Barack Obama is not turning out to be the Dictator I voted for.

[NYC_SKP]

It's scandalous that Barack Obama, who BTW had the vote of thousands of struggling Middle American workers, has not crammed a progressive agenda directly down the America's collective throat.

I'm shocked that he's trying to "reach across the aisle" so early in his administration.

And what a mistake to give members of the wretched "health care" industry a seat at the table and a chance to provide input.

You know, if he wanted to he could have pulled all our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq by now, there wouldn't be any repercussions, I'm sure.

And he really should have let all the financial institutions just fail, we'd be fine.

And why isn't the defense budget cut in half yet???

Doesn't he control the purse strings?

Barack Obama.

Most disappointing Progressive Dictator.

Ever.

:patriot:

Happy Fathers Day to all the dads in service abroad, and at home!!!

.

.

[Oregone]

1. More excuses for him not doing the right thing

[uponit7771]

17. More criticism from impatient people. The "right" thing takes time no matter if said folk

...don't think it does.

[Phx_Dem]

26. He's doing right things every day. Just because your pet issues haven't

been first on the list, doesn't mean he's not doing the right thing.

Progressives aren't the only people who voted for him and he's President of the entire country, not just Progressive America. In fact, progressives sound like the evalgelicals did anytime they thought George Bush might not put their agenda above all else. Same thing with the progressives -- they think they matter more than anyone else.

[Oregone]

27. LOL. Wars and Health Care are "pet issues"

Fuck it. Why do I try?

[Phx_Dem]

28. LOL. I don't know you try either because health care if being addressed

right now. In case you forgotten, it has to get through Congress. The President doesn't get to write and pass his own laws.

Getting out of wars is complicated, unless you're Dennis Kuchnich. But, fuck, I don't why I bother. Progressives already know everything . . . when it comes to complaining.

[Oregone]

29. "The President doesn't get to write and pass his own laws" - He can always lend some genuine leader-

ship, for a real solution, not just some tinkering with a broken system. No, health care really isn't being addressed properly right now, at all.

Getting out of wars is less complicated than shifting and re-scaling forces, such that you have a perpetual opportunity to re-escalate. Its as complicated as you make it I guess.

His economic stimulus sucked dick too, as did the "leadership" and bipartisan approach he took on it too. I understand he doesn't write it (actually, he could quite a bit, and feed it to the appropriate Congress people), but just giving pep talk and letting Congress create an abortion of a bill is lacking.

[Phx_Dem]

30. And, of course, you would know every conversation and move he's

made. Obama knows what he's doing, but let's just sit around and bitch instead of voicing our support through our elected representatives and then seeing what actually comes out of the House and Senate. It's much more fun to sit around and bitch even though we don't actually have anything to bitch about yet since we haven't seen a formal bill.

Didn't we already know that Republicans would fight health care tooth and nail? And didn't we know that Blue Dogs would likely put up a fight as well? Hello? In the real world, things take time. In the progressive world, it's easier to sit around and bitch.

[Oregone]

31. "Obama knows what he's doing" - He is a CHESS-MASTER! n/t

[NYC_SKP]

89. It's 3-D chess. I don't even understand 2-D chess.

:P

[Baltoman991]

39. I know

I know, he hasn't kissed your ass like you want him too. Sorry, but I don't think the President is the ass kissing type.

You're just one more in a long line who overlooks the many good things he's done in 5 months while focusing on other things that are going to take longer to get done.

What is it he said all along........."It won't get fixed in my first year and much of it won't get fixed in my first term"..........thats a loose quote by the way.

Anyone who paid attention to the man knows that he never promised the worlds ills would go away in months.

[Oregone]

44. Will a few of them go away in 8 years?

Will there still be two active military operations in 8 years and health care that is not substantially more affordable and accessible than now? Will the economic recession/depression be mitigated via stimulus and a new more regulated structure be put in place to avoid similar bubbles in the future?

I don't know. I guess we all don't. I assume in 8 years the economy may well work itself out, unless we get trapped in a deflationary spiral from lackluster stimulus and deficient demand (but, who knows if measures will be put in place to better regulate the market). But at for war and healthcare, Im not super-duper optimistic, but we will see I guess.

One thing I tell you...being silent now or cheerleading may not much help to make those things happen in 8 years.

I guess it doesn't matter. These are just "pet issues". After all, he did start an organic garden.

[NYC_SKP]

48. The organic garden is in his realm of immediate and solitary control.

The rest of these things are not.

