Who new exactly what they were getting when they voted for Obama

[iandhr]

I know this was the topic of a pervious post but I thought I should address this again.

Forgive my bluntness and forgive me if I sound rude. Some of the comments on this site come right of out freeperville.

Like Obama being Bush III

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21121.html

250,000 pages of documents released. No Republican does this.

also check out this dariy that was posted a few weeks ago. Its been covered before but its worth covering again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8302608
Began the closing of Guantanamo Bay
-Put a final pull out deadline on Iraq
-Reversed Stem-Cell research Bans
-Officially Banned Torture by the US Military
-Started the Process of re-opening Cuba
-Has ordered higher emissions standards to be implemented
-Expanded national children's health care
-Made it easier for Women to sue for fair pay
-All of the stimulus acts and bills (signed for them, actively campaigned for them).
-Ended the Mexico City policy
-Implemented Lobby reform.
-Reversed numerous other Bush-era policies, including banning offshore oil drilling in certain areas.
-Expanded FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), allowing more people access to government information.
-Lifted Bans on recording of the president
-Met with several World Leaders in person, and talked to dozens of others in official capacities.
-Signed a UN declaration that Homosexuality is not a crime.

I thank the person who wrote this.

God forbid we should give him more then three months. Progress and Change happen slowly. People will fight tooth and nail to have things stay the way they are e.g. HMOS. The budget, healthcare, energy this is going to be a fight and Democrats need to stick together. Why do you think Rahm Emanuel is chief of staff. It because he is a war time consigliere Change is going to take years not days. All this talk about people on our side of the aisle who are already waiting to throw the President under the bus is disappointing. There is a episode of the West Wing when Toby is talking to Seth Gillette a Democratic senator who was coming at Bartlet from the left told him. "If you think that this is the best way to protect our liberal base then speaking as liberal go to bed would you please." and later "With friends like these who need enemies." and "Come at us from the left and I will own your ass." People you talk about Obama being Bush III give liberalism a bad name and they are completely moronic. The budget put forth the most progressive agenda since The Great Society. So for the love of god can we lay off

Also who knew that change would be a fight. Who knew that the President would not fix everything in three months.
Thank you

[cali]

1. I largely agree with you, but you might want to fix your title line.

take a look at it. And you meant site, not sight in the body of your text.

:hi:

[iandhr]

3. done

[BlooInBloo]

6. "new", "pervious"... It's beyond repair.

[EFerrari]

2. Hasn't this question been answered about a brazillion times here?

[iandhr]

5. it has

but it needs to be covered again because many still do not get it.

[EFerrari]

8. I think what is not being "gotten" is that turning off the critical thinking part of your brain

is probably not a good idea.

Not to mention, you really can't browbeat people into changing their minds.

[tbyg52]

46. Exactly.

And I also think there must be at least two flavors of criticism going around - I am angry about a lot of things (and happy about a lot of things), and have said so, but I've never called him "Bush III"! And I wouldn't, because he isn't.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Some people have short memories

Mine isn't as good as it used to be either.

Don

[EFerrari]

12. Short memories? You don't even need short term memory

because there are usually four threads on the front page of this forum telling people to stop criticizing Obama.

Like he needs the help. :)

This is more about control freaks who need to manage every post and thought at DU. Must be exhausting.

[QC]

25. Yes, but the peasants persist in criticizing their betters,

despite these numerous admonitions to remember their place.

[EFerrari]

36. No wonder this country is so fucked up. These people have the power relation

exactly backward.

[QC]

51. They have the mindset of servants, not citizens. n/t

[CanonRay]

4. I knew enough to know he'd occasionally disappoint me.

e.g. torture, bailouts of banks, appointing Summers, Siegelman case, etc. However, overall, I'd sure as hell rather have him in there. If I didn't want to be disappointed, I should have run for President myself.

[iandhr]

15. I have not agreed

With 100% of the decision that he made. Torture will end. ON the bailout of banks sure I do not like it but there is a connection between Wall Street and Main Street. The connection is that Main Street has IRAs and 401ks on Wall Street. We have to stabilize the banking system or people won't get back there retirement money. On Siegelman I agree with you but its a political calculation there would be so much shit from the GOP. I have agreed with about 90% of the things he has done. Its impossible to have a President where you would agree 100%.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Just having control of the Nuclear Football is good enough for me

The rest is gravy.

And I am sure we will all appreciate any Supreme Court replacements by Obama for many decades to come.

Don

[iandhr]

19. Thank you

also not being at with with Iran is also a plus

[truedelphi]

9. I cionfess that I failed to see the

"I am all for Wall Street" banner behind him when I voted for him.

But then again,it was all spelled out in who donated what to whom, campaign funds wise.

[mix]

17. that is exactly when i started to realize Obama's Wall Street backing...

...when there was that rash of talk about who gave money to Obama last fall.

I was not certain what it meant, but instinctively felt ill at ease. I am more and more convinced that Obama might be on the wrong side of history. I definitely side with Krugman/Stiglitz on his handling of the economic crisis.

