General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLeftist ‘Bath Water’ Party Wrong on Obama. 9 Facts on FDR, Truman, LBJ Show Why.
These days, Obama-denial is almost hip. With only 27 months in the history books, some fair-weather liberals are letting their tunnel-vision focus on unfulfilled expectations cloud Obamas historical accomplishments. These left-wing absolutists want to toss out Obama along with the Republican-polluted bath water. I call them the Bath Water Party.
Let me be crystal clear: There is a major difference between a rational person who criticizes Obama to encourage him to do better and an Obama-denier, who is marked with complete and utter contempt for the President and chronic disappointment even with his victories. The Bath Water Party is a small yet outspoken sect that does not encompass people who challenge Obama on fair ground.
BWP Tip-Off: Obama-deniers call you an apologist if you defend Obama against misinformed criticisms or add context to his actions. They hold Obama to a unique and idealized standard and they are remarkably unaware of that fact. The Bath Water Party has idealized Progressivism so extremely that the term no longer applies to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, or Lyndon B. Johnson, as well as Obama (see analysis of these four Presidents below).
http://liberallamppost.com/2011/04/30/lefty-%E2%80%98bath-water%E2%80%99-party-wrong-on-obama-9-facts-on-fdr-truman-lbj-show-why/
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Even with Obama's recent recess appointments to the NLRB, the ALF-CIO has not jumped to endorse him.
If he is like "Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, or Lyndon B. Johnson," why is that?
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Oh, that's right. It's going to be President Obama.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)No one forced him to give up his alleged 2008 goal of renegotiating NAFTA. No one forced him to recently send "Free Trade Agreements" with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama to the Senate for their approval.
Historically, the AFL-CIO has routinely endorsed the Democratic candidate without delay.
The AFL-CIO's act of not endorsing Obama in the re-election campaign effort by now is unusual.
It may be that all of the AFL-CIO members will vote in the Presidential election. It may be that all of the AFL-CIO members who turned out the vote and get others to show up to vote for Obama will do that again this year. Of course, if Obama doesn't need such effort, then he doesn't need the endorsement of the AFL-CIO. Nor does he need their prompt endorsement.
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)He's an uncontested candidate.
Might as well wait to provide the endorsement until the media won't bury it in Santorum.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Dukakis in August. Gore in October.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Guessing April myself.
Also... You should look up when they've endorsed in the past before making something up like "very unusual."
They will endorse him, because Obama is the best thing to happen to unions I'm about 30 years. And we know it... Unlike so-called "supporters of labor" who don't actually support unions.
pampango
(24,692 posts)As the republicans are always saying, Obama is looking to Europe for advice rather than to good ol' America.
PragmaticLiberal
(912 posts)Though I think the OP could have been a little less confrontational towards "the left".
Laid out the pros and cons of the administration pretty effectively.
Like most things in life, it's not just black and white.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)Very informative
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)deacon
(5,967 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)MilesColtrane
(18,678 posts)K&R
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)way to defend the man against the New Reds!!!