Well, there are compromised positions and then there are compromised positions.  Obama has been a huge disappointment in terms of civil liberties and human rights, even in areas that are totally under his control: refusing to investigate war crimes, including torture; invoking state secrets to block lawsuits; and authorizing the murder of an American citizen who hasn’t even been charged with a crime, etc.  On those issues, Obama has been worse than useless, because he has given bipartisan legitimacy to horrific policies.  I’m not going to give him a pass on anything he does just because he’s not omnipotent.  I’m also not going to blame him for things he has no control over. 

That said, I agree that that in social terms, this is a problem much larger than the president.  Americans are facing growing inequality while being told that the problem is that the rich are paying too much in taxes.  Corporate control of politicians and the media has resulted in a woefully uninformed electorate and has eroded the power of voters to an extent frankly unimaginable in the past.  “Class warfare” is used as an epithet against people protesting this inequality, when the real class warfare is the wealthy against the poor and middle class.  Neither Obama nor any other single politician is going to save us from this.

That was so good, if I were a smoker, I’d be reaching for a cigarette right this minute.

Agreed. Obama’s not blameless, but he’s still far, far less to blame than the Congressional GOP and Wall Street. We should absolutely be focusing on them.

Sometimes liberals do focus too heavily on the presidency. In this case that’s understandable, because Congress is largely a lost cause at least until the next election, but if anybody thinks Obama would be capable of smashing through Congressional opposition and passing domestic reform measures without them, they’re pretty delusional.

So instead of focusing so much on him, we need to get rid of the GOP in Congress and do something about Wall Street. That won’t make Obama magically turn into the liberal we all want him to be, but it will open the gates for genuine reform which is currently virtually impossible.

Amazing! I am very pleased to read that, so I will share this post with my friends.It is very much real and useful information. Keep up the good work. We need more good statements.i will come back here to see more updates in future as well. My best wishes for you always so keep it up. Regards.

Well, if they’re demonstrating effectiveness, that’s a cue for the police to double-down with the suppression tactics.  Wall Street might start hitting the point of nervousness soon,

The “it’s all about Obama” is an example of a bigger problem: the compulsion to seek simple(-minded) causes and instant solutions for complicated problems.  Even blaming Fox or the current Republican Congress or the Democrats of the past 10 years is an oversimplification.

Most of the problems that Occupy Wall St. is complaining about have been developing over a long time (many decades) and are the result of a wide variety of shifts and changes.  What’s more, if we follow the threads, just about everyone will find that they are in some way or another contributing to at least some of them.  More to the point, for many of the shifts, reversing the shift will cause pain for us 99%.

I agree that Obama and the current Democratic party are basically “Republican lite,” but that’s in large part because so many Americans are identifying with their exploiters and oppressors and are in love with oppressive and exploitive measures. 

I want to buy that man a drink.

Slightly OT, but I wonder if the “focus on the president” (or Fox, or Congress) is related in some way to one area where liberal and progressive strategizing has fallen down—working to elect progressive officials to local offices.  We often think that county school board and the like are pretty small potatoes, but (1) that’s where a lot of the rubber hits the road and (2) that’s how you start building a pool of people who gain the experience to allow them to successfully run for state and later federal office.  If you really want to effect change, you have to start local, cultivate talent, and deepen your bench.  Frankly, I think it’s one area where conservatives do it better, and progressives would do well to pay attention.

I criticize both because both deserve criticism.  This country is desperately in need of a political party that represents non-monied interests.  It used to be the Democrats.

Note: One of your ads forced an unencrypted password request from change.org.  I think they might have a bad bug right now.

I’m not going to argue with people who are playing the “but I really want to blame Obama and who are you to say I don’t get to!” card. You get to do whatever you like. But it doesn’t mean other people are going to agree with you or think you’re making a lick of sense.

Kit-Kat @8: that’s part of the solution. But it’s only a small part. Republicans are winning and Dems are moving to the right because this country is in the throes of a right wing backlash of epic proportions. We need to start making bold arguments about our values instead of seeking quick solutions.

Why is it Democrats get tarred as though the majority of elect are the most right but Republicans don’t seem to suffer being tarred that their majority of elect always vote lock-step?

As long as there’s a Republican vote ready to take the reins the moment Democratic voters split, I’m going to call for keeping together disparate groups and keeping Republicans out.

The focus is on the President because people seem to be confused as to whether Obama is part of the problem or part of the solution.

A few weeks ago, a bunch of Obama supporters decided to boycott dKos, because they had felt that some of their own had been badly treated by a banhammer.  It is astonishing how much better the conversation got how quickly, because people were able to dismiss Obama with a “but of course Obama won’t do much about this,” and go straight to discussing good policy and how to organize without him.

That said, LaGreca did a FANTASTIC job of staying on point and speaking to his audience.  His audience is right wing nutjobs in this clip, and they need to know that Obama’s oligarchic stupidity would be irrelevant if they weren’t so fucking evil.

@ Amanda @12—I think that fostering local candidates is the *opposite* of a quick solution.  It takes a lot of groundwork and is often years in the payoff.  The point is to change the conversation at all levels.  It’s all well and good to make bold arguments, but you also have to have people who share your values in positions where they can influence school curricula and social services spending, where they can stand up and articulate those values in council meetings and vote those values in their local communities.  There’s nothing quick fix about that—it’s just a recognition that this backlash isn’t only expressing itself in national politics, but also in local politics, and if you wait until issues hit the national radar you’ve already ceded a lot of ground.

Because the Republicans always, always seem to cater to their base, no matter how batshit crazy that is. (And they’ve got their own propaganda media to whip up the batshit crazy.) While actually serving the ultrawealthy, financially.

However, our current crop of Democrats may talk the Democratic game while running for office (including President Obama), while governing as faux Republicans and then lambaste the Democratic base for expecting them to govern as Democrats. While actually serving the ultrawealthy, financially.

Don’t think it’s solely because “people keep voting for Republicans” because the people elected a Democratic House and Senate in two elections, and a Democratic President who ran on a Democratic platform, which he then shit on once elected. Admittedly, the Obama administration has thrown some crumbs to his Democratic base, but only after having whipped them into a frenzy of anger, frustration, and hopelessness, first.

If we were having this discussion during a time of relative stability it would be one thing. But even with his poll numbers plummeting—largely because of the ongoing shitty economy with no end in sight—Obama is still pushing for “Free Trade” agreements to ship more US jobs overseas, while allowing the China bill that would create jobs here to languish.

If a party doesn’t seem as though it cares about the well being of the voters, or has been consistently unable to care for their basic well being, those voters may stay home, or vote for the other guy in desperation, in the hope he/she can change things.

But yeah, the Republicans have always crazier, so I’ll be voting Democratic again for the 40th year in a row. But won’t be surprised if I’m in the minority.

Republicans are winning and Dems are moving to the right because this country is in the throes of a right wing backlash of epic proportions. We need to start making bold arguments about our values instead of seeking quick solutions.

You are quite correct in your second point, but your first is something you’ve absorbed from too much right-wing media. The right-wing backlash is only on the corporate news and in the fever dreams of the 27%. The majority of Americans have stayed the same or grown more liberal on most economic and nearly all social issues over the last few decades.

This whole “Obama is not germane to our problems” argument is wearing thin. “The conversation” as it is being portrayed would be a whole lot more in our favor if the guy would ever stand up for anything but himself.

This kerfluffle over the Buffet rule wouldn’t have to be happening AT ALL if he had simply allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.

Think about that - Obama is directly to blame. Not ‘the left’ not Pelosi or Reid. Just think about how the summer would have gone without the debt ceiling debate - we wouldn’t have had that if tax rates had changed. He just put off a ‘victory’ in tax rates so he could make the election about it. Think of that: a sure thing was thrown away because he thought he could make hay with it in the 2012 elections.

