- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 16, 2010 at 4:16 am #596689
JoBParticipantfrom Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/220013
perhaps his coattails wouldn’t be such a bad ride after all if we would just stop bitching for a minute about what he hasn’t done and look at what he has.
maybe we should give the guy a couple more years with an at least somewhat cooperative congress and see what happens…
we-re on a roll here.
October 16, 2010 at 4:57 am #705697
JanSParticipantthank you
October 16, 2010 at 5:35 am #705698
redblackParticipanti know his heart’s in the right place, and he’s still my man.
and the fact that the people who own the country are so apoplectic tells me that he’s doing some things correctly.
October 16, 2010 at 5:48 am #705699
dobroParticipantThe case for Obama?- pretty simple really- he’s not a washed up, flip-flopping, trophy-wifing,bought and paid for wingnut septugenarian, which is what our other choice was.
He’s done many good things in spite of the mess handed to him and I think he would have done more in not for the Rescumlicans treasonous obstructionism. I’m hoping we surprise the conventional wisdom types again and retain the majority after this election and he has a chance to introduce more of his own agenda instead of just cleaning up the trail of slime left by Cheney/Bush and their flying monkeys.
October 16, 2010 at 4:34 pm #705700
redblackParticipantdobro, i’ll second the election predictions. i think MSM and republicans have a nasty shock coming.
republicans/conservatives/”independents” (yeah, right)/teabaggers keep asking, “when are you going to stop blaming bush?”
answer: until it’s no longer true that republicans broke the economy. i.e. never.
i’m going to paraphrase an anecdote that obama told the AFL-CIO rally on labor day that sums it up:
so after 14 years of controlling congress and 8 years in the white house, they’ve driven the economy into the ditch. democrats get out of the car, and we’re pushing and grunting and sweating and working, and we finally get the car up on the road again. it’s got dents and dings and scratches. mud all over it. the republicans are standing on the shoulder, in clean clothes, drinking a slurpee. and they’re yelling, “look what they did to your car!”
October 16, 2010 at 4:57 pm #705701
SmittyParticipant“i think MSM and republicans have a nasty shock coming.”
Better known as “whistling past the graveyard”……..
This is going to be ugly, but of course it will be the result of ignorant Americans not “smart” enough to subscribe to Rolling Stone.
And we were all so “enlightened” just two short years ago………
October 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm #705702
JoBParticipantSmitty..
announced today. Bill to allow businesses located in America incentives to invest in their company.
It doesn’t take much to notice Democrats trying to push that battered jalopy down the road in spite of Republican roadblocks.
And yes ..intelligent voters do vote their best interests … saving the economy and setting this nation back on the road to prosperity.
October 17, 2010 at 12:18 am #705703
WSMomParticipantredblack: thanks for sharing the car story! Sad but true!!
Patience of JoB: I’m sharing the Rolling Stone article with friends. If Obama isn’t going to shout out what his admin has accomplished, I guess we better do it!
October 17, 2010 at 1:03 am #705704
DPMemberIf you measure Obama’s accomplishments against what many of his pre-election supporters thought he was going to do, the record is pretty dismal.
On the other hand, if you measure Obama’s record against the Bush criteria for getting a “mission accomplished,” things look quite a bit better.
True, Obama hasn’t actually ended any wars. (The draw-down in Iraq was in the works before Obama came in, and in any case the war is still on there as far as I’m concerned.) In fact, Obama has actually escalated one of the two wars that he inherited.
On the other hand, at least he hasn’t started any new wars (yet), and his rhetoric is decidedly less bellicose than Mr. Bush’s.
Health care reform was a very shallow victory for Obama, no matter what he says. My biggest disappointment was that he didn’t even fight for the public option and that he left the insurance companies firmly in place so they could keep screwing things up.
On the other hand, the net effect will probably still be more people insured than before. Was the health care “reform” a step forward? Or was it a detour? It’s really too early to tell.
Let’s see . . . what else?
— Financial reform? That was a wash. The old guard was pretty much left in place, and, with the exception of the new Consumer Protection Agency, the rules of the game have not been rewritten such that they cannot be subverted by Wall Street all again in a few years.
– Guantanamo Bay Prison is still operational, despite specific promises to the contrary.
– Bush and Company were not indicted for war crimes as they should have been.
