Doesn't President Obama deserve time to try to right the wrongs of the past?

[ProSense]

President Obama is not responsible for eveything that is wrong with the U.S. or the failures of the last eight years. He didn't

• Illegally invade Iraq
  
  
• Ignore the war in Afghanistan
  
  
• Order detainees to be tortured
  
  
• Repeal Glass Steagall
  
  
• Implement the policies that led to the economic crisis
  
  
• Cause the failure of the health care system
  
  
• Give the lobbyist control of DC
  
  
• Sign DADT into law
  
  
• Sign DOMA into law
  
  
• Sign NAFTA into Law
  
  
• Underfund NCLB
  
  
• Stack the courts with right wing hacks
  
  
• Ignore the environment
  
  
• Ignore Louisiana after Katrina

The list goes on---from homelessness in America to unemployment.

People will criticize Obama every step of the way as he tries to mend or reverse failing policies. He should expect criticism on the issues because not everyone is going to approve of his approach. However, for much of the time that he has been in office, some people have been questioning his character, labeling him a sell out, comparing him to Bush and posting facts about the effects of Bush's policies as if these were failures of the Obama administration.

Dissent shouldn't be an undeserved attack on the whole person. President Obama has done a tremendous amount of good since taking office. He has made missteps, and not everyone is going to agree with his approach to every issue. That doesn't mean he isn't trying, that he is a failure as a leader or that he is automatically right or wrong: he is trying to do the best he can---from Katrina to withdrawing from Iraq.

He deserves an appropriate amount of time to accomplish his agenda, and it's disgraceful that some people have chosen, from day one, to use distortions to question his motives.

[spanone]

1. k&r

[Go2Peace]

72. The problem is not "time", the problem is the fundamental nature of his policies

Nobody is expecting him to make the needed changes overnight. But there has been enough time to gage direction, and his policies are not nearly as sustainable as we need. It is "direction" , not effectiveness, that progressives in the party are not content with.

I understand why folks post these kinds of posts, but I really don't understand what they hope to accomplish posting them over and over. They aren't going to "hypnotize" us and make us change the minds of the half of Democrats on this board who are not satisfied with the direction.

it might be better to try and understand each other better, and focus on what we can agree on and pursue. It would certainly be more useful than the ceaseless same argument over and over.

[YvonneCa]

108. In what direction do you see Obama...

...taking us?

[JonQ]

2. What is the "appropriate amount of time to accomplish his agenda"

[stray cat]

3. How long did we give Bush to mess it up - repairs usually take longer than destruction

[JonQ]

4. So greater than 8 years

that will be tricky, what with term limits and all.

[sandnsea]

6. We've been on this path since Reagan

Really, until workers get their fair share again, the economic problems will never be fixed.

Endless war is a whole other issue. Another path that Reagan really set us on with this proxy wars all over the planet, including Afghanistan that we're currently suffering the blowback from.

Yes, it's going to take a long time and the only thing to make it go faster is really to go to red states and counties and educate the idiots.

[Sinti]

13. +1 n/t

[JonQ]

16. How long would it take

with complete control of congress to shut down gitmo, legalize gay marriage, and reverse DADT? How about to kick all the lobbyists out of DC?

There are plenty of promises that could have been completed by now, with sufficient will to do so.

He had enough time to approve massive payouts to wallstreet, and flying to copenhagen to campaign for the olympics.

I think priorities are an issue here. And right now they're scattered around in to meaningless trivia.

[ProSense]

20. Why not say how long it should take?

You seem to know. How long? Ten months?

[JonQ]

22. Let's see

kicking lobbyists out, immediate.
Gay marriage/DADT about a month.

Gitmo, perhaps up to 10 months to find adequate holding cells for all of them.

[ProSense]

26. Well, there you have it. Let's compare your list

kicking lobbyists out, immediate.
Gay marriage/DADT about a month.

Gitmo, perhaps up to 10 months to find adequate holding cells for all of them.

..to a brief list of what the President has done/is doing.

• Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities
  
  
• Lobbyists on Agency Boards and Commissions
  
  
• Obama Slaps Congress, Lobbyists In Push For Consumer Protection Agency (VIDEO, REMARKS)
  
  
• Weeding out the Bushies
  
  
• ACLU on trying detainees in federal court: "a major victory for due process and the rule of law"
  
  
• Largest withdrawal of troops and materiel since Vietnam
  
  
• Cao: Obama Administration ‘Has Been Tremendous’ For New Orleans On Katrina Recovery Effort

[JonQ]

30. There are still lobbyists in DC

gitmo is still open, DADT/gay marriage bans are still the law of the land.

So, what has he accomplished?

BTW, linking to his personal webpage about what he wants to accomplish is not the same as proving actual accomplishments.

[ProSense]

32. You expected all the lobbyist in DC to be gone by now? Every last one of them?

"gitmo is still open, DADT/gay marriage bans are still the law of the land...So, what has he accomplished?

BTW, linking to his personal webpage about what he wants to accomplish is not the same as proving actual accomplishments."

OK, I'll accept that you are in the category that has concluded that the Obama Presidency is already failure. As I said, there will be some.

[JonQ]

36. Conclude whatever makes you need to

Just don't pretend your conclusions = fact.

"You expected all the lobbyist in DC to be gone by now? Every last one of them?"

No, that was just my sincere hope for some change change finally. I guess I should have expected business as usual.

[ProSense]

37. "Just don't pretend your conclusions = fact." You haven't made a single logical case, and now this

"No, that was just my sincere hope for some change change finally. "

That isn't a fact either, it's an unrealistic expectation.

The fact is that you simply will not concede that President Obama has accomplished anything. Fact or not?

[JonQ]

38. I haven't?

So I haven't mentioned any concrete promises that have not been fulfilled?

Are you sure you don't suffer from a learning disability? I'd feel bad for arguing with someone who has a real disorder.

"The fact is that you simply will not concede that President Obama has accomplished anything. Fact or not?"

Oh he has accomplished a few things, like getting us the olympics (snicker), just not much of note. And he could have accomplished far more by this time of relevance.

You realize that consistently lowering your standards for the president is not really a compliment?

[GCP]

78. Funny - he seems to be increasing his own quota of lobbyists

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898&page=1&page=1

He's a bitter disappointment to me.

[JonQ]

87. But those lobbyists are ok

he meant he was going to get rid of those other lobbyists, you know, the bad ones.

[NoUsername]

132. Sssshhhh. You're not supposed to bring up those kinds of things.

After all, Obama has been a HUGH!!!HHH success. Hey, c'mon now. We have that top .01% of the population that has benefited greatly from his policies so that has to count for something. You hater you. :evilgrin:

Sorry to hear you're disappointed in him. Sadly, he's done pretty much as I expected. And that's not a compliment by any means.

