcium/Vitamin D tablets. :)

[grahamhgreen]

55. You forgot closing GITMO and ending torture!

- oops -

[Oregone]

56. Renegotiating NAFTA with opt-out as leverage

[NJmaverick]

57. You can rest assured the President hasn't

[FrenchieCat]

64. No, I didn't.

He can't close Gitmo without congress funding such,
and they have turned him down twice thus far,
and he did end torture, although some
seem to equate him to Hitler somehow.

[FedUp_Queer]

73. And we canNOT forget....

expanding Bagram and continuing torture. http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/03/bagram-abu-ghraib

Indefinite detention.

Government immunity for warrantless wiretapping (check out the eff.org lawsuit)

DADT - still the law of the land and continuing to discharge soldier (and won't change)

DOMA - defending it in court WOO-HOO!!!!

Continuing corporate control of health care system - WOO HOO!!!

Blackwater (now Xe) still a contractor...in fact, just got a renewal - WOO HOO!!!!

Geithner, Summers and Bernanke. Continued enslavement to banks (our debt-based "currency")

The good things: Lilly Ledbetter; health care (though as above, still corporate dominated), war war war, ever increasing military

You know...I get the lists. I get the legislation. Unfortunately, most of it, at base, is little better.

As above, the most important things (civil liberties, torture, war, indefinite detention, letting the Bushies go free), go unchanged, continued and, in some ways, worse.

[theaocp]

76. +1 for balance (even tho I love what FC put up!) n/t

[grahamhgreen]

86. Well said!

[moriah]

95. Saying DADT won't change is defeatist

Saying it's still the law of the land, that's true. But no need to say that it won't change.

Because if I have anything to say about it, it will.

[cliffordu]

59. Kicked and reccied for the truth

also, for my good friend Frenchiecat teller of truths and great DU'er.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. Thanks so much, Frenchie! The president is also asking us Federal Government

employees to identify areas where we can sacrifice and save American taxpayers money.

I didn't know that he...

Signed on May 14, 2010
To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during
fiscal year 2011!!

I sent a proposal to the president that all Federal Government employees will not receive a COLA adjustment in pay in FY2011 as well.

If the general American public has to sacrifice, then so do federal employees. We have safe jobs here, by and large, and we are pretty well taken care of as far as health insurance and other benefits go. As federal employees, we did not lose our 401K's or pensions. And our annual and sick leave isn't threatened, nor is our ability to work to increase merit pay and receive bonuses for meritorious work.

In my view, we can forego the 1% - 4% COLA pay, which already amounts to very little, even in the high-ass D.C. area.

[Mimosa]

61. That needs publicising on the airwaves.

Some of the list has some positive effects.

[BumRushDaShow]

62. K&R!!!!

Pretty incredible and unprecedented list! :kick:

[Cha]

63. Excellent informative thread, Frenchie!

:fistbump:

[firedupdem]

66. a big K&R Frenchie! Great post and a hell of a lot of accomplishments! n/t

[Number23]

67. Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic post, Frenchie.

Anyone who is determined to pretend that this President hasn't done enough/hasn't led/hasn't done anything right is so full of isht that they are truly not even worth the time and calories it would take to tell them such. You'd damn sure have to be a fool or a teabagger (as if there's any difference) to pretend that this President hasn't and isn't getting things done to make this country better.

Kicked and happy to rec.

[depakid]

70. This guy came into office with massive majorities and the biggest mandate in over 40 years

He had the entire nation behind him- and more political capital than anyone since FDR.

And he proceeded to squander it with incessant pandering to the corporate right and enabling and legitimizing Republicans (and adopting their policies) while alienating (and at times gratuitously insulting) key Democratic constituencies.

He could have changed the face of politics for a generation. Instead- the culture of corruption at the federal agencies persists, corporate criminals of all stripes in all sectors have walked away scot free- right alongside torturers and war criminals.

There's been no effort whatsoever to return accountability under the rule of law to pre-Bush norms- indeed, there have have been moves in the opposite direction.

Whatever laundry lists people draw up- this is the reality of the situation- and worse, because of this- and more, Republicans- who ought to have been relegated to the fringe for a generation, now have about even odds of taking back the majority in the House (which ironically enough, is provided the best shot for his re-election).

[FrenchieCat]

72. Sounds more like your opinion and that of the media's......

It's not a laundry list drawn up.....it's actual policies that have been changed.