– Bush tax cuts might be repealed, but the jury’s still out on that.
– Stem cell research has resumed with the Administration’s blessing. That’s a plus.
– Obama still gives a good speech and hasn’t been caught up in any brouhahas involving personal morality or (perhaps more importantly) race. That’s a plus.
Am I missing anything here?
Oh yeah. We’re friends with Russia again.
Â
Â
Or at least I am, anyway . . .
http://www.youtube.com/user/hotforwords#p/u/112/DSOmbcv4f34
October 17, 2010 at 2:46 am #705705
waterworldParticipantDP: Yes, I think you might be missing a thing or two. I don’t know how you can say that the administration’s financial reform was a “wash.” Firms like Goldman Sachs, after receiving taxpayer bailout funds, continue to reap massive profits and yet refuse to fund loans for regular people and small businesses. The financial reform measures cannot be considered a wash when Goldman was taking in record profits in 2009, a year that was still the recession for the rest of us. The Obama administration totally failed to ensure that banks getting taxpayer support would use any of that money to revive the economy.
Obama did not merely fail to close Guantanamo. He now endorses indefinite, even permanent, detention of individuals without charge or trial in either a civilian court or a military commission. As of early September, detainees had won 38 of 53 habeas petitions, yet 12 of the 38 ordered released (roughly a third) are still being held. The administration has also said it plans to hold a total of 48 prisoners indefinitely, no matter what a court says. This is a violation of both the constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
Obama has also abandoned his previously stated commitment to reduce unauthorized eavesdropping on Americans here in America. Now he supports expansion of practices the Bush administration initiated.
Obama campaigned on promises to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and yet he has left it to a handful of federal judges to step up and end the policy.
The Obama administration has continued the Bush-era practice of excessively invoking the “state secrets” doctrine to prevent courts form hearing cases brought by Americans seeking redress for actions of the government. Far from acting with transparency and openness, Obama is using all of Bush’s tricks to keep us in the dark about the things the administration is doing overseas in our name, such as planning to assassinate a US citizen in Yemen. It is more than unsettling that this administration continued to erode our privacy at the same time it asserts the power to keep its own activities secret.
I supported and voted for Obama because I believed the rhetoric about change. Sadly, he has decided not to deliver on several of my core concerns, in spite of what he said during the campaign. And many of these issues have nothing to do with Republican roadblocks. I wouldn’t go back and change my vote or anything, and I am not going to change my habit of supporting liberal democrats, But I cannot escape a profound sense of sadness and disappointment over Obama’s presidency.
October 17, 2010 at 3:21 pm #705706
redblackParticipantlargely agreed, waterworld. but the thing that sticks in my craw is that, to the teabagging independent conservative republicans, he’s still too liberal.
given the torrent of cash and verbal diarrhea being thrown democrats’ and liberals’ way by the minority, i don’t have a lot of hope for the continued survival of the new deal. unless we get out the vote, they’re going to buy themselves more tax cuts and less regulation.
October 17, 2010 at 7:28 pm #705707
SmittyParticipantWhere on earth does that “he’s still too liberal” tag come from?
Oh yeah, his record.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc#results
October 18, 2010 at 1:11 am #705708
JoBParticipantSmitty
Left of right lies center.
the political distance between center and liberal is as vast as that between liberal and progressive.
greater still is that between obama’s centerist liberal and true left where I sit.
You should countt your blessings that he isn’t the progressive you think.
He has been a better deal for what you claim to want than for us.
October 18, 2010 at 2:10 pm #705709
redblackParticipantspecious source there, smitty. they said the same thing about john kerry in 2004. he – and hillary clinton! – dropped into the 80’s range.
.
and they list chuck hagel as being more conservative than dick lugar or max baucus? ha.
October 18, 2010 at 2:36 pm #705710
CarsonParticipantFor once Smitty made a great point. Of course, he made it by accident. Politics today is not about making the point for someone, its about making the point against the other guy. Will the Republicans cater to the far right again (Caribou Barbi for example) and alienate the moderates who might consider a Republican? The next 2 years will be interesting for sure!
October 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm #705711
DPMemberwaterworld, I can’t fault any of your specific criticisms of Obama. On balance, though, I think you’re being too harsh.
I would ask you to consider that when Obama took the reins, we were bogged down in two foreign quagmires and were beset by a profound economic crisis.
