A Loser White House, Guilty by Association

[NorthCarolina]

A Loser White House, Guilty by Association

By Robert S. Becker
May 23, 2010

Long before Year One ended, progressives understood President Obama’s focus was routine wheeling and dealing, not regrowing the New Deal. Between victory and governance, Obama “reform” switched from promises to make government serve people to insure government serves business. The result is mounting guilt by association as Obama got himself entrenched only months into power, a speed record for a reform guy, now the establishment president defending every party incumbent. Does this White House think that’s the reason it won?

This week’s election miscues only reinforce Obama’s larger dilemma, once captured perfectly by Naomi Klein, favoring “the grand symbolic gesture over deep structural change every time.” As in the gesture tossed off to Diane Sawyer in January, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president,” he said, “than a mediocre two-term president.” If you can keep backing losers, Mr. President, with a tin ear and tinsmith staff work, you may end up a mediocre one-term president. Your allies, like Arlen Specter, are toast, and Blanche Lincoln teeters on the edge, a likely run-off loser.

Nor did many on the left imagine the Democratic Party would abandon its “play it safe, don’t rock the boat” game plan. In retrospect, candidate Obama’s “anti-war” credentials (vs. the “hawkish Hillary) look thin, like wishful thinking driven by spin: we’re still waist deep in the big muddy. Ditto with business subsidies, repairing Constitutional violations, or systemic energy reform—no easy task when Obama touts ethanol, offshore drilling, and nuclear power. Yet, who imagined this “Anti-Bush” candidate, as Michael D. Green put it, would qualify in office as “one of the most conservative presidents of the last century.”

---snip---

Not only did Obama misread the Joe Sestek revolt, but stumbled trying to buy him off, despite Specter’s utter weakness in the primary and vs. the Republican challenger. What made Rahm’s White House imagine the aged, unhealthy, unprincipled Specter had any remaining constituency, having offended conservatives, independents and Democrats.

---snip---

For many, Obama peaked around inauguration, and my savvy Hyde Park, Chicago observer has given up, “Obama would lose in 2012 if the Republicans didn’t have to name their candidate.” Absolutely right: if Obama had to run only on his under-achievements, he’s be underwater to any decent opponent. His main ploy will parlay his upbeat personality while targeting the designated rightwinger as a scary dinosaur who favors the rich, the banksters, and extremists keen still to privatize Social Security. Of course, in 2012, one can’t count on a senile opponent self-destructing or another Sarah Palin outlier selection.

---snip--

Link: http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2010-05-23-01-37-42-news.php

[icee]

1. Excellent. Right on the money.

[NorthCarolina]

2. Doing my part to help the DLC New Dem unreccing crew earn their keep. n/t

[sce56]

5. Unrec SUCKS!

They should keep a chart of all the recs a person does and see if they have a freeper tilt!

[NorthCarolina]

6. The apologists are strong here though. "+" Rec's didn't start showing up

until after about 150 views. I have to admit, I was curious how long it would take.

[MissDeeds]

8. Isn't it interesting

They will hit the "unrec" option quickly enough, but don't post to disagree with the op. Perhaps even they are all out of excuses.

[NorthCarolina]

9. When they can't refute the factual, it is easier to stealth unrec the post and hope to sink it. n/t

[robinlynne]

11. The poster calls him/her self DLC New Dem. there's your excuse.....

[MissDeeds]

12. Where does the poster say that? n/t

[robinlynne]

21. above. in response #2.

[MissDeeds]

22. I think the poster forgot the sarcasm

emoticon. I took the post to be tongue in cheek since s/he is the op.

[NorthCarolina]

26. It was a tongue in cheek comment about the apparent abundance of

DLC New Dem members here on DU keeping guard for anything to be posted that is remotely "Liberal" or "Progressive", that questions Obama, or is supportive of Kucinich, Sanders, or Feingold, etc. and that they immediately jump in and un-rec almost as if they were being paid to do so. You can bet I am no DLC New Dem...quite the contrary, I despise them, and consider them to be a pox on the Democratic Party. Should I have used the "sarcasm" thingy? To be honest, I didn't think it was necessary.

[MissDeeds]

27. I got your intended meaning

And agree. The DLC is indeed a pox on the Democratic Party. :hi:

[robinlynne]

31. oops. sorry.

[NorthCarolina]

28. See #26

[icee]

7. Even the most diehard Obama supporters will begin to fade

at the rate he is going. We need to be working on a Presidential primary candidate now! We need a Progressive in the White House!

[Lorien]

17. I really don't think that Obama will run for a second term, but we will need to primary

whomever the DLC puts forth.

[icee]

25. God, that's fer sure!

[msongs]

3. dems are turning into conservatives and seem like moderates only compared to extreme righties nt

[glitch]

10. Yep. nt

[MissDeeds]

4. K&R

Prepare for incoming...