He was elected by progressives and he’s much worse than Clinton in counting on people he’s kind of screwing over because the rethugs would screw a little bit harder.

On a slightly different note: “I really do wish that there wasn’t so much hostility to fellow travelers who look “straight”-”

What? I was under the impression this really was a mixed bag of people, is there an active push *against* people who just look like working class Americans? That’s terrible if true.

” the people elected a Democratic House and Senate in two elections,”

Two of the last nine, Judy. The American people in their wisdom gave us two years of united Democratic rule and as soon as that proved insufficient to fix the massive problems we were facing, the American people in their wisdom tossed them out. This is compared to the 12 years the Republican Congress got and the 6 years of control of both the presidency and Congress that they got. It seems to me that Republicans get the benefit of vast reserves of patience where the Democrats get none, including from most liberals.

Really? Really? That “look straight” thing is still going on, in those very throw back terms?

Not in gay/straight meaning?

My, my that brings back memories from 40 years ago.

As someone who has looked straight—or not—cyclically over decades, I’m not sure that’s a good piece of nostalgia to revive, dears. Or indication of much of anything.

judybronwi:  Are you saying that South Korea has a substantially cheaper market than the US?  That opening our market to them is so bad that you’re willing to tar everything else with it?

C’mon, you’re sitting here doing exactly what I said you would:  Tar Democrats as a group (or Obama) with something as if it were a Republican plan.  Fuck you.  That’s call compromise, and it’s how you govern.  You’re a fucking asshole, and here you’re being an idiot.  You took a free-trade agreement and dressed it up to sound like sweatshops in Angola, instead of what it was, a free-trade agreement with a country which is our economic peer.

Why do you tar Democrats as if every single one (and Obama!) are like the least Blue Dog, while ignoring that Republicans still hold nearly half the voters?

Are you actually going to campaign against Republicans?  ‘Cause all I see here is campaigning against Democrats.

I’m aware of precisely how long Democrats have had united ruling—not just recently, but over decades.

However, when they had majorities in the House and Senate and a Democratic president, they extended the Bush tax cuts, didn’t get us the hell out of Guantanmo, proceeded with the defense of DOMA, and so on and so forth.

And didn’t do fucking much to heal the economy, except to put those responsible for the crash in charge of the finances.

Hence the 2010 rout.

The reversal of DADT only happened because the gays baited President Obama on his front porch (and, after 2010 convinced him he had to throw some crumbs.)

I have the unhappy priviledge of talking to people every week who have lost their homes, jobs, health insurance, healthcare, savings, whose 401ks have tanked and who are frightened to death about what the future may bring.

I’d prefer they voted Democratic, but I’m not sure you’ll get much enthusiasm out of them, even then.

Ah, and especially frightened, WHEN THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THREATENS SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE over his entire term.

Can you say Cat Food Commission? Yes, I’m sure you can.

President Obama ran on no Free Trade agreements.

Which has turned out to be President Obama championing Free Trade agreements.

Don’t follow that issue closely, myself, but I’ve read that those who do despair of him.

Also, where would we be had the Bush tax cuts expired in 2010?

Almost certainly still talking about the Buffett rule - because even pre-2001 this inequality existed.  The major on Capital Gains wasn’t expiring, you know, just some minor extensions.  We’d still have inequality in taxation - the richest being able to skirt their responsibility.

The American people in their wisdom gave us two years of united Democratic rule and as soon as that proved insufficient to fix the massive problems we were facing, the American people in their wisdom tossed them out.

It’s amazing (well, not really if you pay any attention) how much people clamber for a fast change in a political system that is designed to resist fast changes. This has been going on for so long that everyone has had a sip of the Kool-Aid, and just electing Democrats is far from enough.

To be honest, I don’t think most people want much change, because it’s gonna hurt short-term for most people. They want things to be better, but they want them to be better as they are, without the restructuring necessary to create a stable system. To put it into a medical metaphor, people are asking for bandaids, avoiding a longer-lasting treatment because they’re scared of needles. We can’t have things just the same but better—things being as they are is why things are so bad to start with. The structure needs to change, and it’s gonna hurt, but we’ll be better off after.

They extended the Bush tax cuts for two years in exchange for unemployment benefits and middle class tax cut extensions, both elements that are desperately needed in a recession this bad according to basic Keynesian economics. DOMA sucks but I guarantee you a Republican Congress will never repeal it. The Democrats also passed a stimulus package that every economist will tell you prevented an even worse situation so saying they did “nothing” for the economy is patently false, and I say that as one of the unemployed who is struggling. I thank Obama and the Democratic party for my unemployment benefits that are keeping me afloat.

Again and again and again—really, how often do I have to write this?—I’ve voted Democratic for 40 years, and will do so in every upcoming election.

Because the Republicans have always been crazier and more venal.

However, I’ve followed politics too closely in the last decade not to be aware when the Democratic politicians were slitting their own throats, especially when they were doing so by slitting the throats of potential voters, as well.

Blaming Obama is like blaming Aristide or Nelson Mandela for kowtowing to IMF pressures to dismantle their country’s attempts at progressive reforms: while it’s technically true, what this actually shows is not an individual’s failure or betrayal, but the structural inability of states the world over to enforce rule of law instead of being social apparatuses (apparati?) designed to sustain financial elites’ privileges (and I mean actual elites, not the fake-elite ‘latte drinking liberals’ the right-wing-populists-who-are-actually-sycophants-to-actual-elites have a bee in their bonnet about).

The problem is structural. It can’t be solved by electoral means because the elections are held within the very framework that is failing.

Yes, judy again says that we should be able to overturn a Republican minority!  Ignore parliamentary procedure!  Close Guantanamo!  All Democrats are like Blue Dogs!

Yes, please, keep proving me right.

Free trade all the time, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_trade_agreements
vs
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ef6dd95-f685-e205-86b0-12f528615469&Region;_id=&Issue;_id=

C’mon, prove me wrong here.  I’d love it if you would… But you didn’t.

Obama’s problem isn’t stupidity.

It’s patriotism.

It’s the same problem that Democrats and progressives ALWAYS face. It’s the belief in their fellow human being, which is often wrong. And yes, we often make the same mistake.

We assume that our neighbors won’t react horribly when the next act of terrorism comes. That they won’t say, “WHY DIDN’T YOU PROTECT US”, and vote out en masse those that “allowed” it to happen.

Obama assumes that people will understand and respect that he’s trying to act in a moderate, responsible tone. Yet people really don’t want moderate and responsible. I know I don’t. But even the moderates and independents that don’t want it are rarely swayed by the moderate and the responsible.  Those people? For them it’s all about ME ME ME.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve. Like it or not, this is what you get. The problem isn’t Obama. The problem is a broken culture.

@21:  It wasn’t a solid 12 years:  The Senate was split 50-50 in the 2000 vote.  So, from January 3 to January 20, there was a Democratic “majority,” then there was a Republican majority until June 6, 2001, when Jim Jeffords switched from the GOP to Independent, caucusing with the Democratic Party (51-49). On October 26, 2002, Paul Wellstone died, making it 50-49, and the interim senator remained independent.