And then came the Deepwater Horizon disaster. . .
This is not to excuse any of Mr. Obama’s failures, but I do think we need to cut the guy a little slack at this point. After all, he’s young, it’s less than two years into his term, and he’s had to spend a lot of time and political capital dealing with problems he didn’t create or couldn’t have foreseen.
If the Republicans win big in the House next month, I hope Obama and other Dems take away the correct lesson from it, which is that they need to stay true to their base and deliver on more of their promises. Of course, it would also help if they kept people more involved in the political process, instead of trying to handle everything in backroom meetings with lobbyists and legislative committees.
But that’s for another discussion, coming soon to a Blog near you.
October 18, 2010 at 8:03 pm #705712
waterworldParticipantDP: I still support Obama, but I don’t think I’m being too harsh. The mess he inherited from the previous administration will be extraordinarily difficult to clean up. And I agree that he deserves to be cut some slack, particularly on the wars and the economy.
Where I can’t go, though, is down a road that takes us further away from some bedrock principles of the constitution and the bill of rights. Bush strayed far from the principles of protecting and respecting basic human rights, and I expected Obama, at a minimum, to address these human rights failures. I’m talking here about the things I mentioned in my post: indefinite detention without charge, failing to bring Guantanamo prisoners to trial, violation of orders from federal judges to release people who are wrongly held Guantanamo, continuing to allow unwarranted dismissals from the military based on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and embracing the Bush-era policy of secretly eavesdropping on Americans here on American soil without warrants or a demonstration of probable cause.
I don’t see what the Deepwater Horizon disaster has to do with any of this. On the Guantanamo front, for example, the administration was moving forward on plans to close the prison and, among other things, try the 9/11 defendants in New York, long before the Deepwater Horizon accident. Obama just backed down in the face of pressure. Surely he knew before he was inaugerated that there would be blowback over anything related to Guantanamo.
This is the kind of thing I can’t see giving him a break about; he made very clear commitments to do certain things, and he just caved in to pressure when the time came to deliver. America is so focused on the economy that Obama can get away with failing to honor his promises to us. If he stayed true to his base — and you clearly recognize the importance of doing that — Obama would be following through.
October 18, 2010 at 8:26 pm #705713
sarellyMemberWhat I want to know is how much influence or control any president has over what happens while he’s in office. Presidents come and go, but they are outlasted by who knows who in the intelligence agencies, and they are outlasted by people in the house and senate, and they are outlasted by the supreme court. WHY is Obama not doing what he said he would do? Why do any of them not do what they say they’ll do? Is it because circumstances suddenly change? Is it because their hands are tied? Is it because they were lying to begin with? Or is it because they are being paid not to? Or is it because they’re being threatened not to? Or is it just because it becomes more convenient for them? If a president caves to pressure, does he rationalize his new position, or does he know he’s caving to pressure? Just wondering.
October 18, 2010 at 10:09 pm #705714
DPMembersarelly: Those are all good questions, but something tells me you’re posing them rhetorically.
The answer to each one of them, of course, is “yes.” But there’s another factor involved in the Obama sell-out too, which is public pressure . . . as in, we don’t put nearly enough of it on our elected officials.
Unfortunately, it looks like all the “people power” that was behind Obama in the months leading up to the election just went POOF! once he got into office, and that is why President Obama turned out so different from Candidate Obama.
Consider this:
Had there been massive and sustained demonstrations in favor of a single-payer health-care system, we’d have that already, wouldn’t we?
Had there been massive and sustained demonstrations against illegal detentions and surveillance, those things would be abolished already, wouldn’t they?
But alas, there were no such demonstrations, because here in America, people seem to feel that political activism extends no further than voting, with the occasional petition drive or public demonstration thrown in for diversion.
I am reminded of this fact each time I stand at the Junction with our little West Seattle peace group and all kinds of hippies and other lefties walk by without even saying “hi” or offering to talk about what we can do, collectively, to change things.
I am also reminded of it every time I hear someone on this here Blog say something like: “Sure, Senator/President/Representative XYZ isn’t doing what we want, but I’m voting for him anyway, because the other guy is so much worse.“
Well of course, if voting is the only politically conscious thing you do, then voting for the lesser evil makes complete sense. Just don’t be surprised when the lesser evil you voted for turns out to be kind of . . . well . . .