:hide:

[texas_ex]

13. Obama is a corporatist at heart

Barack Obama the candidate ran as a populist, a man of the people who was standing up for the ordinary American. President Obama is a corporatist at heart. By corporatist, I mean someone who believes that corporations should, at least for the most part, rule. I first suspected this when he appointed Timothy Geitner of Wall Street as Secretary of the Treasury. I knew it when he said of Wall Street pirates, "I know these guys. They're savvy businessmen. Americans don't begrudge anyone wealth because they are successful. They're no different from baseball players."

What a load of crap. And to think I actually campaigned, contributed, and voted FOR this guy. Obama has shown himself to be nothing more than a running dog lackey of the corporatist regime. Mandatory insurance for the benefit of health insurance companies instead of truly affordable health care. Offshore oil drilling(whoops). Escalation in Afghanistan. No cuts to the defense budget(the military-industrial complex Empire smiles). Calls for more privatization of education, ie charter schools. A stern Colbertesque "wag of the finger" at BP for the oil spill. Refusal to nationalize or at least break up the banks that are too big to fail, and therefore too big to exist in the first place.

Now, at least nominally anti-corporate candidates are winning primaries: Sestak in Pennsylvania, Halter in Arkansas, even Conway in Kentucky was a bit of a surprise. Obama spins. It's not too late for him; he can still actually ACT to implement what he advocated on the campaign trail and in the Audacity of Hope.

But I doubt it. Barack, prove me wrong.

[proudohioan]

14. Well said, texas_ex!

Excellent first post, and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Lorien]

18. Well said texas_ex, and welcome to DU!

I hope that he will prove both of us wrong. I truly do. He had the opportunity to become of of our best when he took office, but he's turned out to be the biggest disappointment in memory. He could totally reverse course...but I doubt that he will. :-(

[swilton]

15. Obama 'the audacity of hop'/'change' is a brand

that is quite distinct from the reality of Obama Administration policies....he was elected by virtue of a mass marketing/propaganda campaign and we have and will be continuing victims of same.

The majority on the left as well as moderates are excited and moved by the sensationalism (implicitly the possibilities that this sensationalism represents) of an African in the White House yet ignore the reality of his policies - equivalent (or worse vis a vis their deceit) than his predecessor.

See John Pilger's speach about how Obama has been fooling us all along - ref: 'Master of Hypnosis-Empire' speach given in 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI

[Lorien]

30. I just watched it. Ouch. The situation is even far more dire than I thought.

It deserves a thread of it's own-though I doubt that the DLC/ corporate apologists would listen to it. They would just attack the messenger. Still, it is a speech that needs to be heard by all of those who have even a shred of humanity left inside of them.

[Lorien]

16. Ssshhhhhh...Team Obama will accuse you a pushing "an agenda"

Yeah, we have an agenda; reversing the Democrats rightward course! Pulling them back so that they serve We the People instead of big banks, big oil, big insurance, big Ag, big pharma and the military industrial complex. That's been OUR "agenda" from day one. Obama's has Changed, and that's why we're so pissed about it!

[bbgrunt]

19. I totally agree, except for

" His main ploy will parlay his upbeat personality while targeting the designated rightwinger as a scary dinosaur who favors the rich, the banksters, and extremists keen still to privatize Social Security."

...this will definitely be a big ploy since Obama is already doing all of the above himself.

[texas_ex]

23. Next on the corporatist agenda...The Deficit!

Yes, the trial balloons are already being floated. We must embrace austerity! All of us(Americans) have contributed to this unsustainable deficit. We must all sacrifice(except for Wall Street). Social Security and Medicare must be "re-examined."

Crap. Not all of us participated in creating one Bubble after another. I certainly did not. Yet now the White House is starting to make noises about cutting Social Security and Medicare "entitlements." For the good of the country.

President Obama, raise taxes on the rich, you idiot.

[indepat]

20. "One of the most conservative presidents of the last century" sums it up

succinctly. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

24. Rahm recruited Sestak for congress originally.

They (Rahm & Sestak) know each other quite well, and Sestak's politics are very near that of the White House.

That's what makes this article bunk. It omits important information, that if it was present,
would ruin the punch line.

Just like Obama made the announcement about Off shore oil drilling not for its sake but for the sake of passing an energy bill that would propel forward green energy much more than the conventional sources of energy; in the same pragmatic approach, he supported Specter cause that was the deal in exchange for Specter's vote for a good two years, till next January. Folks can look at that anyway they want, but if they believe that this President, in this climate, with the media that we have, could possibly pass legislation way to the Left of where the current congress currently stand, they are either naive, or don't respect facts for what they are....for whatever their reasons.

[yurbud]

29. the DLC would rather lose than be progressive

if you lose, you can still get a job as a lobbyist, corporate exec or board member for the corporations you carried water for while in office.

If you go progressive, those corporate allies will pull out their long knives on you, and when you lose or retire, they will do their best to erase even the memory of any good you accomplished.