Intellectual Honesty

[DFab420]

I have a question I would like to pose...

I am posing it here in GD: P because I think it pertains alot to peoples discussion of the Obama administration and his style of leading this country.

Here is the question.

Are people who don't see the forest because of the trees on most of Obama's policies intellectually dishonest or honestly obtuse?

Meaning: Do they refuse to understand how our political system works because it allows them to be outraged, or are they outraged because they don't understand politics? Like. With the budget. Obama protected Planned Parenthood and women's health services, yet all we bitch about is how he cut 38 mil in the budget, even though in his last state of the Union he said he wanted to make cuts! Also, due to the new healthcare laws, there are certain federal social services that are becoming redundant and can be done without. But do we talk about that? No, as liberals we just fall to the ground crying about cuts.

Call me a liberal realist, but sometimes you have to swallow a bitter pill to do the right thing, the right thing was to protect Planned Parenthood, pass a budget, and make the Republicans play their social agenda card....Which is what happened.

Just an observation I made.

[damntexdem]

1. Maybe it's that the Dems don't understand politics when the GOP plays for keeps.

Or maybe they do understand and are either sell-outs or congenitally cowardly.

Oh, it's just so hard to decide what it is.

[Union Scribe]

2. Is your idea of intellectual honesty letting your opponents choose

whether they're stupid or liars for daring to disagree with you? You must've just wowed your junior high debate team with that one.

[DFab420]

7. Lol no, my idea of Intellectual Honesty

is having an opinion based on facts, and trying to use those facts to best argue my ideal.

ex. Budget cuts

Facts:
Republicans wanted to cut planned parenthood
Claimed they wanted large budget cuts
Obama stated in his state of the Union he wanted to cut discretionary spending

Ideal
Protect Womens Health
Avoid Government Shutdown
Protect important programs from cuts

Arguement:
Republicans want 32 Mil in cuts, Obama admin figured out a way to make it 38 mil, thus making the Republicans look dishonest about their deficit hawkishness unless they accept
Draw the line on Planned Parenthood
Offer larger budget cuts so you can protect projects you want to protect...


Does this make sense to you, because this is how it was done.

[Union Scribe]

8. Well that isn't what you did.

You "asked" (like Fox "asks") if people who don't see things your way are either dishonest or too dumb to get it. How nice that you offer people a choice. Insert rolling eyes or whatever here.

[DFab420]

11. No what I asked is

if liberals, or mostly those who constantly attack President Obama, are being dishonest in their discussions or if they really believe their dishonesties because it helps fit their narrative.

I never put it up as a my opinion vs their opinion.

[opihimoimoi]

3. The man is over loaded....span of control is 5 maybe 6...max...not enough good people to back him.

whatever it is....he seems to make things happen despite heavy ankle biting from the emotional far right...just imagine if cooperation toward whats best for the nation/planet is in the focus

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. You are ABSOLUTELY correct. And note: most liberals still support the administration.

I find that many DUers simply do not know how our democratic institutions work. There are three separate and distinct branches of government, not one.

Budget-related bills always--ALWAYS--begin in the U.S. House of Representatives. If the House is now controlled by Republicans/Teabaggers who refuse to compromise on ANYTHING, then what are the Democrats, who are now fewer in number to do?

If the Senate's business can be stopped by ONE SENATOR through Holds/Filibusters, then how is that the Executive Branch's fault?

I love the way people compare President Johnson's Congress to Obama's, disregarding the historical context of that time. Why can't Obama be more like President Johnson? The answer is simple: the Democrats of LBJ's time who didn't become Republicans were much more liberal; the Republicans, many of them coastal were more liberal/progressive. It is easier when you have Democrats/Republicans who can create winning coalitions on any given number of issues.

The Republicans of Bill Clinton's time were much more moderate than they are today.

What we have now is a much of batshit crazy wingnuts, nothing like FDR's, JFK's, LBJ's, or Bill Clinton's time.

And yet, DU believes that the president somehow has control over these conditions. All he has really are two things: (1) the Bully Pulpit and (2) the Veto pen.

Well, as far as the Bully Pulpit, I think the president's messaging team has done an abysmal job getting a clear messag out to the people. I blame him 100% for that.

As for the veto pen, legislation has to pass both houses of the legislature. Over 400 pieces of legislation passed the House under Nancy Pelosi's leadership. Most of that legislation was stalled in the Senate due to Republican Holds/Filibusters.