[sandnsea]

70. If you want to throw out the Constitution

and representative government, 24 hours.

Then again, people who want a massive FDR program while ignoring what FDR did with the banks and the FDIC - aren't going to be able to understand the concept of votes that reflect the will of the constituent.

In other words, you have to change the way the majority in Arkansas think before their representatives are going to change their votes. It's called Democracy. You do still believe in Democracy - right?

[JonQ]

88. Because it takes throwing out the constitution

for a democratic president with a democratic majority in both houses to enact legislation.

[sandnsea]

89. Well clearly we don't have the votes

Right? So what would you suggest?

[JonQ]

90. The votes for what?

refusing to see lobbyists requires no votes. All others require a majority, which has been slowly pissed away.

[sandnsea]

92. The Sierra Club lobbyists? Union lobbyists? Gay rights lobbyists?

If they see the union lobbyist, which they absolutely should, don't they kind of have an obligation to see the auto manufacturers' lobbyist? Etc etc etc.

[JonQ]

93. Kick them all out

and try being beholden to the voters for a change.

He stated that it would be illegal for a lobbyist to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.".

But he included a loophole and violated that premise very quickly.

[sandnsea]

94. I donate to the Sierra Club

so that they will pay attention to legislation that I don't have time to. My son pays his union dues for the same reason. When they give someone a salary to live in Washington DC and pay attention to legislation, it's okay with me.

I'm a voter. Lots of voters feel the same as I do.

So you think you should just ramrod over the top of us and we should just sit down and shut up.

Funny thing is, I can tell by the randomness of your arguments that you really don't give a crap about any of this. Are you really that bored? Wouldn't your time be better spent, oh I don't know, coloring?

[JonQ]

98. And special interest groups/lobbyists have a purpose

they can collect such data and provide it to their members, they can pass information on to government officials. They should not however be writing legislation.

"I'm a voter. Lots of voters feel the same as I do."

And lots don't. Especially those who voted for obama at least in part for his anti-lobbyist stance during the campaign. Unfortunately that appears to be simply a promise, not a real plan.

"So you think you should just ramrod over the top of us and we should just sit down and shut up."

Oh yeah, cry for the poor lobbyists who simply can't have their voices heard. :eyes:

"Funny thing is, I can tell by the randomness of your arguments that you really don't give a crap about any of this. Are you really that bored? Wouldn't your time be better spent, oh I don't know, coloring?"

Classic tactic. I posted a well thought out and poignant response to this thread. IN response you and others have thrown random hypotheticals at me. I responded to those. You use my subsequent responses as "proof" that I have no clear direction and am all over the map.

Here's an example:
me: obama should keep to his campaign promises, so far he hasn't done a great job.
you: what about kicking out the sierra club and other lobbyists that I like.
me: yes that would be included in his promises
you: oh wow you're all over the place, launching attacks on obama the sierra club, everyone. Your arguments are so random and fragmented.
me: sigh.

[sandnsea]

100. "cry for the poor lobbyists"

Oh yes, that is a well thought out and poignant response.

Groups from the Sierra Club to Head Start to unions to consumer advocates use lobbyists. Anybody who goes to Washington to affect legislation, and gets paid for it, is a lobbyist. If you want a change in the Patriot Act and you get paid to try to make that change happen, you're a lobbyist. If you want to change marijuana legislation, and you get paid for that work, you're a lobbyist.

Would you prefer Congress operate without the input of all these groups? Should we eliminate the requirement that all of these people register? Do you want to go back to smoke-filled rooms when we had no idea what was going on?

The reason you know which lobbyists are doing what is because a series of legislators made sure there was a process to disclose who they are. Much more needs to be done.

Pretending it's as simple as throwing all the lobbyists out of Washington is immature and naive.

[JonQ]

102. Yeah actuall that's what you were saying

those poor lobbyists need to be heard.

Who said they couldn't have a voice? Merely that they should have no official position, and no real power or influence above and beyond the constituents they represent.

You are clearly not thinking straight if you believe lobbyists are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[dflprincess]

110. The problem isn't with the lobbyists.

It's with the checks the lobbyists write. Any group may attempt to persuade a Congressperson to their point of view with debate. It's the bribes, I mean campaign contributions, that are the problem.

[JonQ]

117. Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at

kick them out of DC is more of a figurative than literal term.

They are free to represent their members, collect data, write letters, etc. But they shouldn't be writing legislature, or unduly influencing policy.

[Go2Peace]

80. True, but we must turn around, not simply slow the acceleration. We need fundamental reform, not

just in HC.
And in some policies, like the free trade agreement now being discussed, Obama is actually accellerating the curve instead of moving in another direction.

I think he is making some serious strategic mistakes. You can blame it all you want on the *growing* discontent. Or you can accept that people are not satisfied and consider the merits of the arguments.

I think what you are seeing on this board is that the president is beginning to get out of synch with the base. He is not even throwing them a few "bones". This happens all the time in politics. But that does not mean it is a good thing. And it may come back and really hurt him and we may all suffer a serious setback.

But folks on here are blaming the wrong people. Instead those who have the ear of party officials and washington on this board, and elsewhere, really need to engage and get the President and congress to start listening better. That is what I am doing. I refuse to sit back and cheerlead, because in politics THAT DOES NOT WORK, unless of course we are talking the Republican machine, which really does not care about the people. That way of doing things won't work with the democratic party and is innefective in achieving what people want. It only works for corporations.

[sandnsea]

82. I think the real base is thrilled

And I think, once again, the left puts themselves completely out of the debate because they are so far out of touch they sound like right wingers half the time.

When you sound like a teabagger, it's time to take a step back and ask yourself where your objectivity is.

Trade. What the hell are you talking about? He's barely had 5 minutes to pay attention to trade. He's trying to work with the rest of the world to keep us from having to eat grass. People on this board can't face the reality that the economy is completely destroyed because trillions of dollars have vanished. It is a pure miracle that we aren't at 50% unemployment. Trade? Yesterday I made a call for my daughter about her mortgage. To India. Obviously there are trade problems. But there is also a reality. You can't force Bank of America to do business in the US. Do you understand that? You can't. You can make it sensible for them to leave and take all of their income to some other country. But you can't force them to stay. And the other 95% of the world deserves economic prosperity just as much as we do. They have a right to jobs and indoor plumbing and electricity and food every day. So how do you recognize their right to a better life while not allowing our consumers and corporations to exploit them - and not destroy our economy in the process. You think that's easy??

Cheerlead? Maybe you guys like to use that word because you don't actually know how to do any legislating or governing.