[Oregone]

51. If the president doesn't have any control of the legislation his own party will put on his desk,

or foreign military policy, what is the point of him being president?


Hell, McCain can do that job

[MadMaddie]

79. If we had a Democratic House and Senate led by

ineffective Pelosi and Reid we would be in the same shithole Obama is in.

President Obama can put plenty of things on the table just so he can watch spineless Reid and Pelosi water down the bills so much that they are ineffective.

Reid and Pelosi need to be replaced. Someone mentioned that if Franken gets seated then the Dems could have the 60 votes to ram things through. Don't you find it curious that as of late we don't hear our Dem Senators saying a word about Franken being seated?

If your own party Dem leaders are stabbing you in the back what are your options?

[Dawgs]

85. Great post, if you think he won't do anything else in the next 85% of his first term.

If you live in the world, like many of us, you realize that the big things will get addressed as his Presidency continues.

I'm amazed at how many have already forgotten that Bush and his cronies are the ones that fucked up this country, not Obama. Fixing it will not be quick and easy. I guess some will never get that.

[dionysus]

88. wait a minute, you're not even american? why don't you bitch about your own politicians?

[ChiciB1]

2. What A GOOD Cheer-Leader.... n/t

[Uzybone]

3. I dissappointed that he is doing what he said he would do on the trail

I wish he was lying to independents and republicans when he said he was going to reach across the aisle and reach consensus.

[liberalmuse]

7. LOL, me too.

He's doing what he basically said he would. I guess part of me hoped he was secretly more liberal than he actually is. He never mentioned single payer or universal health care in his campaign speeches. To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of his health care plan, but it was certainly better than what we have now.

He's also done a lot of things he said he would within the 1st 5 months. He never said he'd pull out of Iraq right away, but he put a timeline on when he'll be bringing the troops home. He did order Gitmo closed (which turned out to be way more complicated then one could imagine).

I am still waiting for him to keep his promise on DADT, so I'll give him a couple more months to come through with that. I really don't like that he appears to be caving to the military establishment on this one, but in the end, I really believe he will come through.

As far as the torture photos, I'm disappointed he didn't release them, however, he never said he'd prosecute Bushco, and has said time and time again we need to look forward when asked about this very issue many times during his campaign.

Do I wish he were more progressive? You bet I do! Am I going to slam him for being exactly the person I willingly voted for? Nope. There was a reason my first choice was Kucinich, then Edwards, then maybe Dodd, etc. I think he's doing an outstanding job so far, given the circumstances. I may not feel this way a year from now, but 6 months in, he still has my support. I'm very glad he's our President right now.

[treestar]

36. I'm where you are. I'm just still relieved that McWar is not President

that I can easily put up with Obama being relatively to the right of me. All it takes is to think of how the economy would be just left to tank and wait for the market to take care of it or the old myth that war helps the economy the excuse for another war. And knowing 72 year old McDumb could kick the bucket would give me nightmares every night.

[Oregone]

23. Campaigning to get elected is a bad excuse for not doing the right thing later

After all, he also campaigned on "good judgement"

[Dawgs]

86. I like his "judgement", and have you already predicted the future?

:shrug:

[elizm]

53. That darned honesty thing...don't ya just hate it.

It's so unpolitician like.

[Oregone]

57. So when asshole Bush campaigned in 2004 like an asshole,

No one had a right to call him out for governing like an asshole later?

Campaigning should have little relevance to a president doing the right or wrong thing.

You are essentially saying people are getting what is advertised, so no one should complain. Well, we didn't have any more choice in reality. It doesn't mean it is wrong to want more than what is advertised. It isn't wrong for people to try to encourage the president (centrist or not) to do the proper thing for his citizens and the citizens of the world.

[AllentownJake]

4. Dear God

When did criticism become a bad thing. You like him. I like him.

My mother loves me, just because she tells me I'm an absolute moron sometimes doesn't mean she loves me less.

[HughMoran]

5. At least she occasionally reminds me that she loves me

.

[AllentownJake]

8. We read what we want to read and latch onto what we want to latch onto

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5891374&mesg_id=5891374

I'm an enemy of the people to some on here. Well I'm one of the guys who worked my ass off to get him elected.

2012, you love him so much you get out there.

[HughMoran]

15. Oh, I'll be out there fighting for good over evil

But I would like to clarify that my statement above was meant in the broader sense - I wasn't pointing at you per se. I can find at least a dozen active posters at any given time that have never once praised Obama and who have seemingly signed up on DU simply to attack him. Then these people will claim they are being "suppressed" when others disagree with them. This is so ludicrous as to make many here flip-out at their utter hypocrisy and arrogance.