That said, what a lot of people forget, is that during the Reagan years, he had six years of the Senate with a GOP majority.  The 1980 election swung 11 senate seats to a 53-46(+1) GOP majority.  8 of those seats swung back in 1986, and the Senate stayed Democratic until 1994:

Congress: President; Senate; House
97th Congress (1981-2):  Reagan(R); 53-46(+1); 191-244
98th: Reagan(R); 54-46; 163-272
99th: Reagan(R); 53-47; 182-253
100th: Reagan(R); 45-55; 177-258
101st: Bush(R); 45-55; 183-251
102nd: Bush(R); 44-56; 164-270(+1)
103rd: Clinton(D); 43-57; 176-258(+1)
104th: Clinton(D); 53-47; 230-204(+1)
105th: Clinton(D); 55-45; 228-206(+1)
106th: Clinton(D): 55-45; 223-211(+1)
107th: Shrub(R): 50-50; 221(+1)-211(+1)
108th: Shrub(R): 51-48(+1); 229-205
109th: Shrub(R): 55-44(+1); 232-201
110th: Shrub(R): 49-49(+2); 202-233
111st: Obama(D): 41-55(+2); 178-256
112nd: Obama(D): 47-51(+2); 242-193

I’ll add one more thing. I’m OK with what Obama is doing now. Obama in campaign mode is a guy fighting to change the culture. Again, I’m OK with that. Change doesn’t come overnight. Am I disappointed that he stopped doing that for 2-3 years or so? Very.

But I don’t see that as the result of a character flaw, in terms of being corrupt or uncaring. It’s the result of a certain strength of character, of trying to recognize the good in people.

And it’s a strength of character that can be ill-afforded in this day and age.

At least choose things to complain about which make sense.  Not a single free-trade agreement was signed by Obama.  And Obama threatened Social Security?  One mention when Republicans are threatening to make every government worker either go home or go without pay?  DADT happened only because he was baited into it?  What universe do you live in?

It seems to be one filled with FOX NEWS.

Heck, you can’t even point to anything pre-2011 that wasn’t blocked by a minority in total!

I know precisely what the Democrats “traded” for the Bush tax cuts, my brother was on unemployment then (after losing his job of 17 years.) We prayed (metaphorically) for that extension.

But the Democrats threw the crumb of something that was a limited stimulous (a year later, my brother is still out of work, with no unemployment insurance.)

Even if my brother hadn’t been dumped into the maw, eventually, that was by no means a smart “trade.”

Even at the time, I felt it to be cynical, especially when the end of the Bush tax cuts would have provided so much better a stimulus.

The Democrats did some things for the economy we can’t expect from Republicans: but it has always seemed to me that what they did, primarily, they did as window dressing. While nice, it didn’t repair the broken window, or keep the cold out.

The Republicans have always been crazier and more venal. And the Democrats were once in contrast to that, now it’s shades of dingy grey, if we’re lucky.

I think that fostering local candidates is the *opposite* of a quick solution.  It takes a lot of groundwork and is often years in the payoff.

As someone who is active in politics at the local level, I can’t help but think every time I look at OWS - what if all these people were a part of a campaign for local office? They don’t even have to join the Dems (but it would help), they could be Greens or another 3rd party - there would be an impact. I say this as someone from Long Island where most Republicans now also identify as members of the “Tax Revolt[Read: Tea Party]” party.

“Blaming Obama is like blaming Aristide or Nelson Mandela for kowtowing to IMF pressures to dismantle their country’s attempts at progressive reforms….”

Except that Obama’s not a progressive.  He never has been, and he never was.  He’s a centrist, and he rules as a centrist.  Civil liberties aside, I think his problem was that he just did not face the fact that the Republicans were going to block his every effort, that their strategy was to just say no to anything he proposed, even if they originally proposed it, and generally to be as intransigent as possible.  He kept acting like he was dealing with an opposition that cared what was good for the country on a policy level, rather than one that had disavowed reasonable compromise utterly.  So he kept caving and compromising, thinking that eventually they would be reasonable.  But they won’t, and it took him way to long to recognize that and start acting accordingly.

I always had a trouble in computer architecture class with what to call D flip-flops. (The correct technical term is Master-Slave, since the second D-latch does exactly what the first one does.) I didn’t have a problem with refering to sibling, child, and parent nodes in trees (although some of my undergrad professors used father, son, and brother.)

If you haven’t heard President Obama threaten Social Security and Medicare, you haven’t been paying attention.

Of course, the Republicans threaten more catastrophic damage, but I never thought that I’d hear in my lifetime a Democratic president make a case to begin the dismantling.

And set up the framework for same. (I suggest you do some research on just who President Obama appointed to the Cat Food Commission. First step.)

Even it weren’t evil to make the case for “austerity” cuts to something that has nothing to do with the deficit, it’s not practical politically. Makes it more difficult for the Democratic Congress to run on the traditional Democratic value of saving Social Security and Medicare.

Really? Really? That “look straight” thing is still going on, in those very throw back terms?

Not in gay/straight meaning?

My, my that brings back memories from 40 years ago.

As someone who has looked straight—or not—cyclically over decades, I’m not sure that’s a good piece of nostalgia to revive, dears. Or indication of much of anything.
Comment #22: judybrowni on 10/04 at 03:28 PM

Did you go “Clean for Gene” in ‘68?

President Obama is not a progressive, but he ran—and won—on a progressive platform.

Unfortunately, he governed as a moderate Republican, and the country is worse off for it.

I hope to spaghetti monster Obama and the other Democrats win in 2010, but pissing on the Democratic base doesn’t seem to be a winning tactic.

Too young to go clean for anyone in ‘68.

I’ve dressed college prep in high school, ‘cause that’s what everyone else did there. (It was an American Graffiti high school, up through ‘68. We didn’t even have hippies!)

Got hipper in college, and was quite the hipster stylish up through my early 30s.

On and off for the decades since, and now I don’t give a shit about dressing any way specific.

You tend not to, after 60.

(1981-2): President(R); Senate(R); House(D)
(1983-4): President(R); Senate(R); House(D)
(1985-6): President(R); Senate(R); House(D)
(1987-8): President(R); Senate(D); House(D)
(1989-90): President(R); Senate(D); House(D)
(1991-2): President(R); Senate(D); House(D)
(1993-4): President(D); Senate(D); House(D)
(1995-6): President(D); Senate(R); House(R)
(1997-8): President(D); Senate(R); House(R)
(1999-00): President(D): Senate(R); House(R)
(2001-2): President(R): Senate(I); House(R)
(2003-4): President(R): Senate(R); House(R)
(2005-6): President(R): Senate(R); House(R)
(2007-8): President(R): Senate(D); House(D)
(2009-10): President(D): Senate(D); House(D)
(2011-2): President(D): Senate(R); House(R)

A (slightly) easier to read version of James’s chart.  I didn’t mark down when each side had a veto point, because the relevant years they did, and Republicans used it.

Please, Judi, tell us what Obama ‘didn’t do’ that he said he would.  If Republicans filibustered or vetoed it, that doesn’t count as ‘not doing’.

If I haven’t been paying attention, why’d you just tell me I hadn’t been paying attention instead of telling me why I was wrong?  Fuck you, judi.  Lift a damn finger to do something other than complain.

#37 Judybrowni

That’s very gutsy to say considering your brother’s predicament.  But yes, it was like trading the milk cow for some magic beans.

This is not a cyclical recession where demand just needs a shot in the arm. The massive increase in revenue that would have come mostly from the the well off anyway (I think a $40,000/year income would have meant about $400 increase in taxes). And with more revenue to play with we might have even had a better argument for an infrastructure stimulus spending - something that would benefit US workers, not the Chinese (where most of the consumption related to tax cuts ends up going) - and even the dayum US Chamber of Commerce is for infrastructure spending.

But maybe the worst damage is that it showed Obama was a terrible horse trader and that he would fold like a house of cards. In that sense, it brought about the debt ceiling hostage crisis because they knew Obama was a weakling.

Again we have to go back to the ‘terrain’ or the lay of the land of the moment - it has been pushed rightward BY OBAMA.