[Go2Peace]

83. Teabagger - Yep, resort to namecalling of your fellow Democrats

Yep, you take the high ground there. It's just so hard for you to understand that not everyone has the same ideology as you do?

[sandnsea]

91. Well let's compare, shall we

Teabaggers want NAFTA ended and isolationism. They oppose the health reform mandates. They oppose the supposed give-aways to banks and corporations. They oppose the stimulus. They say the President isn't focusing on jobs. They complain he hasn't gotten rid of all the lobbyists. They complain that he went to Copenhagen. The list goes on and on.

What would you call a person who repeats what the teabaggers say more than they support the Democratic President?

Everybody does not have the same ideology. Exactly. That's why it's not easy to wave a magic wand and solve every problem in ten minutes. Unless you want a dictatorship.

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. Inquiring minds would like to know.

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

10. Then think about it.

It's subjective really. One could use the measure of what past Presidents have been able to achieve, factoring in the challenges that each administration faced, and try to come up with an appropriate time frame.

Most rational people would likely take the facts into consideration and conclude that it's more than 10 months. If someone did believe he should have accomplished his entire agenda in 10 months, that person would likely consider the Obama Presidency a failure at this point. Still, appropriate is subjective, as is realistic.

[JonQ]

18. Entire agenda?

no that is unreasonable.

Part of his agenda with the groundwork or at least proposals laid for the rest of his agenda for the next 3 years? Yes, that is a reasonable expectation. We're coming up on 1 year in office. Max he gets about 7 more.

At some point something needs to be accomplished. But I imagine if it continues like this then on his 7th year people will still be saying he hasn't been given enough time to accomplish what he wants.

[ProSense]

19. "Part of his agenda with the groundwork or at least proposals laid"

Who determines which part gets worked on first?

"At some point something needs to be accomplished."

Are you saying nothing has been accomplished? And what do you mean by "at some point"?

[JonQ]

23. "Who determines which part gets worked on first? "

Allegedly the president does, but I haven't seen that yet.

"Are you saying nothing has been accomplished? And what do you mean by "at some point"?"

What has been accomplished of note? The stimulus and cash for clunkers didn't go so well, the bailout that he continued was mostly a handout to bankers and financial companies. So what?

And at some point, well presumably before the end of his term, but I imagine that would be rushing him too much for some people.

[TCJ70]

8. Same question here...

...there should be something to cite, besides simply inspirational speeches, to indicate forward motion on the issues the OP brings up. We're just about a quarter of the way through Obama's presidency...let's see some leadership for the house and senate from the White House.

[ProSense]

14. "to indicate forward motion on the issues the OP brings up"

For example:

• Lobbyists on Agency Boards and Commissions
  
  
• Obama Slaps Congress, Lobbyists In Push For Consumer Protection Agency (VIDEO, REMARKS)
  
  
• Weeding out the Bushies
  
  
• ACLU on trying detainees in federal court: "a major victory for due process and the rule of law"
  
  
• Largest withdrawal of troops and materiel since Vietnam
  
  
• Cao: Obama Administration ‘Has Been Tremendous’ For New Orleans On Katrina Recovery Effort

There is so much more, from health care reform to government transparency.

[jpak]

81. longer than you think he does

n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Not here he doesn't....

All he has to do is issue a few signing statements, and Bob's your uncle

[opihimoimoi]

9. The SOB GOP should thank their Stars P Obama is in there...his passes

so far have been more than good. a few dropped but over all, his quarterbacking has been stellar....swimmingly better than the Bushy ....who was inept as they come...maybe worse...

The GOPiacs DROOL they could find someone like him....in fact, many are closet Dems but cannot reveal themselves for social/corp reasons...

The GOP Bench is so shallow they are seriesly looking at a Hucky Palin combo....some heavy GOPiacs are thinking just wait it out..."the Dems will screw it up"

The Picture appears bright for the Nation...far better than under the Shrub

[Swamp Rat]

11. yes

[HughMoran]

12. I wonder why it was assumed that we would get "instant gratification"?

Well, I'm not completely surprised that some had high expectations based on the "selling" of his agenda (which helped get him elected), but I am surprised that anybody on DU (who we assume are politically savvy) would have thought that any politician would be able to turn the system on its head in just 10 months. Besides, in spite of his optimism, Obama always stated that it would take a team effort and that he couldn't get it done without us (especially politically active people like us on DU.) I feel that Obama gets an A- for his efforts thus far and that DU gets an F for our Failure to to support Obama and his aggressive agenda.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. We have a responsibilty to speak out when we think our government is moving to slow...

or failing to move at all.

No, he doesn't desrve the time. It is his job.

[ProSense]

17. "No, he doesn't desrve the time. It is his job." What?

He doesn't deserve time to do his job?

[Ozymanithrax]

145. He doesn't deserve the time to sit without coment from his own base.

We elected him, he damn well better listen to us. If we don't tell him what we want, there is no chance anything close will ever enacted.

Citizens should never sit back and give the President time. It is our responsibility to petition our government.

[Overseas]

156. It is awkward for those who tell us not to criticize, that the president himself

has asked us to tell him what we want and voice our opinions on policy directions.

The right wing was able to silence progressive Democrats the last time we had a Democratic president, with their merciless, unrelenting attacks. Many of us kept silent because we thought good Democrats ought to stand by our president who was under attack-- so we didn't push for national health insurance more vigorously, we didn't push hard enough against NAFTA, etc.

So some of us have come to see one of the major goals the right wing attack machine as curbing the progressive directions our president may want to take.

Our president, having anticipated the right wing attack machine going into overdrive if he won, asked us to speak up and keep in touch about what we wanted. We did so and were treated to some sad marginalization, even as we saw our president's team working hard to win over a 1% bipartisan senate vote on health care and to incorporate some of the less hard line right wing Republicans into the Obama Administration.

I had hoped our president would use economic pragmatism and national emergency to steam ahead with urgently needed reforms.
-- Single payer makes the most sense economically and any triggers of human decency have long ago blown off the hinges in our privatized health insurance system. He could have urged Democratic legislators to go ahead and start with that as the system to beat.
-- The financial crisis was engendered through too much deregulation urged along by the same people who were incorporated into his treasury department and key advisers.
-- We need green jobs and an innovative way of presenting them, which Van Jones seemed well poised to do. But we allowed right wing magnification of his having admitted he'd like some of the public's unanswered questions about 9-11 addressed drive him off their team.
-- The Bush Wars contributed to our national bankruptcy and continue to drain our treasury and make us less secure militarily. So yes I'm glad we are still proceeding toward withdrawal from Iraq, and are finally holding back against the pressures to escalate in Afghanistan.
-- I've been delighted to see our president's diplomatic moves. His approach to other countries as though the USA actually respects their sovereignty and is willing to negotiate before bombing opposition to smithereens is very welcome to me. I admire his diplomatic efforts.
-- I've been glad Eric Holder has kept investigating various aspects of the Bush Gang's treasonous and illegal activities, and is proceeding with returning our country to the rule of law rather than the Bush Gang's cronyism. But I want a more thorough prosecution of Bush Cheney crimes. I think that would help the whole country understand the need for more dramatic changes in all areas of our national endeavor-- from how we conduct warfare to how we conduct business.