— evil.
October 18, 2010 at 10:26 pm #705715
charlabobParticipantI’m sorry, but this election in no way represents the lesser of two evils. The people who will take over the government if the current crop of R candidates is elected and becomes the majority are pure evil. Some of them are just dupes of the corporatists. Some of them are worse. I can’t imagine we’re still discussing this, as if it were a choice between rational people with slightly different philosophies. If the R’s take power in the house. Boehner will not be the speaker — he will be considered too moderate. Can you imagine Speaker Bachman? Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Am I trying to scare you? Damn right — and for good reason.
October 18, 2010 at 10:52 pm #705716
waterworldParticipantSarelly: I don’t know what all the reasons are for caving in on some of these issues. I’m more attuned to the Guantanamo issues than some of the others, so I’ll comment on that.
One of the administration’s plans is to transfer the remaining Guantanamo prisoners to a prison in Thomson, Illinois. But Congress has successfully blocked funding of that plan and also the plan to try the five 9/11 defendants in New York City.
Also, Obama may have simply changed his mind on indefinite detention. After he was inaugurated, Obama assembled a task force of people from several different departments, such as Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, and others, and gave them the assignment of evaluating the options for dealing with the prisoners. The task force concluded that some of the prisoners should be confined indefinitely, rather than tried or released. One of the primary reasons these prisoners supposedly cannot be brought to trial is that there’s not enough evidence against them to convict them. So the current plan is to simply hold these prisoners (there are 48 of them, if I recall correctly) indefinitely.
October 19, 2010 at 12:26 am #705717
sarellyMemberDP:
I hear you on the complete evaporation of public involvement after Obama won the election. One reason may have been that people were so relieved after Bush was gone, they just collapsed in exhaustion. No excuse now, of course. People used to say they were burned out and felt, during the Bush years, a soul-crushing sense of futility. But you’re right – Obama’s election was supposed to provide enough breathing room to build momentum.
To be honest, I’m not sure demonstrations gain anything, what with fenced off “free speech zones” and whatnot. Nobody’s listening, demonstrators are regarded as aging hippies deluded by pie-in-the-sky idealism, and if you don’t have real masses of people, there is not enough visibility to make it productive. (When I protested the war with a sign that said Torture is Immoral, I got flipped off.) Then there is the phenomenon of FBI infiltration into peace groups, and police attacks against peaceful protestors, and gerrymandering voting districts, etc. What worked forty years ago may not be viable now. But you might be right in thinking SUSTAINED demonstrations would be more effective. Some people thought the Internet was a good way to raise awareness and find like-minded people, but even that option seems to be on the verge of evaporating with a corporate takeover of the internet.
So, we find ourselves trapped between defeatism and complacency. My feeling is that the usual channels don’t work – voting doesn’t work – or if does, it can only be on the smallest of local levels – little changes in our own communities are about all we can hope to control. I don’t think it’s possible to build a national movement, at least not until everyone is unemployed and suddenly realizes they’re living in the new third world.
What is possible is to live according to our values, practice what we preach, and be very careful about where we put our money. Avoid the big banks, go to the credit unions, buy locally produced, sweatshop-free, free-trade, environmentally safe, etc., and if in a position to, build off the grid. I’m a big advocate of rainwater harvesting because privatization of water is a real threat. But beyond voting with our wallets, I’m stumped as to what is truly effective at this point.
October 19, 2010 at 12:30 am #705718
sarellyMemberWaterworld – what can I say besides it goes beyond sick, twisted, bad, and wrong? But a lot of people think it’s okay, as long as it isn’t happening to them.
October 19, 2010 at 7:36 pm #705719
JoBParticipantSarelly
Apparently if the mainstream press doesn’t report it.. it doesn’t happen.
I have participated in most of the progressive public action campaigns that have been waged in the past two years.
In spite of producing record numbers of calls, letters and emails these attempts to apply public pressure get very little press.
It apparently takes comics to focus press attention on liberal political action.
October 19, 2010 at 10:11 pm #705720
sarellyMemberJoB…I have a hard time believing problems can be solved within the system that generated them (or even by actively resisting the system – better to tune out, drop out, create a functional subculture with a different paradigm)…but I’d love to be wrong. Care to elaborate on any successes? What works?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.