Crissa, you have no idea how many fingers I’ve lifted over the last 40 years for Democrats, now do you?

Starting with some fool hardy (but fun) personal action that is better not—well, maybe it’s in my FBI file, if I have one, but I’d rather not start one, if it isn’t—that directly affected President Nixon’s re-election, negatively, to the best of my ability as a 20-year old in the right place, at the right time.

I’m a realist, and unfortunately, President Obama and the Democratic Congress blew the window of opportunity they got in 2008—and so lost further opportunity.

Ignoring when Democrats don’t govern as Democrats, covering our ears and shouting, “La, la, la,” elects Republicans.

It’s been true for the over 40 years, and it’s still true now.

Crissa:

Stop typing ‘fuck you.’
Just stop. It’s rude and stupid.
What does it really mean to type fightin’ words at an avatar?
You wouldn’t say that to judy face to face.
Don’t type it.

As an aside, it’s nice to see someone wearing a civil war style cap (kepi?) in Union colours instead of confederate grey.

Except that Obama’s not a progressive.  He never has been, and he never was.  He’s a centrist, and he rules as a centrist.

He’s still the most progressive candidate that is viable in the current system. If he was more progressive he would have been unelectable and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

“Except that Obama’s not a progressive.  He never has been, and he never was. “

How familiar are you with his life and career in Chicago? I’m guessing not very. Obama spent most of his early life as very much a man of the left, albeit always a pragmatist. No doubt he’s gotten much more centrist with each advancement but to say that he was “never” a progressive is dead wrong.

I really do wish that there wasn’t so much hostility to fellow travelers who look “straight”-

Really? Can you point to an actual example of this? No one will mock you for showing up to a rally in khakis and a polo shirt.

@52

Yeah, Obama was a community activist in his early career, and did some admirable stuff. Which is why his failure to govern from the left now indicates a failure in the system, and in the national discourse. Which is why I’m tired of this whole debate about Obama. You can forget about seeing federal elected officials, with the exception of a few Congresspeople from certain parts of the country, governing from the real left until we fix the system and the discourse.

Until then, just keep voting Democrat (to keep the GOP out of office, mainly), and try to build up some real activism on the ground. I don’t like the Dems or Obama all that much, but the infighting about him is missing the fucking point.

I agree with that 54, and that’s the point of Amanda’s post which was inevitably derailed by everyone here, including myself.

What President Obama didn’t do, that he promised support for: Get us out of Gitmo, be a “fierce advocate” for the gays (they were called pedophiles by his justice department and defended DOMA, and we only got DADT, after Dan Choi did a sit in on Obama’s front porch. For which, the Obama administration had him arrested.)

Obama promised to end the Bush Tax Cuts, no Free Trade agreements, get us out of Iraq (he’s still arguing for more troops), Obama promised to support the Public Option (after he’d secretly negotiated it away, a year before.)

He promised, in campaign speeches, to go after Wall Street and the criminal Bankers (instead hired those who’d created the crash to be his financial advisors.)

Know anyone who has tried to get a mortgage modification from HAMP? I do and it’s just as fucked up, as it’s been written about.

And so on and so forth. Crissa, I can’t be your newspaper, try Google, you’ll find more, oh so much more.

I wouldn’t mind Obama’s collaborating with the Republicans, if it had worked to either turn the economy around, or to get voters to the polls for Democratic politicians.

Wouldn’t have to be both, I’d have settled for either.

But neither is nothing to trumpet, and something to be worried about.

It’s the same problem that Democrats and progressives ALWAYS face. It’s the belief in their fellow human being, which is often wrong. And yes, we often make the same mistake.

This. The best description I heard of Obama’s shortcoming was, “He thinks we are a better people than we are.”

It’s like praising Americans and America’s freedoms as being so great for having the civil rights movement. To paraphrase Chris Rock, “You’re not SUPPOSED to have segregation and restricted voting rights you low expectation having motherfucker!”

Although I don’t see the Greens as a viable option, unless electing Republicans is what you want.

Greens have been spoilers for Democrats for so long that the Republican party now funds their candidates fully, or in one sad instance, ran homeless street people as Greens.

Obama has absolutely allowed banks to walk away scot-free for committing widespread fraud and extracting billions from the American economy.  I agree we shouldn’t be feeding red meat to Fox News or CNN reporters, but I hope these protests don’t ignore the fact that Obama has been Wall Street’s bestest friend from day one.  Allowing the banks to peddle lucrative loan modification scams to struggling homeowners instead of forcing them to reduce the principal on mortgages underwater as a direct result of the their criminal acts was inexcusable cronyism.  I’m guessing that Obama’s big wet kiss to Wall Street in 2009 won’t be so easily forgotten by a lot of the protesters.

I’ve always thought Obama makes a lot more sense if you imagine that right after that stirring inauguration speech, a group of our corporate/military overlords took him down into a basement somewhere and made him slit a 12yo Afghani girl’s throat, then handed him the agenda for the next four years: “The banks get off, the pigs get fed first, the wars continue. Or Malia’s next.”

The solution is vote for the least worst option while working to make the options better. But this never satisfies my narcissistic FB friends who have already sniffed and said “Not good enough: I’m voting Green this time.” Morons.

For those who don’t know, Jesse LaGreca’s handle at dKos is MinistryOfTruth.  Click over for more video and photos of the demonstrations.

Again, and again, Obama ran on a progressive platform and won the election for President.

That shoulda been a hint: he not only got Independents, but some Republican voters.

Obama has governed as a moderate Republican (at best), and has plummeted in the polls, taking Congress down with him, starting in 2010.

Obama didn’t campaign on a progressive platform.  That’s your own fever-dream.  He didn’t promise to go after the Bush admin on torture, he didn’t promise not to kill Al-Qaeda leaders, he didn’t promise ... Well, okay, he did say he would do greater transparency, and the quashing of lawsuits using opacity does seem to run counter - and yet he’s returned much transparency that had been lost and some that never existed before.  So it’s a bit of a wash.

But no, Obama wasn’t the Progressive candidate.  Edwards was.  What’s-his-name was.  You know, other candidates.

Three pages:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
Eight pages:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

And on the page of ‘broken’ I can see (not in the same order) filibustered, vetoed, voted down, half gotten, there’s another bill for that (which still probably won’t pass), etc.  So hardly broken, per se.

Too bad Judy and Elvis weren’t there on Wall Street.  They would have given Fox exactly the quotes they wanted.

And PS, I don’t fucking care about what you did forty years ago, judi.  It’s like Ralph Nader: he’s done more harm than good over the last n-teen years, and I’m not fucking going to give him the time of day.

You, on the other hand, have spent your capital here, whinging and whining while parroting false equivalency memes - playing into Republican hands.

Actually, the better portrayal (if this table shows up):

<table border=2 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=2><tr><th>Congress</th><th>President</th><th>Senate</th><th>House</th></tr><tr><td>97th</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>98th</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>99th</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>100th</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>101st</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>102nd</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>103th</td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>104th</td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td></tr><tr><td>105th</td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td></tr><tr><td>106th</td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td></tr><tr><td>107th</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff00ff> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td></tr><tr><td>108th</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td></tr><tr><td>109th</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td></tr><tr><td>110th</td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>111st</td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td></tr><tr><td>112nd</td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#0000ff> </td><td bgcolor=#ff0000> </td></tr></table>

Oh well. Here’s a link to a web page with the table:

http://www.accseeds.com/info.html

What President Obama didn’t do, that he promised support for: Get us out of Gitmo,

Blocked by Republicans.  Can’t process prisoners if there’s no budget for them.

be a “fierce advocate” for the gays

You’re blind.  And deaf and dumb.  He has been.  Also:  Crippled by lack of appointees.  We got DADT not because someone was sitting at the White House - why didn’t they protest at Congress, the place that could do something about it?  Presidents can’t over-rule law, only bills.  And what Obama appointee called people pedophiles?  It wasn’t an appointee, so don’t get strung out.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/what-president-obama-has-done-for-the-gay-communit

Obama promised to end the Bush Tax Cuts

Blocked by Republicans again

, no Free Trade agreements,

get us out of Iraq (he’s still arguing for more troops)

Uhh, he is and did.  We’ve gone from 165 to less than 49 (thousand).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_–_Iraq

Why are you fucking lying?  You know I’ll look this crap up.  I’m tired of your shit of ‘I’m old and know and listen to me I did stuff forty years ago!’  That’s authoritarian crap.  It’s not Progressive.