But yes, I am giving President Obama time. Yes, I am thinking about the complexities of undoing the far reaching destructive policies of the Bush Gang. Yes, I am also thinking about how tough it is to go up against the great power of our military industrial complex and other multinational corporate conglomerates.

But President Obama has asked us citizens to speak up and tell him what we want. So I am doing a bit of that too. To balance out the intense amoral right wing PR machines, funded with lots of corporate cash, that have stirred up desperate people to scream against good government in order to protect private profits.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. He has time. 4 years to be exact.

It is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold their public servants accountable in a democracy. No matter what letter they have after their name.

[Andronex]

24. When you are in a hole, you stop digging...

that is all progressives are asking of the Obama administration.

[Go2Peace]

62. +1

The reason progressives support the President with Reservations is because we want and believe that only FUNDAMENTAL change can fix our problems. So far the Obama administration is following the traditional semi-libertarian, model. He is not making, nor even advocating, fundamental changes to the way we do things. He seems to be "tweaking". This approach will not get us where we need to be.

When will you guys get that most of us we LIKE Obama, and we appreciate him, but his approach and policies are simply not strong enough, nor sustainable enough. I like my uncle who drives a gas guzzling SUV and spends himself into debt to the point that he will be on the streets if he loses his job. But that does not mean I think he is living his life wisely.

We are democrats just as much as those who obviously differ in their politics on the need for fundamental change. It sure would be nice if folks here would accept that. We don't all have to be cheerleaders to be a Democrat. And we won't be.

[Oregone]

25. The problem isnt moving too slow. Its that on some issues, he is going in the wrong direction

The political spectrum isnt some 2 dimensional line with Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other, giving any president an infinite amount of time to simply slog towards their goalpost. While he clearly is in the early part of his presidency, the action that he has taken on some issues (health care, climate change, stimulus, war, bailout, etc), arent even in the ballpark.

This whole time debate is a bit of a strawman. No one expected problems to go away overnight. They expected that the people were the emphasis of the solution to the problems, instead of a third-way approach that attempts to make all parties happy at once.

[ProSense]

29. "No one expected problems to go away overnight."

"While he clearly is in the early part of his presidency, the action that he has taken on some issues (health care, climate change, stimulus, war, bailout, etc), arent even in the ballpark."

Those two statements appear to contradict each other. Health care has already cleared all five committees and has been passed by the House. Withdrawal from Iraq is in progress.

Not everyone agrees that he's going in the wrong direction.

[Oregone]

35. There is no contradiction. The point couldnt be clearer.

His approach and direction, not the progress/time, is the problem. Rather than entering the fray with a progressive approach, he seems to be taking a Clinonist Third-Way approach (which should make Clinton fans happy, no doubt).

Yes, health insurance reform has pass committees and there is progress there. Some would cite it is the wrong progress on the issue--that it institutionalizes private carriers and their expensive profits that the country will forever have to shill out for while struggling to remain competative.

With Iraq, dont hold your breath until its over. He is essentially following the Bush SOFA withdrawl agreement for the time being, while shifting those forces to Afhganistan. In other words, re-arranging the deckchairs. I see no end in sight to the overall military action the US is engaged in throughout the world.

It isnt the amount of progress that is the issue. Its the direction. Your response is to cite benchmarks of "progress", but that is clearly not what I am even talking about.

[ProSense]

41. No, it could have been a lot clearer because now you say

this, "Yes, health insurance reform has pass committees and there is progress there" and this "With Iraq, dont hold your breath until its over."

Which contradicts your claim that they aren't "out of the ballpark"

[Oregone]

44. (facepalm)

"out of the ballpark" -- WTF does that mean?

"arent even in the ballpark" is what I said. "In the ballpark" is a popular expression. It means "in the area of", or "in the proximity of"

IOW, his approach so far on some issues is not in the desirable political quadrant (if you see the political spectrum as more of a 3 dimensional plane).

More explanation of a more complex political spectrum:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

example:


The time argument against dissenters is a straw man. Its the direction thats the percieved problem, which centrists don't even want to seriously debate

[ProSense]

46. An error, but the point is still valid

"in the ballpark," yes "in the proximity of" and yes health care is in the proximity of passing.

[Oregone]

47. Ive met dining tables more intelligent than some online posters

Sure, its ready to pass, but some people are not content with what is passing. Its not a time argument. Its a direction argument. Figure it out.


The error is your reading comprehension

[ProSense]

50. Some people feign intelligence

"Sure, its ready to pass, but some people are not content with what is passing. "

Let's revisit your statement:


"While he clearly is in the early part of his presidency, the action that he has taken on some issues (health care, climate change, stimulus, war, bailout, etc), arent even in the ballpark. "

Now, if you meant the content (no, not refering to happy) of the bill, what does it being early in his Presidency have to do with the content?

Can you see how "early part of his presidency" and "in the ballpark" creates the impression that you are referring to time frame?

And don't say it's out of context, the rest doesn't make much sense:

"This whole time debate is a bit of a strawman. No one expected problems to go away overnight. They expected that the people were the emphasis of the solution to the problems, instead of a third-way approach that attempts to make all parties happy at once."


So, yes, you could have been a lot clearer.

[Oregone]

51. You aren't one of them

Baaaah. The sheep went that away. I think they were chasing some straw

[ProSense]

52. "The sheep went that away. " Typical. n/t

[Oregone]

53. Petty strawman arguments--typical

Tit for tat. All fuckn day. Yeah. Go message your fan club for support; yall got some staw to eat

[ProSense]

55. "Tit for tat. All fuckn day. Yeah. Go message your fan club for support; yall got some staw to eat"

Your debating skills are pathetic.

[Oregone]

56. Im not debating. Im laughing at somone who can't post without creating a logical fallacy

Go find something to cut and paste now. Your herd is hungry

[ProSense]

58. I suspect a lot of people are laughing at you. n/t

[Oregone]

59. Oh snap. Call Nick Cannon from Wild N Out

[ProSense]

61. What? n/t

[Oregone]

64. I was commenting on how cool your burn was. Its like middle school all over again

You are definitely a Pro, eh?