[jgraz]

12. Newsflash: Obama is not your son

Or your boyfriend. Or your daddy.

He's your president.


Learn the difference. It will probably clear up quite a few things for you.

[HughMoran]

16. You missed the point

IF you never ever provide praise of our Democratic President, only criticism, then you are volunteering for my ignore list. I have enough bitter crappy ass-holes to contend with in real life - I don't need to deal with them here which is a place that is supposed to be a "refuge" from the right-wing dominated press out there.

[jgraz]

35. Damn, I can volunteer for your ignore list? Why was I never told this before?

You're perfectly welcome to filter your viewing to whatever information you feel you can handle. However, I refuse to waste my valuable time typing up "OMG I LOVE OBAMA" posts. I also refuse to preface my criticism with loyalty oaths about how much I support Obama and how hard I worked to get him elected. I find the entire exercise demeaning.

Personally, I use this site as a "refuge" from the lack of critical thought and herd mentality of most other discussion forums. Looks like neither of us is getting what we want.

[HughMoran]

52. No need to get all serious now

I was responding to you, but as is always the case here, my point was not necessarily directed at you in particular.I would like to point out that it is possible to occasionally toss an "I agree" when a thoughtful poster provides a reasonable defense of our President (heck, even Bush was right once or twice in 8 years.) What I dislike are 1) binary thinkers and 2) all negative, all the time thinkers. Binary always negative posters are necessarily on ignore. You tend to be a almost all critical post poster, but you're far from binary in you're thinking, so I have no issue with you.

[jgraz]

58. I think it's helpful to begin with a few assumptions

1) No matter what the poster is saying, we all agree what Obama is a) better than Bush, b) better than McCain and c) better than any potential 2012 pug opponent. Obviously, there have been a few posters who have explicitly said otherwise, but I chalk that up to their disappointment getting the better of them.

2) Most of us supported and worked for Obama once he was the nominee. Unless he truly flames out, most of us will do the same in 2012

3) Almost every critic of Obama wants the same things you do. We just disagree on how the president should go about getting them.

[HughMoran]

71. So, we're essentially on the same page

I do, however, think there's a wide variation of "critics" ranging from people who genuinely want what's best for the country but disagree with how to get there, people who never supported Obama - Hillary supporters, Kucinich cheerleaders, and some who are simply socialists or want another form of government and some who want to rule the world themselves and will never agree with any leader - ever. Oh, and let's not forget that we have several Republican disruptors here who are pushing people's buttons. Bottom line, no group - supporters or critics (and obviously I'd hope the majority are both) can be made to neatly fit into one or the other box. It's the deliberate dehumanization of one side's arguments as "cheerleader" and the other as "bitter critic" that really pisses people off to no end. If people would stop with the childish name-calling, we could have reasonable discussion here. Until then, it'll be the cluster-fuck that it is now.

[AllentownJake]

60. I love his approach to the world

Not happy about Afghanistan but he helped cause this Iran revolution thing.

[AllentownJake]

18. Newsflash

He is the leader of our country, the head of state, and the commander of chief of the armed forces.

I am not in the military. I am a civilian, therefore it is my duty to stay informed and voice my opinion to my leaders.

[jgraz]

38. Yep.

The push by the Pukes to make Shrub the "Commander-in-Chief" of the whole fucking country annoyed me to no end.

At least Obama hasn't tried to pull that shit. Yet...

[NYC_SKP]

6. You too?

Seems like a common them, but we gotta love our mom!

On the topic:

I find the reactions to threads interesting.

There is a tendency by some members to think that the message is directed at them, and I hope you don't feel that way, I respect your criticisms here.

There are, and I think you might agree, some who seriously thought he could/would have the troops home, that he should have let the financial institutions fail, and etc. per my OP.

There really are, you know.

So, this is directed toward those who may feel so, not toward any criticism whatsoever.

I don't know why I have to explain this and some are beyond having a conversation about it.

But I think you're a thoughtful person and might see where I'm coming from.

Happy day!

[AllentownJake]

10. I see your point

and I think you see mine.

DU has been hijacked by a radical of two fringes.

One the President can never do anything right and another the President can do nothing wrong.

Both are extremist.

The President is human, therefore he has human limitation and temptations. If he does not have people out there saying show me the money, well he won't show them the money.

This is how democracy works and should work.

[NYC_SKP]

11. I've got a big "I wish to hell he would..." list.

But there doesn't seem to be much point in expressing any of them here when there are so many doing it for me.