That’s why I’m cursing.  Also, Amanda said we could.

Oh, I dropped the free trade agreements.  Where did he say none?  And where has he signed any?

Yeah, right, he didn’t and we haven’t.  Not that a free trade with Korea is going to hurt us much.  What, you afraid of video games and glasswares?

Also, your link is better, James ^-^

“[V]ery few people want cuts to Medicare, Social Security and aid to the poor, either. And yet, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have spent much of the past year arguing for just that, despite much greater support for cuts to other budget items that already received insignificant funding.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/cutting-important-stuff-by-david-atkins.html

The above refers to polls on where the American people would like to see cuts in the budget (Hullabaloo is discussing the cuts to foreign aid as being “popular” with the populace, but wonders why Democrats, as well as Republican politicians, are insisting on the unpopular cuts, too.)

My guess? It’s what the elite 1% want, and they’re bankrolling our government pols. Admittedly, President Obama and the Blue Dog Dems have that quandry: dance with who brought ‘em to the dance, or who bought ‘em outright.

Republican politicians are better able to cover their tracks, but the Dems have been caught out.

Unfortunately for Democratic politicians, the American voter has begun believe Dem pols are just not that into them.

Dear Crissa, we understood you were upset, like twenty fucks ago.

No, we shouldn’t hand red meat to FOX. I wouldn’t advocate that at all. But…

We are not talking to FOX news right now. Can’t we just be honest among ourselves? This is a leftish blog so I don’t think we need to play some kind of three dimensional public relations chess with each other.

I was protesting Scott Walker in Feb. I was protesting the debt ceiling hostage crisis in July. To use your favorite word, I give a f*ck.

I watched Obama come up here in Chicago and he was admirably left of center. But he has proven to be totally cowardly now that he has finally seized his brass ring. That’s what makes his self serving back stabs to the left even more bitter and painful.

You can try to rationalize or minimize it, but we would have a much more progressive income tax structure RIGHT NOW. But BHO gave away a sure victory in order to play this little game in the 2012 elections. He said it himself at the time! What good does it do us to pretend that he didn’t give away the store a year ago to give himself an easy issue to run on a year from now? 

Crissa, why are you claiming Republicans blocked things Obama and the Democratic Congress could have passed when they were in the MAJORITY?

Hey, it’s not like I’ve come up with some crazy conspiracy theory concerning leprecauns and unicorns: the progressive blogs have been covering this situation (and yes, even some of the mainstream media) since day one of the Obama administration. (He didn’t say word one, about going after Social Security and Medicare, until days after he was inaugerated, if memory serves.)

It’s also been widely argued that the only reason we got DADT passed, is because gay activists ramped up the activism, while other establishment progressive and liberal groups had allowed themselves to be herded into the veal pen.

I can use the ‘fuck” word, too, Crissa, especially when someone is being deliberately, fucking obtuse. Or fucking lying themselves.

KingElvis, who the fuck are you to police other people’s language? Given your assholic sexist comments here in previous threads, I’m guessing you wouldn’t have tried to police men’s language. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, douchebag.

In any case, if President Obama has been such a rousing success, ruling as a Republican, why the hell has his polling plummeted?

If the Congressional Dems have been such great progressives in their tenure, why the hell are they about to be kicked to the curb?

Obama and the Democratic congress won two elections in a row, all while Fox and the right wing propaganda machine frothed away, at ‘em a Republican President and Congress did their damndest to screw us, and heavens to murgetroid there were Republican voters who also went to the polls.

Because the Dems and Obama ran on a progressive Democratic platform.

That they’ve refused to govern as the same has continued this recession/depression—that they’ve adopted the Republican “austerity” program and propaganda, has not only worsened the economy, but hurt them politcally.

Again, the gay activists got DADT passed after they chained themselves to the President’s front porch. Spaghetti monster knows he didn’t like, but damn it, it worked.

If the only way to get Obama, and the Dems in Congress to do what’s right, what 70% of the American people want, is to criticize them and get as close to the bone as possible, then criticism is patriotic.

I’m sorry you’re sixty fucking years old and too stupid to know what a FILIBUSTER is.

So in the end, Amanda is right. We wouldn’t be in the sink hole, if there weren’t Republicans.

Or Democratic politician who do their damndest to ape Republicans.

Crissa, you’re not making yourself any more credible with junior high taunts.

Recent example: as Democratic activists (and former Obama supporters) were getting themselves arrested in front of the White House protesting the XL pipe line—a decision President Obama can make all on his lonesome—President Obama made his point on environmentalism, when, all on his lonesome, he trashed the clear air regulations.

No “filibuster” to give him cover, either.

By the by, somehow, Republicans, when they had majority, got their crap passed with 51 votes, but Obama’s administration insisted they needed the elusive 60.

I know your middle school newspaper probably doesn’t cover these issues, but you might try to read the grownup newspapers, too, if you want to have a discussion with the adults.

What does it really mean to type fightin’ words at an avatar?
You wouldn’t say that to judy face to face.

Kind of like how you might not call someone a “vacuous slut” to their face, especially in a group of feminists.

“Occupy Wall St. is blaming the right people”

Are they really, Amanda? Are you?

When rents are offered, rent-seekers will show up.

It’s a bit like being angry at water for running downhill.

Cut off the rents, and the rent-seekers go away.

Oh FFS.

Obama ran as a Progressive and governed center-right.  That’s why he continued both of Bush’s wars, couldn’t find a single fraudulent banker to prosecute, and shoveled another $2-3 trillion into the banking system in silent bailouts. 

He’s not “constrained.”  When he has had the least constraint—for example, HAMP—he has been the farthest right.  He regularly expresses contempt for the left wing and admiration for Reagan. 

Obama is who he is.  He’s a skilled liar who governed massively to the right of where he campaigned.  Sometimes a politician is just a politician.

Too bad Judy and Elvis weren’t there on Wall Street.  They would have given Fox exactly the quotes they wanted.

I don’t really give a shit anymore if any given liberal likes or doesn’t like Obama, but what I’m tired of seeing is this attitude that he shouldn’t be criticized simply because ... ? He’s a politician, he’s the leader of the damn country, and for that matter he’s a pretty typical Villager so I don’t see what’s to get so excited about in the first place. But criticizing the head of state is always a pretty important activity in a democracy.

Yes, the GOP is a bunch of racist fucks who yell and whine about Obama every time he sneezes, are doin their damndest to block him from even running this country in the usual manner, much less a progressive one, and would rather see America burn than Obama succeed at anything. And yes, the GOP deserves about ten billion times more blame for our current dire situation than Obama does.

But however amazingly mendacious, self-serving, racist, and detached from reality the GOP’s criticism of Obama is, that does not exempt him from the same kind of normal criticism that every president in the history of the US has received. I’m tired of seeing people lambasted for stating that Obama hasn’t done enough about [whatever]. What president in history has ever done enough about anything? The political process is frustrating at the best of times, and we as citizens are entitled to whine about that fact, if for no other reason than to continually remind our government that we want shit done. Ideally, that whining should be combined with real action, but it’s still a legitimate thing in itself.