Yo mama so fat that you just love corporate health insurance reform, yo?

Why would I debate you at this point on anything? Ive never seen you debate. Its cutting and pasting, posting random links, quoting out of context, straw mans, red herrings, etc. You are now joke status to me. Eat it up

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

120. I think that's an idiotic statement. n/t

[Zodiak]

141. I see it the same way

This DUer has become nothing but a propagandist. Not intellectually honest. It's like talking to a recording. Heck, most of the links this one posts (and this one is CONSTANTLY posting links), have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[Captain Hilts]

122. Okay, I laughed. nt

[paulk]

116. one thing I'd like to address from your post -

Clinton didn't try a 3rd way approach until the Republicans had taken over Congress - in his first two years he was far more progressive than Obama has been - trying to get universal healthcare not tied to employment (and failing), trying to let gays in the military (DADT was a compromise that no one was happy with), rescinding the Reagan era tax cuts on the wealthy (Obama has declined to try this with the Bush Tax cuts). It's not an unreasonable argument to make that Clinton's progressiveness cost the Democratic Party in the '94 election cycle.

I suppose this is what Obama is afraid of - moving too far to the left and causing huge losses in the 2010 elections - but still, with the Democratic majorities we enjoy he has
shown a real lack of political courage in moving an agenda that is remotely progressive - unless he actually is a conservative Dem to begin with - then his actions would make a lot more sense...

[Raineyb]

40. +1 Exactly!

It's the same problems with the economy. We have at Treasury secretary who was part of the problem when the economic system went to hell in a hand basket and we're supposed to trust the same people who caused the problem to fix it? How is anyone supposed to have any faith in it being fixed when the same people who broke it are in charge?

[slipslidingaway]

48. + 2 - "This whole time debate is a bit of a strawman..."

:thumbsup:

:applause:

[Oregone]

49. Yes, and its a strawman they just wont stop perpetrating

Forget honest debate. Its still happening:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7015011&mesg_id=7015766

For the love of God, eh? What do you have to do? Draw a map with crayons?

[slipslidingaway]

69. Not sure the map with crayons will be enough...

went back and forth on the meaning of OR not too long ago with the same poster.

Apparently the OR in the paragraph below gives the government the right to choose for you, ANY American does not have the choice.

:crazy:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"(2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a
National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are
uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to
enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan..."

[Go2Peace]

67. Yes, we already have enough indications of the Policy preferences

And progressive, ahem, *DEMOCRATs*, are not satisfied and want more fundamentally change in policy, and we believe that the country needs it or we cannot sustain our standard of living and standards overall.

There is nothing wrong with that. And we are just as much "Democrats" as anyone else.

[slipslidingaway]

76. Yes, bringing in some of the same people who helped create the financial...

mess to head up the economic team was not inspiring.

[Go2Peace]

65. Exactly. Progressives are democrats too. We have fundamental differences that are "OK" to express

we don't all have to agree and it is tiring those who just want to try and make everyone have the same views toward the current policies.

Se my post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7015011&mesg_id=7015915

[ProSense]

66. So there are no progressives who support President Obama or agree with his policies?

Why do you assume that people who don't agree with you are not progressive?

[Go2Peace]

71. "Progressive" is term everyone wants to be part of, but Obama's policies are not progressive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Read up on it a bit.

Prosense, of course you like to peg people and make them think that if they have serious disagreements with Obama's direction then

"we can't be properly supportive" > we must then be "part of a problem" > we must be "wrong" > we can't really "be Democrats" > or we should "get on board"

But you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of democracy and the history of the democratic party and you should really stop labling those who don't feel as "enthusiastic" and "uncritical" as you do as "innapropriate" or "invalid".

However, I really don't expect you to look inward and examine the way you approach this.

Understanding in this way does not seem to be forthcoming yet, but surely you must understand that there is a growing discontent, and you and others who are having such a hard time understanding it would be best to listen more carefully. Because it is not going to change by willing it away or alienating. Nor by making enthusiastic posts and trying to get everyone "onboard". We all are as intelligent as you are. You would be better to try and understand those with different views than mocking us.

[ProSense]

79. Maybe you should read the OP again.

"Prosense, of course you like to peg people and make them think that if they have serious disagreements with Obama's direction then ..."

In fact, even the title proves this statement inaccurate. You want to disagree with Obama, fine, but don't jump into every OP and twist the point simply to further your insistence that Obama is wrong and everyone who makes a point supportive of him is trying to shut people up.

[Go2Peace]

84. OK,

Trying to shout over everyone by posting essentially the same thing over and over is trying to shut others up.

I'm onto you prosense. Know exactly what you do here. And I will continue to post my opinion thank you.

[ProSense]

97. "I'm onto you prosense. Know exactly what you do here."

You really are full of yourself aren't you? You're onto me?

"And I will continue to post my opinion thank you."

Is it OK with you if I continue to post mine?

[G_j]

74. +1000

[Raineyb]

27. Duh! But when he does things that will exacerbate rather than

ameliorate those things have to be pointed out which for whatever reason you don't much care to hear.

[freddie mertz]

28. Some things take time, but that is no excuse for some OTHER things.

The knuckle-dragging on DOMA and DADT, plus WH statements like gay marriage should be "left to the sates" are infuriating and inexcusable, and the hand's-off, let congress do it approach to hHCR has not exactly gone well.

[ProSense]

31. You are arguing about what he should have tackled first.

Congress has to repeal both DOMA and DADT, and there will certainly be a fight. Now, you could say that these should have been the priority, but what would you have put off, that is kick down the road a few months?

[freddie mertz]

34. He could (and should) have acted on the first day on all of these...

But he didn't.

And with each day, it becomes less (not more) likely that action will be taken.

The right wing of the party has long since moved to take control of the legislative agenda, in case you haven't noticed...

[ProSense]

39. So he should have done everything from day one?

That is basically what you are saying. There are people who are criticizing the President for tackling health care before financial reform, and those who believe the environment should come before financial reform. Everyone wants something else done yesterday.

[freddie mertz]

43. He could have suspended enforcement of DADT

Pending a swift preparation of legislation.

And he could have announced that he was going to submit a bill to congress on DOMA in the next sentence.

I realize he had a lot on his plate, and that the suspension might have attracted controversy and/or legal challenges, but he DID run on those issues as campaign promises, and IMHO moving fast is better than not moving at all.

And the momentum is slipping rather quickly away from us on these sort of so-called "social" issues... as you must have noticed.