Plus his fucking term isn't even half over, so stop talking about this Mandate Obama came
into office with. For you to think that somehow everybody was ready to support him
no matter what, you are totally mistaken.......and I guess they easily fooled you
into thinking that this would be the case. How naive you are!

We didn't elect Kucinich...so whatever Kucinich's mandate was, it is still in the box.

[depakid]

75. Just the way it is- and worse, the willful failure to return accountability under the rule of law

-and return integrity to the public agencies has fouled the Gulf of Mexico for the foreseeable future.

How blind you are.

And please, spare us the strawman- this is straight up stuff that ANY ethical administration should have pursued with vigor from the outset not to mention one headed by a former adjunct professor of constitutional law.

[BzaDem]

93. Obama REPEATEDLY and CONSISTENTLY pledged to look forward, not backward.

Everyone here knew what that meant when they voted for him. He clearly had a mandate for doing what he said, which was not "looking backward." People can legitimately argue about the merit of that policy, but they cannot legitimately argue about what Obama said and promised with regards to that issue.

[depakid]

97. People can try to run with that rationalization

But when it comes right down to it- you know in your heart of hearts there's no excuse for it.

Now it's come back to haunt us.

That's what happens when you sell out integrity.

[HughMoran]

113. Who is 'selling out their integrity'?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

71. K&R Rock on Frenchie!

:toast:

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Too bad you don't put this sort of energy into current political

needs such as the impending election in CA, which could give you a Democratic Governor and retain our Senate seats, or which could give you two money grubbing, vile Republicans in Sacramento and in Barbara Boxer's seat.
President Obama is going to be just fine. He'd like to have Barbara Boxer in that seat rather than Carly, I'll bet. You could do that for him. Democratic Governors are useful to Democratic Presidents. Elect more and better Democrats, for Obama, for California, for the United States.
This just strikes me as redundant work, preaching to one choir, harping at another, again. And to what end, and at what cost?
If Meg Whitman was trying to be my Governor, I'd be one busy Democrat, I promise you that.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Too bad you're not my mother!

:eyes:

[Number23]

116. *sputter* DAAYYYUM!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ouch! My sides!!! :rofl:

[Thornleylv]

78. This is the truth. finally some one gets it.

:kick:

[Diane R]

80. Great job, Frenchie. But some people will never be happy....

[FrenchieCat]

81. I know.

And that is their choice.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Yeah, real tough with super majorities.

Luckily he didn't have to gut any of the legislation so as to make it meaningless... wait a minute..

[donheld]

84. Peachy, Now where are the jobs?

Why is Goldman (Geithner) Sachs still running the show?
Why are Duncan, Salazar, and Rahm still employed?
Why are more people hurting like never before?
Is anybody listening?

[FrenchieCat]

88. they're all hiding in Obama's pocket....doncha know?

:eyes:

[stevenleser]

90. Its obvious that some folks dont listen to themselves, do they? Where are the jobs?

Like you could initiate a video conference with them, pull up a real time three dimensional map and point to a cubicle where someone is working and say "There is one!"

"Where are the jobs."

There is a person begging to not be taken seriously.

[SoFlaJet]

98. Sad to see what has happened to this once great site

Were it not for people like Frenchie, Pro Sense, Grant, Babylon and a few others this site would be in the same place in my favorites that Firedog Lake is-at the bottom of the list and never getting viewed. Thank you so much to the names I mentioned here for keeping this place alive with true progressive hopefulness

[stevenleser]

89. LOL, I love questions like that. How is anyone ever supposed to answer something like that?

When you want to have a serious dialogue, let me know.

[SunsetDreams]

87. My goodness Frenchie, thank you!

K&R and bookmarked!