Like I said, Obama’s a Villager - if he wasn’t before, the pressures and demands of the Oval Office forced him to be one. And if the GOP weren’t busy shitting themselves that a black man is in the Oval Office, and weren’t for a confluence of assholish reasons ready to simply cash out their part of the social contract and let the rest of us rot in the streets, I see no evidence that the Obama administration would be anything but business as usual for the Village. That wouldn’t make him the worst president ever, in fact it would probably make him one of the better presidents in recent decades, but under no circumstances would he be immune from criticism.

Here’s something else the Obama administration didn’t have a filibuster forcing them to do:

“Report: Government knew of mortgage modification failures and did nothing

Paul Kiel at ProPublica reports on the failures of the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program to conduct oversight and hold banks accountable for following the program’s rules…:

‘government audit reports of GMAC, the country’s fifth-largest mortgage servicer…show that the company operated with almost no oversight for the program’s first eight months. When auditors did finally conduct a major review more than a year into the program, they found that GMAC had seriously mishandled many loan modifications — miscalculating homeowner income in more than 80 percent of audited cases, for example. Yet, GMAC suffered no penalty. GMAC itself said it hasn’t reversed a single foreclosure as a result of a government audit.

The documents also reveal that government auditors signed off on GMAC loan-modification denials that appear to violate the program’s own rules, calling into question the rigor and competence of the reviews…’

Via Atrios, who points out “the Obama administration had total control of this.”
http://www.americablog.com/2011/10/report-government-new-of-mortgage.html#disqus_thread

Your middle-school Weekly Reader may not have covered this, Crissa, but I personally know several adults, who normally vote Democratic, who were screwed by HAMP allowing their banks to screw them.

They may still be voting Democratic—I certainly won’t discourage them—but people without roofs over their heads might have bigger concerns than voting on poll day.

Two of my brother’s friends had to recently sell their beautiful home of 20 years after the recession tanked their business. Theirs had been once such a good small business that they managed to hang in by their fingernails, as everyone else in their field folded, until just recently.

They might have made it, if the recession wasn’t again going full bore.

They’re in their late 50s, with no open jobs in their field, the equity in their home gone, their 401Ks decimated. One may be able to cobble together a much smaller businesses renovating properties, the other doesn’t have a clue what he’ll be able to do.

One’s mother is in a nursing home, on Medicaid, neither have access to affordable health care for themselves—and believe me, they’re frightened and discouraged when a Democratic President talks of austerity cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

Two years into unemployment, my brother is retraining for a new field at 58. He qualified for a Pell Grant, they’re living on his partner’s Social Security check, and two years from now he’ll have a degree in a health field that we all hope will be hiring then, so he can work for at least a decade, before he can even think of retiring.

My brother lives in a red state, but he’s faithfully voted Democratic for 37 years. I doubt very much he’s changing horses, he’s pretty well informed about the Republican threat.

But I don’t about his friends—that not-having-a-roof-over-your-head thing doesn’t usually motivate voters to turn out for the political party that apparently is either not concerned with your basic well being, or is powerless to help.

Also, Crissa is emblematic of the Obama bitter-enders.  They are furious and bitter and absolutely refuse under any circumstances to consider the possibility that Obama does not share their exact priorities.

@CTD: do you have an example of a wealthy country which followed this route?  Because it’s very important to me that our nation remain wealthy, as broad-based prosperity is a necessary condition for things like health care, meritocracy, and social mobility.

If hippie punching worked - that is, that scolding the “leftists” attracted the moderates and independents this administration wants to get back in the fold - I’d offer up my own jaw.  I’m disappointed in him in many ways but also terrified of any of the alternatives.  But it doesn’t work to impress non-liberals like (I guess) it did back in Clinton’s time so why do it?  It’s counterproductive for anyone on our side to be doing but especially so for the Obama admin, reelection team, and surrogates who should be using the valuable time they’re spending trying to browbeat the DFHs into enthusiasm (the beatings will continue until morale improves!) persuading moderates and independents to support Obama.

And not for nothing but the most belligerent and hostile person on this thread appears to be the biggest Obama apologist.

Despite the new health care, there’s also no affordable health insurance for my brother in his state. (Take my word for it, by 58 everyone has a pre-existing condition.)

His partner is on Medicare, we just have to hope nothing bad happens in the two years (at least) until my brother is working in the health care field himself.

We’re a pretty healthy family long into our dotage—Dad is 88 and still not on his deathbed—so as grateful as we were for Obama getting that extension on unemployment insurance, I wonder if either my brother or myself will live as long.

We certainly won’t be able to retire when Dad did, in his 60s, on a small pension, Social Security and Medicare, with no mortgage on the house. Pensions no longer apply to our generation, our 401Ks have been drained, so we may never be able to retire.

I’m not shoveling gravel, so I don’t mind working until whenever I can’t. But I am worried that when we become too disabled to do any work sometime in the next two decades, that there will be no Social Security and Medicaid or Medicare. Especially since a Democratic President appointed a “Deficit Commission,” with Obama’s choice of Alan Simpson and other Republicans seeding it, who have a history of decades of itching to dismantle the system.

The “Super Committee” has also been widely discussed as a way to dismantle the social safety net, without leaving fingerprints of politicians who are vulnerable for being tossed out of office.

Like they usta say, only Nixon could go to China. And the dismantling of Security, Medicaid and Medicare is being pushed by a Democratic administration.

Also, Crissa is emblematic of the Obama bitter-enders.  They are furious and bitter and absolutely refuse under any circumstances to consider the possibility that Obama does not share their exact priorities.

Crissa hasn’t said that, only argued that Obama is not the right wing monster his critics relentlessly portray him to be.

Right wing monster?

No, I’ve argued that Obama has reigned as a moderate Republican (at best), although of course moderate Republicans no longer exist.

However, no moderate Republican of decades past would have pushed for the dismantling of the social safety net.

It might have mortified them morally, and it most certainly would have been political suicide.

I also doubt that Fox would air any diatribe of mine in which I pinned the continuing depression on the Obama administration’s collaboration with Republican ideas and politicians in their efforts to dismantle the economy and the social safety net.

Heads would explode.

Obama seriously doesn’t share my priorities.  I knew voting for him it wasn’t much different than Clinton, and I figured maybe he’d get more done than she would’ve, and besides, if the primary had gotten as far as California, I wanted to see how far it’d go. 

Both selected centrist positions on the economy, foreign affairs, the liberal (not progressive_ position on trading and taxes.

But it just pisses me off to listen to a both-sides-are-same as well as Obama-stabbed-me-in-the-back.  judi is no newbie here, and we’d listened to her ‘Democrats are horrible but I vote for them anyway might not next time’ whine for years now.

I wish I’d heard of the modification mis-match; but all I have read is how poorly the banks dealt with it.  Of course, any mis-administration can be blamed upon the fact this administration has the least number of appointees during its first nine months.

I guess by telling you the truth, I’m an apologist.  I mean, I have realist views on what can get passed in Congress when Republicans have filibustered more last session than the previous fifteen.  I know that little is going to get done when appointees are sitting in stasis instead of at their jobs.

I knew the modification program wouldn’t work - it hadn’t any teeth and Obama hadn’t anyone to run it.  I knew the stimulus was too small.

But apparently pointing out our opponents, instead of sitting in the circular firing squad, I’m in the wrong.

Fuck that.

No, I’ve argued that Obama has reigned as a moderate Republican (at best), although of course moderate Republicans no longer exist.
However, no moderate Republican of decades past would have pushed for the dismantling of the social safety net.