Between you and me, I wish he'd stick his neck out more.

He's got the communicative skills to come out and say, "DADT is wrong and I'm calling on Congress to act immediately".

And he could do the same with so many other topics, and endless list of issues.

Still, I think that we need to avoid splintering into factions.

And, as he said we would, we need to tell him what we want.

:thumbsup:

[goclark]

14. Splintering is exactly what the Rethugs want us to do

Good word.

It's as if they are directing that effort.

[treestar]

40. Democrats on a Democratic forum tend to expect

that during a time with a Democratic president, we don't have as much negativity as we did during the Bush years.

It does really suck to come to DU and see so many "disappointed" people.

After living in this country from 2000 to 2008, I'm just relieved that the country changed direction. I don't see a need to go out of my way to criticize or work to find something to criticize a Democratic President.

[vaberella]

20. Look. For all the threads there are critics--there are supporters. Get over it.

As much as you say that you can criticize Obama. There are those who can support him. If you can't handle the thread that support don't go there. I went to my last Obama=Bush thread today and I'm done. So I'll make a point to ignore those threads. Just ignore the threads that show the support that you disagree with and that's the end of it. Let bygones be bygones.

[AllentownJake]

25. Just because I'm critical

doesn't mean I support him any less. I want him to succeed but I'll be damned if I'm going to work for free for the guy if I disagree with policy positions.

That would be kind of insane don't you think?

[vaberella]

66. You do realize the approach screams as though people are being victimized.

"Why can't I be critical" "Just because I'm critical..."
Some people may want to mute criticism at times because they may find some of them unfounded. Others hired him for a set amount of time and are giving him the 4 years to complete the job and want to see where he's going with the moves he's making even if they may not agree with it. The point is...that I saw nothing in the OP's post that says you can't be critical. S/he chose to not be.

I never said you can't be critical or that it's not sane to be critical. However, in some people's cases they should be allowed just as you are critical to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yet, on this thread you're talking about yourself as though it's an affront to you (as stated in your last post).

It's like this other poster on another thread saying..."I'll continue to post negative articles about Obama until he does what I want him to do." -"Eh" (As though Obama is a mind reader or what he (the poster) wants is the only right thing out there.) There is not one way to do things. You may be critical of it on one end and there is someone out there who is actually looking at it positively. You might see it as a positive on one end and there are people looking at it negatively.

I'm looking at the overall and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt since I hired him for 4 years and as I'm not privy to all that goes on in the WH....I'll see where it goes. If he's still lagging behind in major initiatives and not holding muster in about 3 years then I'll be planning to express my vote. I personally have seen that Obama is doing a lot and I like his path and hence I'm with the OP. YOu don't have to be, but you don't also have to go around playing victim like.."Why can't I be critical?" ----which is what it comes down to what I say.

[Bjorn Against]

9. The health care industry has always had a seat at the table, single payer advocates have not

Single payer advocates are still being denied a seat at the table while the health care industry lobbyists are allowed to write our laws. People like Rick Warren are still being reached out to while advocates for equal rights are being ignored. The Democrats are still reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans while they refuse to work with the progressives in their own party for anything other than helping them win their elections.

We aren't looking for a dictator, we are looking for someone who will give us a seat at the table and stop pretending like reaching out to the Republicans whose policies have destroyed this nation is more important than reaching out to the progressives who have been ignored for decades.

[winyanstaz]

13. Amen

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Amen again

[vaberella]

21. Single Payer has had a seat at the table. Look at the Health Summit 2009.

You'll notice majority of the people are Single Payer supporters. I'm fed up of listening to that meme.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

22. The MAJORITY of the people are Single Payer Supporters? Really?

Are you talking about the White House Forum on Health Reform?

Here is a link to that whole round of discussions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/White_House_Forum_on_Health_Reform_Report.pdf

Here are the attendees, whom I imagine were INVITED to attend, otherwise, I expect you would see a lot more single payer advocates. If you want to see the names in a more readable text, skip to page 45 in the link above. You can see exactly who attended which session together and also the list below of expected attendees. I absolutely question you saying the majority are Single Payer supporters and if you read the text of the actual discussions, you will find hardly any mention of single payer period, except for a handful of suggestions that it should be part of the discussion. Is this the summit you were referring to?