[stevenleser]

91. BIG, Huge, EPIC, Kick and Rec!!!!!!

:-)

[DesertFlower]

96. great post. nt

[progressoid]

99. OK...

"The large number of Conservative Democrats in both houses of Congress
that makes it difficult to pass any legislation more progressive than the most conservative one of them"

One could also argue that the President himself is a Conservative Democrat. Let's not forget the large number of conservative Democrats that the President chose for his cabinet and ad visors.

and
a Party of No that have stood in front of Obama's agenda starting at day one,
no matter if the country falls apart,

Exactly - the Party of NO. So, one wonders why this administration has seen fit to negotiate with and even give into said Party of NO.

and
the very loud voices of the opposition Teabaggers who compare Obama to Hitler,
and have been nurtured, protected and promoted loudly by the media day in, day out,

The TBers have peaked. Their support is waning. So as their influence declines, we'll see a more progressive administration?

and,
the very loud voices of the "Liberals" on the Internet who don't think that anything
Obama has done or is doing or will do is praiseworthy ever,

Seriously? We "Liberals" on the internet have been hindering progressive legislation? Golly, we sure are powerful.

and
the giant bullhorn cues from a media that won't even allow a day of credit on any of the
significant legislation pushed by the WH, and only highlights the rants of Republicans and
their disguised Teabaggers, and whomever on the Left is pissed, and distorts this
President's approval ratings in the hopes of deflating them some more....

and
the apparent no-no of anyone on television having anything positive to say in support of this President; which is apparently "OUT" at this time, immediately following Chris Matthews reference to having a thrill sent up his leg.

Yeah, the media has been a clusterfuck for over two decades. This is nothing new.

[Fearless]

100. At what point did it become wrong to hold our politicans accountable?

No one is trying to belittle the victories we've had, but it is our responsibility to continue to push for new victories, because Republicans certainly aren't going to stop trying to push for their agenda. If we don't voice our opposition to bad programs, then we enable Republicans to walk all over us.

[FrenchieCat]

103. That is exactly what is happening.....

folks are exactly trying to belittle the victories we've had.

When we've got our foot knee deep in the President's hind end, and that's where we keep it,
meanwhile lighting a match claiming to simply "keeping Obama's Feet to the fire" as we
burn off his feet and burn our own fucking house down while we are at it,
it means that our approach of being angry about everything all of the time needs revisiting.

Means that right now, during election time, ain't the time to
help Republicans indirectly by constantly piling-on Democrats, period.


But the thing is, I know that we are not that stupid, and since we just got fucked big time
by Republicans...seems like we'd not want anymore of that, and yet,
some are hating so hard on Barack Obama and everyfuckingthing he says or does
to a point where it appears to consume them. It's now obvious that to them,
issues aren't really as important as they pretend. If they were, they'd cut Obama more slack,
and recognize his accomplishments instead of shitting on them....
cause these same people know what politics are all about, and how hard it really is in terms
of achieving real progress! Why do you think same folks go all the way back to FDR to
find someone who in their multiple terms in office made real change?...and yet, same folks
pan Obama for his 18 months of work. That sucks, and that ain't helpful, it's destructive.

[Fearless]

110. I'm going to have to disagree with your core point

During the campaign, Obama appealed to a large number of different interests, as all presidents have to to be elected. This idea of "you're with us or your against us" is the kind of divisive politics which will get Republicans elected in 2010 and 2012. Politicians which we support need to have their feet in the fire, always, even if they've done everything we've wanted. This "feet in the fire" does not lose them elections. A passive electorate IS what causes us to lose elections. If we don't keep politicians to their promises, our base demoralizes during the next elective cycle. This is a large reason why a large percentage of presidents' parties lose seats in Congress in the session after their election. The base is demoralized.

That said, I doubt that anyone here, who posts with frequency, is actually wishing or willing Obama to fail. Calling out people as such, disenfranchises them at a point when we need their support for the upcoming election season. It causes good DUers to leave and ardent liberals and progressives to tune out.


EDIT: Grammar

[flyarm]

101. And then we have this... that I just got from the ACLU>>

edited with bolding..

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=2493&page=UserAction&cr=2&s_src=UNW100001ACT&s_subsrc=100715_stupak&cr=1&JServSessionIdr004=jfwgg5th93.app225a

Dear Friend,

We need you to act immediately to undo a disturbing decision from the Obama administration. Remember all the hard work you and other ACLU activists did to defeat Rep. Stupak's draconian abortion coverage ban during the health care debate?

Well now, the White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban. It doesn't allow states to choose to cover abortion and it doesn't even give women the option to buy abortion coverage using their own money.

Ask President Obama WHY his administration is restricting coverage for vulnerable women.

Unless the Administration reverses this decision, some of America's most vulnerable women—those with pre-existing conditions who have been denied health care coverage on the individual market—won't be able to purchase abortion coverage except in the case of rape or incest or to save the pregnant woman's life.