See that’s the kind of over the top rhetoric I’m talking about. Proposing cuts in the rate of growth in Medicare and Social Security as part of a budget deal is not akin to “dismantling the social safety net”.

Whining? Here’s the thing about Democrats dismantling the social safety net: it also dismantles the lower middle class. After the middle class has effectively been destroyed.

Before Social Security, half of all the elderly in the United States lived in poverty. Now, 10 percent do. Which makes another 40% with money to circulate in the system, support local small businesses, keep health care providers in business, buy food, clothing, and so on and so forth.

If you don’t think the social safety net is important be prepared to support and care for your elderly parents and grandparents full time, or anyone else in your family who might become disabled.

Here’s the thing: when Democrats governed like Democrats, this country had a booming economy, built on the New Deal.

Obama was smart enough to run on progressive ideas, but I’m supposed to ignore the fact that he’s governed like a Republican, which has neither served the economy, or the Democratic party.

Oh, yeah watching the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, and ensure more Republicans are elected. I’m supposed to ignore that?

“La, la, la,” I can’t hear you!

“If you don’t think the social safety net is important”

What an absurd strawman.

It took twenty fucks to get judi steamed up enough she actually blamed Obama for doing something wrong that he had some bit of control about.

If you’re going to complain, mention the things the media isn’t talking about:  The pipeline, HAMP, ... Actually, that’s all you have.  And Obama doesn’t normally have much control over pipelines - this one just happens to cross a national boundary.  The SS thing is just you and sour grapes.  Talking about cutting foreign aid is just stupid: it kneecaps our allies, brings out the anti-semites, and is a teensy-tiny piece of the budget.

Not like I said he was perfect. In fact, I didn’t even say he was a success. Nor do I think that governing ‘from the left’ would change his poll numbers - it’d make me feel better, but I have no idea how it’d be spun in the media.

But hey, make up shit and fling it around, see what sticks.  Call him a Republican.  See if that gets people to vote for him.  Oh wait, it makes people believe in that both-sides-the-same crap.

So cut it out.

When Obama first put together the so-called Deficit Commission, with his handpicked Republicans who had a looooooooooong history of calling for the dismantling of the social safety net, the Obama apologists over at dailykos had an explanation, “The President is just putting them on the committee so their ideas can be laughed at!”

Presidential appointments for the chuckle factor, yeah that made sense. Because we all need a good laugh at the social safety net’s’ expense.

A Democratic President calls for a “Deficit Commission” and despite the fact that Social Security does nothing to affect the deficit, he appoints those who have been dying to destroy the safety net for decades on end, and have made no bones about their plans.

“Cuts in the rate of growth”—what’s that double talk for? No one with a lick of sense has suggested anything that will actually strengthen Social Security, but raising the cap on taxes above $100,000.

Somebody has been itching to get their hands on the money banked in Social Security, and don’t want to repay the Bush tax cuts, or continue to waste money on our sick or elderly. And our Democratic President has signed off on a “Deficit Cutting” “Super Committee” which can fast track anything, well, anything they like.

I hafta admire the Obama Apologists who still stubbornly continue to insist that one plus one equals unicorns.

Fuck fuck fuck.

There.

Obama is no better than Republicans on civil liberties and human rights.  There.  I said it.  He said we won’t torture people, but he refused to allow DOJ to even investigate torture and other human rights abuses, even though we are obligated by statutes and international treaties to do so.  And frankly, why torture if our allies do it for us?  He voted for immunity for telecoms who cooperated with warrantless wiretapping (after publicly opposing such immunity).  We kill American citizens without bothering to even indict them, let alone convict them.  He invokes the state secrets doctrine to block lawsuits by people seeking compensation for having been tortured by the US government.  Those are all things that are 100 percent within his control. 

He ran like a progressive, but he governs like a moderate Republican at best, with a few feints to the gay rights movement and a few others. 

So stop telling people who are legitimately pissed off that we have to vote for someone like that to fuck off.  They aren’t evil.  They’re angry.  Because there are so few good options for progressives right now.  The best we have is the lesser of two evils, which may be barely palatable but it’s impossible to get excited about. 

Our problem is larger than Obama—our problem is that this country seems to be controlled by rich bankers and CEOs who could give a shit about anyone else and mean crazy people who don’t want poor brown people to get a single penny from the government.  That’s our problem.

I guess judibronwi doesn’t know that SS payments have sometimes grown faster than inflation (though not always).

Or that small tweaks, such as not paying SS to rich fucks like Sen McCain, can save lots.

Or that the general fund owe a fuckton to the SSA, and the less they spend each year is the less the general budget needs to heave-ho over to it at once.

These are simple things.  Simple things which don’t affect the number of seniors in poverty.

If Obama is no better than Republicans, where are the torture centers?  Why’d the most recent captures go through the legal system instead of being routed to the nearest military brig?  Where’s the secrete rendition?

You can’t just say ‘he is just as bad’ and then say ‘but he doesn’t do these things’.  That makes him not as bad, by definition.

Crissa, just become a Republican for fuck’s sake. The cognitive dissonance won’t hurt your head as much, for one thing.

You’ll be in like-minded company: Republicans talso hink the “whining” about social safety net is sour grapes, too.

You still resent the fact that President Obama won the Presidential election by campaigning left and progressive, which also helped secure a Democratic majority in Congress. 

Obama and the Blue Dogs, then proceeded to lose the country for Democrats, and continued the recession, by screwing the base, except for tossed crumbs.

Hey, if screwing the base worked—improved the economy, brought voters to the polls to vote for Democrats—I’d be tap dancing with joy and throwing rose petals in his path.

But we’ve been brought where we are now, and the progressive blogs have been right for three fucking long years, every step of the way, that this is where Obama and the Blue Dogs would take us.

You can ignore Cassandra all you like, but that doesn’t stop the sack of Troy.

Right—because we’d know about the secret renditions.

Even Bush didn’t assert the right to murder an American citizen in Yemen without due process.

I didn’t bring up torture, you did. But whatever happened to Democratic ideal of prosecuting those who directed that torture? Hmmm?

Well, as entertaining as it has been to argue with an Obamabot, I hafta go to work now. As I probably will for another 20 or 30 years.

There may be some shreds of Social Security and Medicare left for my generation, but Crissa is working hard to make sure there will be none for the rest of you.

I’ve never held anything against Pres. Obama that was the result of Congressional intraction.  He can, however, control what comes out of his own mouth.  I understood why he had to go along with extending the Bush tax cuts last December.  But I distinctly remember thinking, “okay, but I do NOT want to hear about the deficit next year, Barack, after you agreed to add a trillion dollars to it.”  And sure enough, what’s the first thing we were hearing from the President when 2011 came around?  Yup.  The deficit.  About the need to “tighten our belts” and to cut LIHEAP assistance.  Then he puts Medicare and SS on the table after a stunning historical victory for a Dem in a NY district because she ran on protecting Medicare and tarred her opponent with being for the Ryan voucher-care plan.  By even talking about it he neutralized it as an issue for Dems in Congress to run on in 2012. 

<blockquote>But apparently pointing out our opponents, instead of sitting in the circular firing squad, I’m in the wrong.

Fuck that.<blockquote>

The thing about circular firing squads is that the whole circle participates in them.  Or put another way, you’ve got four fingers pointed back at you.

I don’t know what campaign you were watching, but the one I saw? Obama ran as a centrist. I told everyone I could he was going to be Bill Clinton II. I was told I just didn’t understand. Whatever. I voted for him, he is exactly what I thought he would be and I’ll vote for him again. Doesn’t mean I don’t wish we had an actual progressive party. Just that I don’t think Obama ever campaigned for the presidency as a progressive.