MEMBERS OF CONGRESS EXPECTED TO ATTEND :Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Assistant Majority LeaderSen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman, HELP CommitteeSen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Ranking Member, HELP CommitteeSen. Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman, Finance CommitteeSen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), Ranking Member, Finance CommitteeSen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman, Health Subcommittee of the Finance CommitteeSen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member, Health Subcommittee (Finance Committee)Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Health CareSen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Health CareSen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT)Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)Speaker Nancy PelosiRep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Majority LeaderRep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Republican WhipRep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA, Vice Chair of Democratic CaucusRep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman, Energy & Commerce CommitteeRep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Ranking Member, Energy & Commerce CommitteeRep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Chairman, Ways and Means CommitteeRep. Dave Camp (R-MI), Ranking Member, Ways and Means CommitteeRep. George Miller (D-CA), Chairman, Education and Labor CommitteeRep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), Ranking Member, Education and Labor CommitteeRep. John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman Emeritus of Energy & Commerce CommitteeRep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Chairman, Health Subcommittee for Energy & CommerceRep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), Ranking Member, Health Subcommittee for Energy & CommerceRep. Pete Stark (by phone) (D-CA), Chairman, Health Subcommittee of Ways and MeansRep. Wally Herger (R-CA), Ranking Member, Health Subcommittee, Ways and MeansRep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Chair, Education & Labor Subcommittee on Health, Labor, et al.Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN)Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)Rep. Donna Christensen (D-VI)Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA)Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX)Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR)


COMMUNITY LEADERS AND STAKEHOLDERS EXPECTED TO ATTEND:in alphabetical order by organization name)AARP, Bill Novelli, PresidentADAPT, Bobby CowardAFL-CIO, Gerry Shea, Assistant to the President for Governmental Affairs AFSCME, Gerry McEntee, PresidentAFT, Randy Weingarten, PresidentAIDS Action, Rebecca Haag President and CEOAlliance for Retired Americans, Ed Coyle, Executive DirectorAmerica’s Health Insurance Plans, Karen Ignagni, President and CEOAmerican Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Daniel Smith, PresidentAmerican College of Physicians, Jeff Harris, PresidentAmerican Academy of Pediatrics, David Tayloe, PresidentAmerican College of Cardiology, W. Douglas Weaver, PresidentAmerican Academy of Family Physicians, Ted Epperly, PresidentAmerican Diabetes Association, Larry Hausner, CEOAmerican Heart Association, Timothy J. Gardner, President American Hospital Association, Rich Umbdenstock, PresidentAmerican Medical Association, Nancy Nielsen, PresidentAmerican Nurses Association, Rebecca Patton, PresidentAsian and Pacific Islander Health Forum, Dr. Ho Tran, Executive DirectorAssociation of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, Jeff Caballero, Executive DirectorBuilding and Construction Trades Department, Mark Ayers, PresidentBetter Health Care Together, Jody Hoffman, Executive DirectorBlue Cross Blue Shield Association, Scott Serota, CEOCampaign for America’s Future, Roger Hickey, Founder and Co-DirectorCampaign for Mental Health Reform, William Emmett, DirectorCatholic Health Association, Sister Carol Keehan, President and CEOCCD Health Task Force, Peter ThomasCED, Charlie Kolb, CEOCenter for American Progress, John Podesta, President and CEOChange to Win, Anna Burger, ChairChildren’s Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman, Founding President Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Irwin E. Redlener, M.D.Communications Workers of America, Larry Cohen, President Families USA, Ron Pollack, PresidentFederation of American Hospitals, Chip Kahn, PresidentGeneral Mills, Ken Powell, President and CEOHealth Care for America Now, Richard Kirsch, National Campaign Manager Hispanic Medical Association, Elena Rios, President Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, PresidentJennings Policy Strategies Group, Inc, Chris Jennings, PresidentLeague of United Latin American Citizens, Brent Wilkes, Executive Director Markle Foundation, Zoe Baird, PresidentNational Association of Counties, Valerie Brown, Incoming NACO ChairNational Association of Manufacturers, John Engler, President and CEONational Association of People with AIDS, Frank Oldham, President and CEONational Association of Community Health Centers, Tom Van Coverden, President and CEONational Council of La Raza, Janet Murguia, President and CEONational Jewish Hospital, Dr. Michael Salem, PresidentNational Congress of American Indians, Jacqueline L. Johnson Pata, Executive DirectorNational Federation of Independent Businesses, Dan Danner, PresidentNational Indian Health Board, Stacey Bohlen, Executive DirectorNational Medical Association, Mohammad Akhter, Executive DirectorNational Partnership for Women and Families, Debra Ness, President National Business Group on Health, Helen Darling, President National Association of Children’s Hospitals, Larry McAndrews, President and CEONational Association of Public Hospitals, Larry Gage, PresidentNational Rural Health Association, Dennis Berens, PresidentNational Coalition on Health Care, Henry Simmons, Founder National Association for Home Care & Hospice, Val Halamandaris, PresidentNational Women’s Law Center, Marcia Greenberger, PresidentNational Minority AIDS Council, Paul Kawata, PresidentNational Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Rea Carey, PresidentNational Hispanic Health Alliance, Dr. Jane Delgado, PresidentNational Education Association, Dennis Van Roekel, PresidentPfizer, Jeffrey Kindler, CEOPharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Billy Tauzin, President and CEOPhysicians for a National Health Plan, Dr. Oliver Fein, DirectorPICO, Scott Hersey Reed, Executive DirectorPlanned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, PresidentRacial and Ethnic Disparities Health Coalition, Fredette West, PresidentRobert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dr. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, President and CEOSEIU, Dennis Rivera, Chair SEIU, Andy Stern, PresidentSmall Business Majority, John Arensmeyer, Founder and CEOTeamsters, Jim Hoffa, PresidentTrust for America’s Health, Jeff Levi, Executive DirectorUAW, Ronald Gettelfinger, PresidentUFCW, Joe Hansen, PresidentUniversity of Chicago Medical School, Eric Whitaker, Executive Vice President For Strategic AffiliationsUniversity of Miami, Donna Shalala, PresidentUSW, Leo Gerard, PresidentU.S. Chamber, Tom Donohue, President