[ProSense]

45. "I realize he had a lot on his plate, and

that the suspension might have attracted controversy and/or legal challenges, but he DID run on those issues as campaign promises, and IMHO moving fast is better than not moving at all."

He campaigned on a lot of things, including withdrawing from Iraq and passing health care. "Legal challenges" is an understatement for the battle that would have ensued had Obama singlehandedly decided to ignore existing law.

[freddie mertz]

57. Yes. that is true,

But an injustice is taking place that is 1. weakening our military and 2. ruining the lives of citizens who seek to serve their country.

Besides, if he did do it, I know you would be among his most vociferous supporters here, and would soon supply a long link-filled post with scores of sources justifying his actions.

No matter what..

So what's the loss?

Peace out.

[malaise]

33. Yes

Rec

[Brigid]

42. Of course he deserves time.

He didn't create this mess ,and he is scrubbing as fast as he can to get it cleaned up. Ever notice that it usually takes far longer to clean up a mess than it does to make it? Also, he has been faced with difficult choices to make thanks to the previous regime's actions.

I think that we have become comepletely unaccustomed to having someone of Obama's steady temperament in the White House. It doesn't play very well in today's 24-hour new cycle world, and we Americans don't do "patient" very well anyway. I think we'd better learn how, becasue we don't have much choice if we're ever going to get this country back on track.

I have only one gripe: For reasons I don't understand, Obama seems to feel obliged to be accommodating to the Repugs. I think he needs to quit wasting time on that right away. They're going to bitch and moan and obstruct no matter what he does, so why bother with them?

[Tx4obama]

63. He's giving the repubs enough rope to hang themselves....

I believe he will come out fighting in his second year and he will be able to say to the American public that he gave them one year to work with him and that they did NOT.

[Go2Peace]

73. I think we all feel as you just expressed. The problem seems to be that some on DU want everyone to

just shut up and sit back. This is all part of the democratic process and part of what people who are engaged do in a political discussion. But several on this board want to keep trying to push everyone's buttons by posting these posts over and over.

I am not sure if we can expect anythign better on a board like this. But if the OP really wants to support Obama, the effort would be better spent trying to understand and working to unite people behind a set of objectives. Not trying to get everyone in the party to think that we have the perfect in place.

[ProSense]

77. "just shut up and sit back. " How is this OP advocating any such thing?

"I am not sure if we can expect anythign better on a board like this. But if the OP really wants to support Obama, the effort would be better spent trying to understand and working to unite people behind a set of objectives. Not trying to get everyone in the party to think that we have the perfect in place."

What utter nonsense. How does this OP claim that the Obama administration is perfect?

It appears some people think name calling and distorting facts are a unify force.

[Go2Peace]

85. LOL, Not Obama, that is what you are essentially advocating

Of course you will "protest" that is not the case. Waiting for that reply any moment. You seem to think people are stupid. What you do is very clear here.
Go ahead and continue, but don't go accusing others because they see through it.

[ProSense]

96. Obama? I asked how the OP is advocating that people should shut up?

How?

[MadHound]

54. Trouble is, he's making things worse in some areas, and not moving at all in many other areas

I have no trouble giving him time to right the wrongs created by others. I have a huge problems with him expanding wars and promoting a corporate agenda at home.

[Individualist]

75. +1

[Toucano]

86. +1

[ProSense]

95. So he's making things worse or doing nothing. That's it?

"I have a huge problems with him expanding wars..."

Isn't he in the process of ending the Iraq war?

[MadHound]

118. Ending? No.

Obama himself has stated that he plans on keeping between 35,000-50,000 troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future in order to "train Iraqi troops" and "fight terrorists". So while he is decreasing our troop levels, he is certainly not ending the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile he's already increased our troop commitment in Afghanistan, and could very well expand it further.

These are not the actions of a man looking for peace, this looks like more of the same American imperialism only dressed up in Democratic clothes.

[ProSense]

119. "he plans on keeping between 35,000-50,000 troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future " Wrong.

All combat troops out by August 2010 and all troops out by the end of 2011. That is the timeline.

[MadHound]

123. Oh, yeah, that's right, but didn't he originally say all troops out within 16 months?

Isn't that one of those famous "campaign promises" that some people like to spout off about around here? Well gee, 2011 is a lot longer than sixteen months, and hey, don't forget, that deal can be renegotiated.

Meanwhile he looks to be settling down for a nice long quagmire in Afghanistan.

[ProSense]

124. No, he had originally said all combat troops out in 16 months. n/t

[MadHound]

125. No, he originally said ALL troops,

Then in the late summer of 2007 he started "clarifying" his statements, actually changing them, and stating that all combat troops.

But hey, really now, what member of the Army or Marines, what grunt on the ground is a "non-combat troop"? They still have guns in their hands, they're still going to be going out on missions, they're still going to be killing and dying:shrug:

Meanwhile those words just keep weaseling away.

[ProSense]

127. That's not accurate:

Combat troops could be out of Iraq within 19 months

Obama's campaign pledge was to withdraw combat troops within 16 months. But shortly after taking office, he asked Pentagon and military commanders for an analysis of other time frames.

[MadHound]

128. Thanks for proving my point,

First sixteen months, then nineteen, first all troops (Go read S. 433, 110th Congress), now leave some behind. Weasel, weasel, weasel.

And meanwhile, there is Afghanistan, which I notice that you're studiously avoiding talking about.

[ProSense]

129. Proving your point? It wasn't all troops, it was combat troops. n/t

[MadHound]

131. Again, go read S. 433, that Obama introduced in 2007, ALL the troops, within SIXTEEN months

Not just combat troops, not nineteen months or longer. ALL troops, SIXTEEN months.

It's late, I'm going to bed, but hey, keep deluding yourself about Obama. But when 2012 rolls around and we still have troops in Iraq, don't say you weren't warned.

[ProSense]

133. Here:

(2) SCOPE AND MANNER OF REDEPLOYMENT- The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section shall be substantial, shall occur in a gradual manner, and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group, if all the matters set forth in subsection (b)(1)(B) are not met by such date, subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes as contemplated by subsection (g).

[Junkdrawer]

60. First rule of holes...

stop digging.

[anonymous171]

68. Yep. He has four years. If he fails, he does not get my vote. That is all. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

99. Up your strawman

No one who is at all reasonable is saying he should have it all fixed :snap: right now.

Reasonable people are concerned about direction.

[ProSense]

101. "No one who is at all reasonable is saying he should have it all fixed :snap: right now."

At least a couple of them are in this thread.

[Stinky The Clown]

104. Maybe they're not reasonable?

Maybe they're deeply disappointed with the results this far of their vote?

Didja ask them?

[ProSense]

105. Maybe. Still, the OP made a point, and as you can see

from some of the responses it's not a strawman.