I voted for him knowing he was a centrist and disagreeing with him on many issues. I do not regret it and do not imagine that I ever will.

There is much to celebrate in Obama's election.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Ah yes. The world would have been so much better with Kucinich at the helm.

When will you guys accept that the world, and the Democratic Party, just ain't ready for the Kooch.

[Deja Q]

23. Obama sounded a lot like "the Kooch" at the time.

:shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Obama's centrist, and always has been. That you, and other "true progressives" attributed...

ideology to him that he never espoused, certainly can't be held against him. Ralph Nader & Kooch types will never run this country. They are considered by most intelligent people as "fringe", just as extreme as Sam Brownback & David Duke, on the right. I think the country, as indicated by polling data, appreciates the direction the country's taking. Center left is a good place to be.

[Deja Q]

33. Agreed.

I am, in many ways, centrist, but Candidate Obama did pique the interests of the issues I lean more left on.

Either way, I'm not disappointed in him. I'll keep my fingers crossed for the job situation, but he was handed a real mess to be sure. The least we can do is work with him; for new market opportunities, the best we can do (that I currently can see) is to dig in with education and get the best grades earned.

[ZombieHorde]

26. Only because of people like you who keep saying it. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. And we'll keep saying it. There's a place for Kucinich in the party, but

that place certainly is not in the leadership. But, that's only my opinion. Consult the primary polls, if you need further backup for my assertion.

[ZombieHorde]

30. Why are you opposed to DK's politics?

[walkaway]

34. I love his politics but he is no leader on a national scale.

it's too bad, I wish he were.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. Because I'm a moderate. And contrary to what the loud left keeps claiming,

they did not singlehandedly elect Barack Obama, we all did. I know that Thom Hartmann and Sam Seder have sent out the marching orders that we should all be pushing the president further left, but that's not going to happen. The president knows that he owes his election to a multi-faceted cross section of the electorate, and I think he's doing his level best to represent us all.

If I had one piece of advice for the president, it would be to keep the fringy left at a respectable distance. Recent history suggests that the rightwing extremists have ruined the GOP (hopefully for decades to come), and I don't want our newly elected government to suffer the same fate. By paying too much heed to the Nader/Kooch element of the party, will surely bring about his downfall.

[truedelphi]

40. Gotta agree with you, Zombie.

Don't get to sayt hat a lot - don;t know too many zombies, and even fewer are the ones I agree with!

[Starry Messenger]

11. .

[EFerrari]

13. But it hurts so good!

lol

:hi:

[w4rma]

14. The Wall Street lobbyists. (nt)

[opihimoimoi]

16. I noes better and I new to believe the change Obama make is the Best to Date

subject to CHANGE.....he made a Flex Plan driving the Pub Basement Gang to drink more whiskey....

Obama is giving them FITS....

They cannot Match the Bet....Unable to adequately Respond.....resorting to delusional accusations

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The "Not as bad, so shut up!" argument, again..and, again.

In a democracy, the citizens are supposed to criticize the government when it screws up. And, Obama is screwing up.

[EstimatedProphet]

42. It's more honest than the "just as bad as Bush" argument

Which does show up here, and is demonstrably false. Criticize all you want. You should. But too many are unrealistic about it.

[Arkansas Granny]

20. None of us knew exactly what to expect, but what we've gotten is a damn sight better

than what we would have had with the Republicans in power again.

I didn't expect to agree with everything that Obama did anymore than I've agreed with everything done by any other President since I've been old enough to be aware of and have an opinion on politics or governing this nation. I'm sure that I will be disappointed by some of the things he does and I will also be pleasantly surprised by other things. Realistically, I realize that some of the things I might want him to do are not going to happen and that I will disagree with him on some of the things he does.

[Deja Q]

22. K&R

We need more posts like yours to counter some posted by others, as reassurance that we really do need jobs after all.

[ZombieHorde]

24. I was surprised about his stance on renditions and wire tapping. nt

[iandhr]

29. I was too until I read some case law on the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States

This is a case from 1928

Its was overturned by Katz v United States in the 60s

The court has held there are circumstances where a warrant is not needed.

I realized the stance was not completely out of left field (even though I disagree) and there is legal precent to back it up.

[ZombieHorde]

31. "there is legal precent to back it up" I fail to see any meaning in this statement.

Slavery was legal.

[iandhr]

32. hence the 13th amendment

[EFerrari]

35. I wish there was some way you could flush your constitution without flushing mine.

[atreides1]

37. You Forgot to go one step further

United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), also known as the Keith case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.



The Supreme Court upheld the prior rulings in the case, holding that the wiretaps were an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment and as such must be disclosed to the defense. This established the precedent that a warrant needed to be obtained before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. Note that the decision applied only to domestic issues; foreign intelligence operations were not bound by the same standards. The governing law for electronic surveillance of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers" is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

How's this for legal precedence?

[iandhr]

38. Thats the thing about con law

No issue is straight forward

and I never said I agreed with warrant-less wiretaps

[JackRiddler]

39. I did, he hasn't surprised me, and that still means we should fight for what is right...

-- not roll over and say thank you master for doing a few right things. Not if at the same time he continues other Bush policies that do the most damage by far. And I say CONTINUES. Not "hasn't gotten around to changing yet, because he's been in office for a short time." No, CONTINUES, as in "has affirmed as good and adopted by public word and deed."