[Oregone]

41. If there was a president that would educate citizens about what single payer really was, I predict..

a majority would favor it.

It expands health care choice, doesn't make people ration due to copays/deductibles, lowers per capita health spending by at least 33%, removes profit and administrative overhead from insurance (canada operates at 1.3% overhead), pre-approves all medical procedures, does not deny claims, covers everyone, and does not interfere AT ALL with private health care facilities (ensures they get paid in a timely manner for their services).

There is no reason in hell anyone with half a brain would be oppossed to it (unless they have a conflict of interest); it is a boon for business. Sadly, most Americans don't understand it. They think Canada has socialized health care, rather than socialized insurance. Canada has a vibrant private market in the health care sector, partially due to the benefits of single-payer.

[Bjorn Against]

45. Actually the majority already does support single payer health care

Just type in "single payer health care polls" into Google and you will see a whole bunch of polls which show majority support for single payer, and it is a position that has had majority support for a long time. The people have always wanted single payer, it is the members of Congress who take big campaign contributions from the health insurance industry that don't want it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

55. The "people" under discussion were the attendees of a White House Forum, not the general public.

The general public is WAY ahead of the politicians in percentages of approval of "public option" "government sponsored" or "single payer" which are used interchangeably and incorrectly by many - regardless of the confusion, I would say it shows an overall rejection of the for profit private system we have been shackled to by our corporate overlords and their Congressional lackeys.

[vaberella]

64. You need to get your hands on the video and watch it. They were there and it was discussed.

You don't have to tell me who was invited. I'm talking about what was discussed and what was the biggest agenda on the topic. Single Payer was it. If you don't believe me..find it and watch it. End of story and then most people can shut the meme they keep spouting. Because I watched the summit several times when it aired.

[Bjorn Against]

24. I seem to remember a good number of single payer advocates dragged off in handcuffs

I have yet to see them drag one of the insurance industry executives off in handcuffs. As far as the Health Summit goes there was no "majority" of single payer supporters in attendance. In fact there were originally not any plans to invite any single payer advocates until the Physicians for a National Health Program threatened to protest the summit at which point two single payer advocates were invited as a result of immense pressure. Having to threaten protests just to be able to get a couple representatives to attend the meeting does not show that the White House is serious about listening to single payer supporters. Being able to attend a meeting is not really even the same thing as having a seat at the table if they are only inviting you so that the criticism of their corporate driven health care policy will not be quite as loud, having a seat means having some sort of say in the legislation that is being drafted.

[vaberella]

65. I said specifically, Health Summitt 2009 which was held at the White House.

And no one there was dragged away. You can find the vids and watch yourself. Advocates for single payer were there and they discussed it. And I was speaking about the health summit and nothing else. Why is that hard for people to understand?

[treestar]

42. If you listen to Republicans, they are not being ignored

If Republicans are afraid of their influence, perhaps they have some.

[Skittles]

84. you know it, Bjorn

damn, I am SICK of the apologists on this board - absolutely SICK of them

[merh]

32. The strange thing is, the same people saying he is "bush like"

are demanding he use or abuse his office the way bush used the office.