Further, the line-item veto power was overturned by the SCOTUS back in 1996. Therefore, if a bill comes to Obama's desk and it has these line items in it, say stripped D.C. of Planned Parenthood funding, Obama cannot effectively strike that item out.

I think your observation is correct.

Too many DUers are directing anger at the Democrats/Obama and NOT at the Republicans/Teabaggers, and that's exactly what the wingnuts want. They want to demoralize the Democratic base such that we don't vote.

When we don't vote, they win. It's really that simple. That's how we got the Republicans/Teabaggers in the House. And yet, people are upset that Obama is forced to compromise? Sure, he is. We gave him MORE crazy-ass wingnuts. What do we expect??

[FrenchieCat]

9. Oh...I think they know how the government and politics works.....

I just don't think they care anymore....

And after investing at least 2 years with theories of how much this President sucks,
that has become the issue that they are most invested in....so they can't afford to dial it back....and they won't; even if it means this President losing the presidency in 2012. That's how important this is to those folks. The policy issues have to take a back seat to this agenda...
and even if it means those *important* policy issues being made even less likely with Republicans at the helm, that no longer really matters.....

And this is the reason in a nutshell why Obama will never get any benefit of the doubt about anything ever, no matter how many times he proves those cynics wrong.....because all they need is one little indication of anything they don't like at any given moment to burn his ass to the stake for weeks on end.

Folks such as these will invest more energy and passion defeating this President, than they will in
fighting Republicans. They are what they accused elected Democrats of being; spineless folks who find it much easier to attack the Democrats, than to attack the Republicans. That's why no amount of reasoning with such will change anything; they are big time invested in being right, and nothing more.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Intellectual dishonesty

This OP

[DFab420]

13. Non constructive dialog

Your reply.

Thanks for playing though.

[FrenchieCat]

6. There are many who have been suffering with Intellectual Dishonesty for some time now.....

It requires that one ignores nuance (which we used to accuse the GOP of)
Twists context (Fox is renowned for this, but they all do it, including many on the Left),
fails to acknowledge political reality (if only he came out and "fought" by kicking ass--whatever that fucking means....he'd win),
and pretends that the media will report loudly exactly what Obama decrees without
the media influencing public opinion as needed in the exact opposite direction.

In otherwords, it takes a village....
and that we have.

[Shiver]

10. As a fellow liberal realist,

I understand exactly what you mean. I don't know, though, if it's because people don't understand politics, or because they do understand it and it angers them. It angers me how politics works, but that doesn't mean I deny that it works that way.

What I wonder about is the people who honestly believe anything can get done with a 'no compromise' attitude. ALL legislation is compromise. It's a fact of our government. The House has to compromise with itself, the Senate has to compromise with the House, both have to compromise with the President. Yet some people think that just demanding something is enough to get it done - either that, or they want someone who talks a big game, and as long as he does they're fine with him getting nothing accomplished.

That's not to say the comprises we've seen lately have been great. I do believe that the Obama administration could do a much better job of controlling the message, and the President needs to take better advantage of the bully pulpit. But that alone wouldn't be enough to get things done.

[JoePhilly]

12. The far left and the far right share one characteristic ...

They see the world as black and white.

That is why the one group is absolutely sure that ...

.... Obama as a socialist, and the other is sure he is a Corporatist ...

.... Obama is weak on national defense, and the other is sure he is a war monger ...

.... Obama is redistributing the wealth of the rich, and the other is sure he hates the sick and poor.

... and so on. Take almost any issue, and each side has its caricature of Obama.

Which is why no matter what happens, they both vilify him.

[polichick]

14. You completely miss that he shouldn't have called for cuts in the SOTU...

And only did so because of the 2010 election results - before that he was calling for further infusions to bolster the economy, which is what economists agree is needed.

The prez far too often adopts whatever bullshit the right is pushing.

[Hawkowl]

15. Cowardice

Do you think Ghandi or MLK understood how politics worked? Did they settle? Swallow a bitter bill for the sake of non-confrontation?

Maybe you're happy with getting lied to and called fucking retarded. Not me. I'm tired of waiting. I've been waiting since 1984, and if this is what the Democratic party means by "Hope and Change", they can do it without me.

This man, Obama, had the most popular support of any man since FDR. He could have done ANYTHING. Yet, once elected he abandoned the popular support and immediately installed Washington insiders and Wall Street money man to control his cabinet. He willingly capitulated to the powers that be, taking money over votes.

In order to negotiate, you need more than one stance-- If bending over and grabbing your ankles is your opening position every time...