[Stinky The Clown]

112. Actually, I do see it as a strawman

It is a way to shut off discussion of why some of us are quite disappointed.

As I said, while I have often been snarkily told to stop asking for a pony, the fact is, I have actual concerns - not about outcomes, bit about tactics and direction. And there is no way I would ever have voted for Palin and her pet geezer. Or for Dennis (much as I agree with him on many more issues than I do with Obama). Or for any of the others. I supported Obama. Not as enthusiastically as some, but I supported him and never had any other candidate that I put ahead of him. I'm also not broadly down on him. Just on specific issues. The unfortunate part is, however, that list of issues is growing.

[ProSense]

113. "It is a way to shut off discussion of why some of us are quite disappointed."

That's absolute nonsense. I can't even believe anyone is trying to advance that bogus argument.

Where the hell in the OP does it even imply that there should be no discussion?

Bogus!

[freddie mertz]

149. Well it is more than implied that any criticism is at least premature.

I still wonder if you could ever disagree with the president.

[HughMoran]

130. Most ridiculous post ever

shut down discussion? :rofl:


...on DU? :rofl:

How can you say something so entirely without merit and with a straight face?

Shut down discussion - HAH!!!

:rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

134. "ever"?

Really?

:snort:

[HughMoran]

135. lol - some hyperbole is good

I think we all use it to good effect ;)

[unkachuck]

103. No....he's had enough time....n/t

[YvonneCa]

106. YES. Unequivocally yes...

... YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES !!! :7

[G_j]

107. I think we all know the smorgasbord of awful Bush policies by now.

what do think we've been discussing for eight years?

[akbacchus_BC]

109. Yes President Obama needs more time to clean up the pile of shit

he has inherited. Please do not get me wrong, I admire PBO, but he needs to tell the Repugs to piss off, trying to be bipartisan is not working. Also, why are so many Dems voting against progressive bills, for example, health care reform. Who are these Dems voting against their own party? Perhaps, this is the time for the voters to campaign against the Dems who are voting with the Republicans! Just an idea!

Lurking on here for three years and finally joining, there are some excellent voices here who know what needs to be done, any idea if some of you can run for office, like community service, etc?

[donheld]

111. Only if we want him to do it right.

[YvonneCa]

126. ...

... :thumbsup:

[depakid]

114. Up to this point, the Justice Department is a disgrace

Toturers, banksters, fraudsters- even the guys from Peanut Corp who knowingly poisoned thousands of Americans are walking around scot free- thumbing their noses at all of us.

No excuse for that.

[FarLeftFist]

121. After 8 yrs of Bush trashing our economy and disregarding the Constitution

I seriously believe it will take about 6 yrs to fix the 8 yrs worth of bad policies. We all know how hard it is to get anything done in DC.

[freddie mertz]

136. Is there anything the president had done or said that you disagree with?

Is that even a possibility?

Your function here is clear: to mount a constant defense of any and all statements and/pr actions from the White House.

What I'm wondering is: is there a PERSON anywhere in all of this?

Do you ever have doubts, frustrations, and worries like the rest of this?

Do you perform this function on your own, as a committed if perhaps overly zealous, without any compensation or links to an organization of institution?

Or do you work for some group or institution that supports you in this effort?

I there a beating heart behind the machine?

[Political Heretic]

140. It's kind of spooky when someone is this committed to defending a politician

Seems like an emotional fixation on a leader that's far from healthy.

[ProSense]

146. "Seems like an emotional fixation on a leader that's far from healthy. "

A really lame and bizarre comment.

Try defending your own arguments without resorting to ridiculous personal attacks.

[freddie mertz]

148. You still haven't answered the question.

Is there ANYTHING the president has done or could do that you HAVE could ever COULD disagree with.

You seem to operate like a PR machine for him most if not all of the time.

I think it is a valid question.

[ProSense]

150. "You seem to operate like a PR machine for him most if not all of the time."

Why does it bother you that someone post positive news? Aren't there enough people posting the negative stuff?

Is it that you only want the negative stuff and opinions posted?

Those are valid questions too.

[freddie mertz]

154. Still no answer. Why? But I will be more polite and forthcoming....

....and answer your "questions."

It doesn't "bother" me if someone posts positive news (or spin, for that mater).

It intrigues me when that is the only thing they ever post, however, and do so with persistent energy and in stated opposition to other points of view.

Speaking personally, I have no preference for negative or positive opinions in and of themselves.

And I don;t see a particular imbalance here in the presentation of the "negative," or what I would call "criticism."

I'm interested in honesty and getting as close as we can to the truth.

That means, almost by definition, that we must be open and willing to criticize the authorities in power.

But I am not so sure that this basic truism fits with your agenda.

What you post regularly reads more like institutional propaganda than anything else.

So I will repeat, for the third or forth time, my original question:

Has there or could there be anything the president and his White House could say or do that you have, or would feel, compelled to oppose and speak ut against?

[freddie mertz]

157. And the crickets chirp, as no answer is forthcoming.

I have noticed this tendency before from you Prosense.

You bash around quite a bit and make a lot of noise with your posts, but when faced with a pointed question or an inconvenient fact, it's time for the tumbleweeds.

[ProSense]

160. "You bash around quite a bit and make a lot of noise with your posts" Nonsense

Bash?

I disagreed with Obama's choice of Hillary as his SOS. I disagree with his efforts at bipartisanship. I believed he should have simply allowed the Democrats to kick Lieberman to the curb.

If you ask me again, that is what you will get. Beyond that, I will post whatever the hell I want to post.

[freddie mertz]

161. So....A few things.

Opposition to "Hillary" I suspect we can chalk up to lingering primary resentments.

The other two are commonplaces, but are also symptomatic of a larger problem, which is Obama's tendency to cosy up to the right even in circumstances where it is sure to hurt him (not to mention the people who had hopes for something more clear-thinking and decisive that would help them in their daily lives).

But at least you finally, sort-of, after two days, deigned to respond to the question.

Thanks for that.

[chill_wind]

137. Yes. Yes he does.

And I applaud him, as one example, for his latest signals in the Afghan deliberations that he will not blindly serve as a rubber stamp for the Pentagon. Considering what he's up against, that's no small thing in my mind.

I would like to see him go onto to send some further similar gestures to some other parts of his admin, mainly the Wall Street cabal that financed him and brought him to the dance. That's going to take more than 10 months. But at the rate of events as they continue to unfold, we better all be hoping here for sooner rather than later.

[HughMoran]

138. Apparently the 32 unrecs say that a lot of DUers have no concept of reality

...this is born out by the bitterness posted here and elsewhere.