I wish they would make up their minds.

[Bjorn Against]

46. No one is demanding that Obama abuse his office like Bush abused his.

Pushing for progressive policies is not an abuse of the office, Obama has the right to advocate for any type of policy he wants to advocate for there is nothing illegal about pushing a progressive agenda. It is illegal to ignore the other branches of government, but no one of any stature in the progressive movement is demanding he do that they are simply asking that he use his bully pulpit and his executive powers to push for real change.

[merh]

49. No, they sure are making such demands.

They want him to control the DOJ and to tell the DOJ what to do, what cases to file, what appeals to be involved in, what laws they should ignore.

I can give you links to the words if you would like.

[Bjorn Against]

50. Show me the links to someone who is calling straight out for him to break the law.

I believe you could provide me links to well meaning people who are unaware of the law regarding what role Obama plays in regard to the DOJ, but someone not understanding the role of the President in these matters is not the same as someone asking him to be like Bush. Not every progressive knows the ins and outs of the law and some may have asked something of Obama that he was not legally able to do, but I doubt you can provide a link to anyone who is knowingly calling for Obama to act like Bush and just ignore the law.

[merh]

54. You mean the Ameriblog written by lawyers

(as they like to remind us) wasn't demanding that Obama have the DOJ withdraw the brief filed in Smelt and fire the Asst US Attorney that wrote it?

Even Clinton's former Special Assistant, Richard Socarides, wrote that he knows for a fact that "the president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5847200

The SCOTUS decision in the Osborne case about DNA testing laws, that is being used by some progressives to prove that Obama is "not one of us, he is bush lite". Then there was the Montejo v. Louisiana case and all of the articles blaming Obama for that. It has become some sort of weird game by some, not all, progressives and it is tiresome.

[Bjorn Against]

61. I haven't seen anyone blame Obama for a Supreme Court decision

Certainly most progressives know that Obama is not the Supreme Court and I doubt that you could find a single prominent progressive that claims otherwise. Posts from a couple random internet posters who most people have never even heard of mean nothing.

And here are some words from your link to Ameriblog:

I was equally troubled by the administration’s explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue.

snip

Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington. And even when the DOJ does defend a law against constitutional attack, it does not have to advance every conceivable argument in doing so (such as the brief’s invocation, in a footnote, of incest and the marriage of children). In fact, many legal experts believe that in this particular case none of the issues going to the merits of whether or not DOMA is constitutional needed to be addressed to get the case thrown out. The administration’s lawyers could have simply argued, for example, that the plaintiff’s had no standing. There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.

If you want to dispute that fine, but they are clearly not advocating that Obama break the law outright they are claiming that the DOJ is under no legal obligation to defend DOMA in this manner. Certainly they were under no legal obligation to claim that gay marriage would deprive the federal government of revenue or to compare it to incest.

Arguing against the DOJ case defending DOMA is not suggesting that Obama should be like Bush in any way. Do you know who does want Obama to be like Bush? The ones who tell us that he should allow government officials torture to walk away without prosecution, the ones who tell us that he should continue to monitor people's phone calls without a warrant, the ones that tell us that he should continue to honor anti-gay bigots like Rick Warren. Those are the people who want Obama to be like Bush, not the people who believe that our government should never compare gay marriage to incest.

[merh]

63. Oh, but they mischaracterize the brief, the "offensive" nature of it

and do blame "Obama's DOJ". And you continue in the games and the distortions by posting your nonsense, the government did not compare gay marriage to incest. You should go do some research before you continue down the twisted post you are on.

[Bjorn Against]

67. I know you have seen the text of the DOJ argument but I will post it again

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Marriage of uncle to niece and marriage of cousins are examples of incest no matter how much you may want to deny it. Those are the DOJs twisted words, there is nothing "twisted" about what I said.

[merh]

68. Go look up the definition of incest.

It deals with the unlawful marriage of relatives. If the marriage was legal in one state or nation, it was not incest.