You and I know that every woman should be able to decide what is best for her health and her family. A pro-choice administration should know that too.

It's especially discouraging to impose a ban on women participating in a high-risk insurance pool who are particularly vulnerable and may have a special need for abortion. For example, because of the restriction, a woman with heart disease or diabetes might be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term despite its potentially damaging effect on her future health.

Ask President Obama not to stand in the way of vulnerable women's health care choices.

It's urgent that you send your message to President Obama right now. When you do, we'll also forward a copy to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, whose department is putting this unnecessary and harmful restriction into effect.

Thank you for acting on this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

Laura W. Murphy
Director, Washington Legislative Office



© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004



Wow..I never in my life thought I would see CAHNGE LIKE THIS..from a Democratic president..CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN..I THINK NOT!

[progressoid]

102. WTF?

:grr:

[FrenchieCat]

104. RE: Hyde Amendment.

Feds don't pay for Abortions with Tax payer's dollars.
It's been like that for a long time,
but when one can package it up as a new outrage...well, why not do that? :shrug:

Funny how folks who just got fucked big time by Republicans...
seems like they want some more of that, which is why some
of them are hating so hard on Barack Obama and everyfuckingthing he says or does
as much as they do, till they can't see straight, and have become as intellectually
dishonest as those they profess to be against.

Hyde Amendment

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions<1>. It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.

The original Hyde Amendment was passed on September 30, 1976 by the House of Representatives, by a 207-167 vote. It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. The measure was introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, and represented the first major legislative success by the pro-life movement.

Effect on low-income women
Opponents of the amendment, such as the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union, assert that it unfairly targets low-income women<2>, stating the amendment effectively ended the provision of abortions for low-income women across the United States through Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income Americans.<3> As a rider attached to the yearly appropriations bill for Medicaid, it occasioned intense debate in Congress each time that it came up for renewal. The original measure made no exceptions for cases of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest or that threatened the lives of pregnant woman, provoking an outcry from women's rights advocates. As a result, beginning in 1977 language was added to provide for such circumstances; however, the exact wording has varied from one year to the next, subject to the outcome of Congressional bargaining on the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment


Work harder to change the fucking law, instead of pissing and dying everything time is shows up.
Instead of pissing on Democrats, help elect more of them. That's the only way the Hyde Amendment
will one day disappear. It won't go anywhere by vilifying this President; tell you that. :eyes:

[progressoid]

107. Nice try.

Yes, the Hyde Ammendment is a steaming pile, but that doesn't explain this from the administration:


...the White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban. It doesn't allow states to choose to cover abortion and it doesn't even give women the option to buy abortion coverage using their own money.

Ask President Obama WHY his administration is restricting coverage for vulnerable women.

[FrenchieCat]

109. That's the ACLU's letter.....and the high risk insurance pools are

subsidized by the federal government, not the states.

Until the law is changed, that is how it will be.
You and the ACLU can point your finger all you want,
the only thing that you will accomplish is nada.....
and the next time a Republican is in office,
after you wail and yell and get all mad,
it will be even worse for those same women,
you seemed so concerned about now....not better.

[progressoid]

111. Again I ask, "What the Fuck?"

What the administration is doing is NOT REQUIRED by the Hyde amendment. They are choosing to impose this restriction. Stop trying to deflect this enormous error by bringing up the Hyde amendment.

And stop the crap about what will happen when a Republican is in office. This is about who is in control NOW. So, yes, I'm concerned about NOW because this will affect women NOW. And it is more than just me and the ACLU. You can add Planned Parenthood and the National Institute for Reproductive Health and NARAL to the list of "finger pointers".

[SunsetDreams]

120. Oh yes let's squash a positive OP with "Hey Look Over There"

:crazy:

[donco6]

123. So the only thing allowed in this thread is -

"Amen!"

Got it.

[SunsetDreams]

124. No just acknowledgement for once!

Now you have it :)

[Butch350]

105. K&R Squared! Thank You Madame

and POOH-POOH on all you negative types!

[opihimoimoi]

117. while the GOP was whining...Obama was working,,,,eos

[defendandprotect]

119. Unfortunately, we have a new "anti-abortion" horror from Obama... and "Cat Food Commission" ...!!!

Just to point to two very important issues which shouldn't be moving in this

direction under a "Democratic" president --