“Our problem is larger than Obama—our problem is that this country seems to be controlled by rich bankers and CEOs who could give a shit about anyone else and mean crazy people who don’t want poor brown people to get a single penny from the government.  That’s our problem.”

This is nothing new.  The difference now is that there are no longer any Republican moderates to tone down the banker assholes and the crazy people.  And the “Democrats” we have are just Republican-lite suckers of the same Wall Street teats today’s Republicans have permanently attached to their lips.

The Bankers and the 1%-ers (sorry for the redundancy) have figured out that the crazy people will willingly help them loot the country (including the crazies) in return for allowing the crazies to freely give vent to their darkest desires for social control over everyone else.

The 1%-ers know that every aspect of human sexual and social behavior can be (and will be) regulated by the hard-right religious and social nuts and it will not affect them.  They are beyond allegiance to any individual country and have been for decades.  If Paris Hilton can’t flash her panty-less crotch for the paparazzi while getting out of a Porsche in Beverly Hills, she can do it in Monte Carlo instead.  If Dick Cheney and his buddies want to hunt a homeless black man or illegal alien for sport and can’t do it here — I’m sure some enterprising dictator somewhere will be happy to oblige their particular fantasy in return for cold, hard, cash.  If any Trump, Koch, Walton, Bush, Gates, etc., female needs an abortion, under any circumstances, she can either go somewhere to get it done, or the doctor will make a house call and come to her to do the deed in her mansion.

So the rich are completely unconcerned about the hell they are enabling for the rest of us when they support the looney 27%-ers and their tea-bagging sycophants.  Their entire motivation lies in turning America into a vast machine for picking our pockets.  And they’ve succeeded beyond their expectations.

Our Gilead will be their ATM.  Welcome to hell…

Well, if that’s your idea of “centrist” then Obama hasn’t governed as a “centrist”: because I remember his speeches about how he was going to reign in the Banksters and Wall Street, be a “fierce advocate” for gay rights, close Gitmo, on and on.

And not word one about going after the social safety net, before his inaugeration, in any case.

If those were centrist ideas, I’m all for ‘em. But that’s not the way Obama has governed, or even attempted to govern.

If I can, I may retire early next year at 62, just to spite Crissa. Because, like a typical Republican it’s she who’s decided the grapes of Social Security and Medicare will be out of her reach, so they must be sour.

On the other hand, I wish for generations down the retirement my grandparents and father had: pensions, Social Security, Medicare, savings, and a house with no mortgage.

But they had that thanks to Democrats who governed like Democrats, something we can no longer depend on.

“didn’t close gitmo”

thank bernie sanders, feingold, and other democrats for that or is it okay that they blocked the closing and and the funding

do you really think it was dan choi that got dadt passed? really? i guess him being on the front porch forced President Obama to bypass congress and pass repeal it. clearly

whatever

oh and pundit maximus it’s funny how you gloss over the reasons for the boycott, y’know that little pesky thing white libs love to ignore in their house, race

oops. exchange repeal for pass.
my bad

And white liberals also ignore race when they’re praising FDR and the New Deal. Don’t get me wrong I’m a big FDR/New Deal fan but it never would have passed without northern Democrats agreeing to shut up about Jim Crow.

My point being, no, Obama’s not FDR, but neither was FDR.

My point being, no, Obama’s not FDR, but neither was FDR.

Very true. It’s important to avoid hero worship, especially of politicians and presidents, and look at the context of specific things they did. Thinking, “Man, I wish we had FDR today!” is worthless. Thinking, “How can we get the country back to a place where they want to hear the president rail against the plutocrats?” is a far more valuable question, and indeed you want to hope that we can get the country back to that place without selling out everyone who isn’t a white male like FDR did.

For example, these things that FDR said were true then and are true today:

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

I worship these words. I want to bow down and kiss these words’ feet. But I don’t worship the man who said them, because words don’t make heroes. And the POTUS can’t fix our country’s problems by speechifying, no matter how much some people seem to want to believe that.

MiikeEss @ 105: Remember that in the fictional Gilead those who thought their elite status could enable them to escape social control were themselves ultimately liquidated. Which would be nice poetic justice for the 1%ers, but the run-up to that is going to really suck.

I don’t really give a shit anymore if any given liberal likes or doesn’t like Obama, but what I’m tired of seeing is this attitude that he shouldn’t be criticized simply because ... ?

It’s not that Obama shouldn’t be criticized, it’s that judy is a tiresome bore who has pretty much nothing else to say, unless someone says something bad about the Baby Boomers.

Hell, even her criticisms are pretty much cut-and-pasted from one thread to another, except for her responses to other posters.

We need a real progressive like Russ Feingold to bring us the magical unitary presidency we’ve been hankering after.

Is there a transcript anyway, does anyone know?  Can’t view vid.

So much win in such a short clip.  Someone call the Guinness Book of World Records people!

Triplanetary @11:35, that’s both a pair of awesome quotes and an awesome response to them. I detract points for acronym abuse, but that’s just a pet peeve.

The rest of the thread, egad.

KingElvis, who the fuck are you to police other people’s language? Given your assholic sexist comments here in previous threads, I’m guessing you wouldn’t have tried to police men’s language. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, douchebag.
Comment #73: Nobody in Particular on 10/04 at 06:41 PM

Nobody: Come to Chicago. I’ll be happy for you to say those things to my face you cunt.

KingBigot - Sharks are hungry, you sniveling cowardly bigot.  Jump off a bridge so they can have a good bigot meal.

I wanna be Jesse LaGreca’s love slave. Maybe he could lead me around on a leash.

judybrowni@100

You can ignore Cassandra all you like, but that doesn’t stop the sack of Troy.

Regardless of anything else going on in this thread, I love that line.

apparatuses (apparati?)

BB @31:  I always use that word as if both singular and plural were the same (this/those apparatus, like moose or fish) even though that is probably wrong.

helen, I am quite sure “apparatus” as plural is acceptable, although I think apparatuses is as well.

sizzle @ 104 said what I think every time this subject comes up.  What the hell USP campaign were y’all watching/listening to last time?  It wasn’t the one I saw.  People kept insiting I was wrong when I pointed out his ceterist stance and that Obama really was a progressive/a leftist/the 2nd coming of FDR.

@LC, but it’s just so cluncky sounding!

I want to buy that man a drink.

I want to buy that man a hotel room. Mee-yow. Smart talk is sexy.

@helen #127 - Eh, I’m a descriptivist, so I say you should just make up whatever plural sounds good and get people to use it.

Sharks are hungry, you sniveling cowardly bigot.  Jump off a bridge so they can have a good bigot meal.
Comment #121: Rare Vos on 10/05 at 10:14 AM

Kill yourself.

Glad so many people out there realize that this country’s problems aren’t solved or created by the President, let alone one person. It’s the bankers and the corruption they are bringing upon the rest of the American Society, and inflating our economy.
I agree with Kit-Kat on her comment.

Where the fuck did I say I was or wasn’t going to get social security?

And I get to be an Obamabot for saying that he’s centrist?

Apparently, if I don’t nod head that ‘he is the same as a republican’...

judyfuckingbrowni, the troll from the ‘left’, who never does anything but complain, calling me a Republican because I pointed out that Obama is centrist.

Yeah.  And that he’s not as Progressive as I’d like.  And that he doesn’t speechify as much as he should.

Fuck.  Fuckity fuck.  I do not buy into that false equivalence crap.  Why do we let this fucking troll continue to pretend to care when she willingly bores people into thinking there’s no reason to fucking vote?

I sometimes suspect that Judy and many others like her are professional GOP operatives.

I belong to the People’s Front of Judea, not the Judean People’s Front!