This post explains the legal agruments used in the brief, the "conflict of laws" argument that actually is used to recognize how same sex marriage is valid in some states.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8478838&mesg_id=8481651

Of course, as we discuss this, I must again point out that my understanding the legal arguments used does not mean I agree with the DOJ's position. To be able to properly challenge or dispute a legal argument one must understand it and factually dispute it. Legal briefs to the court should be free of emotions. I see DOMA as unconstitutional and I believe the Perry case will get the matter before SCOTUS and there SCOTUS will apply Loving v. Virginia to the law and hold it unconstitutional and unenforceable.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

69. you are aware that first cousin marriage is legal in 26 states yes? n/t

[merh]

70. The marriages as discussed in the brief were legal marriages

recognized in one state but not recognized in another. It was a legitimate conflicts of law analysis used to argue to the court that lawful marriages in one state are not necessarily recognized in other states. The argument itself validates same sex marriages in states that have legalized it which is contrary to the position held by opponents of same sex marriages like the bush administration.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

75. i know, i was just countering the 'its incest' claim considering

how disputed that exact subject is in the US(less sure world wide but would expect it being legal more places then not)

I think we basically share the same view on this

[merh]

76. One of the cases discussed in the brief that was a lawful marriage

of, I believe it was, uncle and niece, as recognized in Italy but not recognized in the states.

I posted to you because you do understand that the critics distorted the brief, my post was meant to be supportive of your post.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

77. my assumation was correct then

but i decided it was better to be safe then sorry :)

thanks for the support tho, i have found that very few seem to like debating this topic one its pointed out how many places its legal.

[merh]

78. that just goes to show how they didn't read the brief or didn't

understand what they read. The only reason they were discussed is because the marriages (either to a female of a certain age or a relative) were legal in one state or country and not legal in others.

[NYC_SKP]

47. Precisely. On point. Thank you.

That would have made a nice closer to the OP.

:thumbsup:

[treestar]

33. Now that we have a Democratic Decider all those things should be

decided and done! :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

34. Obama caused a cholera epidemic in Africa and won't take my phone calls about watching American Idol

Therefore his presidency is already a failure.

[RoyGBiv]

37. No kidding ...

I'm pissed he didn't bring me burgers. I mean, I needed a burger, and he was *there* so why didn't he bring me one?

Bastard.

[boppers]

81. I got my burger.

Did you at least get your pony?

[RoyGBiv]

82. No ...

Dammit.

Now I have to hate you.

[boppers]

83. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

Hate me for my burger and pony.

[angee_is_mad]

43. Kick

ditto

[Better Believe It]

56. More lame excuses for a lack of leadership. People voted for leadership and partisanship.

Not weak bi-partisanship in which the Republicans seem to be running the show.

[styersc]

87. Bipartisanship would be fine if we had a stronger leader to hold

up our end. Instead we thought we were voting for a progressive but instead we have a third Bush term.

Sure he'll stand up for bankers and corporations but when it comes to civil liberties, equal rights and peace- forget about it.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

91. Third Bush Term?

You crack me up.
:rofl:

And people wonder why there is so much push back against the "criticism".

Series

[BzaDem]

90. People actually voted for bi-partisanship.

Just because you say "People voted for partisanship" does not mean people actually voted for partisanship. Any objective observer would know that Obama campaigned on bipartisanship.

[boppers]

59. Maybe we need more posters, and statues?

Perhaps if he was more worshiped, like Kim Jong Il, or Saddam Hussein, he would be able to rule by fiat?

[firedupdem]

62. Rec'd! Great Post and Happy Fathers Day! n/t

[grantcart]

72. Yes and he should have started tasing Congress too!!

[Peacetrain]

73. Good Post

[mopinko]

74. why the hell isn't he dennis kucinich? doesn't he know that

the progressive community resoundingly supported president dennis, with a landslide of votes and donations in every primary? when the hell is he going to dump that michelle for a 7' tall redhead?

oh, and knr.

[TheKentuckian]

80. Some people are ALL about the Impreial Presidency and a whole, whole, whole lotta lockstep.

Its all good when it is their way. Why, one might ask. Why, because they are right, that's why.

The same thought process, the same temperament, the same unquestionable certainty, a very similar privileged frame of reference, and the same respect (or lack thereof) for the viewpoints, opinions, and beliefs of others as the frigging freepers. Divided by much more generally being in the neighborhood of right. That correctness is a bold line of separation but I still find the mentality only slightly less disturbing.

I'm confused by the people who curse the blue dogs, Centrists, and Conservadems in one breath and in the next mock the very notion of not having the votes for sweeping legislation.
I don't see ignoring what someone ran on but holding them to opinions held years ago or just plain disgruntlement at actually doing what was campaigned on. I understand objecting to policies but I don't get disappointment or being done in because someone did exactly what they said. That's wacky. Have some people never heard of being pleasantly surprised? That's the reaction one someone does more than you expect, disappointment is for falling short of the stated goals not for essentially failing to overachieve.