Two issues outweigh all others, because they eat all the resources, create emergencies, force everything else aside. Two factors burn the planet and sadly outweigh the admirable gradual changes you list: Money and War.

1) The ongoing, millennial, global plunder-and-burn operation by the banking class, which is destroying everyone else. You let them have the trillions, you reward them for crimes that almost reinvent the very concept and scale of crime, then you're wrong. Doesn't matter if you supported letting them have the trillions before the election and I voted for you anyway because McCain is worse: You're still wrong. And I didn't surrender my right to fight you on this issue.

2) War. I don't care that Obama promised he'd escalate in Afpak and kill many thousands of people there. He was wrong before and after the election. I was given a choice between

McCain: "War in Iraq, Afpak probably Iran, maybe North Korea, and then Venezuela/Cuba/Colombia/Bolivia and wherever else we can hit..."

and

Obama: "Slightly less war in Iraq, more in Afpak, probably not in Iran or those other places, but Africa had better watch out."

That sucked. I made a strategic choice and now fight for what is right anyway.

You are mistaken if you think the function of elections is for everyone to shut the fuck up afterwards.

[scarletwoman]

45. Thank you! Great post.

I completely agree with you; Money and War are THE issues.

sw

[tbyg52]

47. And I agree with you that

>>You are mistaken if you think the function of elections is for everyone to shut the fuck up afterwards.

[Bluebear]

41. Yes, "who new".

:crazy:

[liberalmuse]

43. He's actually better than I expected.

I didn't really expect him to go after Bush. He said he likely wouldn't. He voted for FISA, so the wiretap thing doesn't surprise me. It is because he's doing better than I expected that I had hope that maybe he'd shut that wiretap shit down, and go after the Bush cabal. Oh well. The left will never be completely happy with him, but that is a good thing. We need to keep pushing. I will never forget the hell we went through during the Bush years. This is a helluva lot better, because at least there's a chance President Obama is going to listen. I still get sick thinking of McCain/Palin in there. We'd be so unbelievably FUCKED. I intend to email and snail mail him about the torture issue and any other issue that I think he is misguided or wrong with.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

50. Yeah, me too. I figured a lot of what he campaigned on would get

seriously watered-down. So far, I don't think that has been the case.

[Two Americas]

44. I did

So what? Knowing and liking are two different things. Before the election everyone was scolded and lectured and told to shut up and commit to voting for the lesser of two evils, because we had no choice. Now people are demanding that we see the lesser of two evils as the best thing imaginable. That is not going to happen.

By what bizarre stretch of the imagination can we justify calling left wing points of view that people are expressing here as "comments right of out freeperville?"


...

[Starry Messenger]

52. I imagine the people who say this don't actually read Free Republic.

They must think "freeper" is a verb that means to be angry or something. If people would really take a look of the shit they spew over on FR they wouldn't do this. Or so I'd like to imagine...

[Two Americas]

53. yes

I can't tell if people are intentionally being dishonest, or if they are truly that ignorant.

Another variation in that is when people complain about a "personal attack" when their absurd ideas were successfully refuted and dismantlement. Do their subsequent embarrassment and hurt feelings - at the worst - then truly seem to them to be caused by a personal attack? That is to say can they not distinguish between themselves and the ideas they support? Or do they know full well that they were not personally attacked, and are merely dishonestly claiming that they were as a debate gambit"

People routinely make bigoted statements here. Challenge them on those statements, and they claim to be wounded, hurt and offended and will accuse you of unfairly "calling them a bigot" even though no one did any such thing. Even had someone labeled them or called them a name, are we to believe that being called a bigot is worse than expressing bigotry and hatred, and is the terrible offense that we should all get worked up about? That is a variation on the right wing "reverse racism" arguments.

It is almost impossible to tell who is ignorant, and who is being dishonest. But certainly no one who truly and honesty supported the GLBTQ community, for example, would be resistant to getting feedback on the opinions they are expressing and nor go on the attack if they are questioned. let alone start making broad-brushed characterizations of the entire community.

I think people feel "hurt" and "offended" and feel personally attacked when they get a glimpse of themselves in the mirror. Any discomfort they feel over that should not be blamed on others, let alone entire groups of people through guilt by association. Making guilt by association attacks on entire communities of persecuted people is so obviously bigoted, that is is a continual source of amazement for me to see it happen here so often and be so rarely challenged and confronted by any other than a small handful of people.


...

[Zuiderelle]

48. By pervious, do you mean pernicious, or pervasive, or do you really mean pervious?

I suppose pervious could work.

[EFerrari]

55. It would be really cool if the OP meant pervious. n/t

[depakid]

49. I had a feeling that we'd be sold down the river on financial policy and accountability issues

much as happened with the Clinton administration- and thus far that's exactly what the record shwos.

Perhaps in in time, with enough pressure from responsible folks, that will change. One can only hope