Oh, well, eventually things will turn and these threads will be brought back up as a reminder over and over again.

[Political Heretic]

139. It's not about speed its about direction.

The problem isn't that everything isn't "fixed" yet. The problem is that steps this administration takes on its own are often not in the primary interests of poor and working class americans.

When you believe that a politician or party is going the WRONG WAY with policy or actions, then the comeback that "he's only been in office x months" doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

You only have to be in office 1 day to be able to not go the wrong way with actions or policy.

Dissent shouldn't be an undeserved attack on the whole person. President Obama has done a tremendous amount of good since taking office. He has made missteps, and not everyone is going to agree with his approach to every issue. That doesn't mean he isn't trying,

Where we disagree, Prosense is that you believe Obama has made "some" mistakes but done "a lot" of good. I disagree. I believe that the "good" things done do not come close to outweighing the amount of activity that is complete capitulation to the pressures of the financial elite.

You're defense of Obama is the kind of defense one would make of a personal friend - someone you have a relationship with. He is trying? That's seriously something you're going to offer up about the president of the united states? He's trying?

We shouldn't care how pure Obama's intentions are, or how hard he is "trying." I'm sure that as a person he loves his family and has no conscious desire to exploit anyone or any class. He is obviously highly intelligent with impressive leadership skill. But none of that really matters, because it isn't about Obama the man.

Some people are really enamored with Obama the man almost like a teenager can be enamored with a glamorous celebrity. So again I said, it isn't about Obama the man. It is about the office. It is about the administration.

Those of us with deep concerns or criticisms are challenging the direction of this administration. We'd be challenging the direction of this administration for decisions it has made completely on its own, even if the Bush administration had never existed.

Having the Democratic Party back in power across all branches of federal government, it has been amazing to see just how separate the Democratic Party is from the poor and working class majority of America. From the handling of the economic crisis as a wall-street-first trickle-down-economics approach to recovery, to EFCA, to the insurance industry giveaway on insurance reform (inaccurately called "health care reform") to policy on free trade (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33885964/ns/politics-white_house/) and on and on - at every point the financial elite are prioritized first, the working class second, and the poor not at all.

That's the wrong direction!

[ProSense]

142. The problem with this lengthy comment is that you are rebutting something unrelated to the OP

The OP is addressing criticism related to time, you offer a rebuttal about direction.

Where we disagree, Prosense is that you believe Obama has made "some" mistakes but done "a lot" of good. I disagree. I believe that the "good" things done do not come close to outweighing the amount of activity that is complete capitulation to the pressures of the financial elite.

The point is that not everyone agrees with you, and no, the good isn't outweighed by what you consider "capitulation." You speak as if the U.S. has been on the right path and suddenly Obama changed that for the worse. The fact is that if you look at the last four U.S. Presidents, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, their policies all contributed to the current situation. No doubt, Bush's failures are by far the worst. Obama has a mess to clean up, and your claim that his "capitulation" far outweighs the good is simply based on an expectation, e.g., Obama should have nationalized the banks, that no one is measuring against political feasibility. Easy to say, but who has every tried? Who among the candidates was actually going to proceed down this path? This is no different from expecting Obama to push for single payer when he is dealing with the political reality of what can pass as he tries to reform the health care system.

You're defense of Obama is the kind of defense one would make of a personal friend - someone you have a relationship with. He is trying? That's seriously something you're going to offer up about the president of the united states? He's trying?

This is a silly statement.

We shouldn't care how pure Obama's intentions are, or how hard he is "trying." I'm sure that as a person he loves his family and has no conscious desire to exploit anyone or any class. He is obviously highly intelligent with impressive leadership skill. But none of that really matters, because it isn't about Obama the man.

Unfortunately, you have to because he can only try his best to succeed. He is the President, and if you feel his best isn't good enough, then you make your decision and take action based on that. Trying matters: Bush didn't try, he ignored a lot of things.

Some people are really enamored with Obama the man almost like a teenager can be enamored with a glamorous celebrity. So again I said, it isn't about Obama the man. It is about the office. It is about the administration.

Ah yes, this is all about "pom-poms" and "cults," right? Ridiculous.

Those of us with deep concerns or criticisms are challenging the direction of this administration. We'd be challenging the direction of this administration for decisions it has made completely on its own, even if the Bush administration had never existed.

The "those" with concerns that you refer to are not just the people who believe the President has done nothing right or fast enough or made so many mistakes they outweigh the good. You see, there are people with can criticize the President and still acknowledge that he has done a lot of good. There are people who can criticize the President without cringing at the thought that someone agrees with him more than they disagree with him.

[Political Heretic]

151. That's because critics are talking about direction, not time - but you rebutt them with "time"

That's why the post was made.

Critics have been overwhelmingly complaining about direction, and when they do, other people respond with "time" defenses.

That's been the disconnect since day one.

Start asking critics you take issue with if there concerns are about policy direction, or if they are about the speed and which Obama is doing things and see what they tell you back.

"Some people are really enamored with Obama the man almost like a teenager can be enamored with a glamorous celebrity. So again I said, it isn't about Obama the man. It is about the office. It is about the administration."

Ah yes, this is all about "pom-poms" and "cults," right? Ridiculous.

I'm not going to use terms like "pom-poms" or "cults." Those are terms you chose, not me. But there is a way to talk about an experience on these boards using language that is as neutral as possible. And I stand by what I said.

This is a real phenomenon: some people react to discussion about the president as a fan might react to discussion of a favorite team or a idolized celebrity. What does that mean? It means that some people react with emotion as though their connection is personal and though criticism of policy implemented by this administration is personal.

Criticism of policy ought to evoke dispassionate debate. I for one don't think Obama is a "bad" human being. I love his wife, and think his family is beautiful? And I'm so happy that an African-American has become president. I can only imagine what Dr. King would feel if he were alive to see that happen.

But guess what, I also know what Dr. King stood for.

His politics and advocacy was radical to the core. He preached of a radical economic justice, and a need to complete transform our social structure - and that got him killed, every bit as much if not more than anything else he ever said. So if he were alive today, you can bet he would be an honest critic of policies that prioritize the wants and whims of the privileged and financial elite over the rights and needs of the poor and working class. I'm sure he'd want to work with the President and advocate. He'd have the voice and respect to be able to do that...

All the rest of us can do is continue to not make it personal about Obama the man, nor is it about his race and heritage, or about his beautiful family, nor about his desires. It's about policy. It's about what this administration does. It's about standing for social and economic justice and aligning oneself with the poor and working class first - opposing all policy that places the needs and interests of the majority of American secondary to the needs and interests of the privileged elite.

And its not about speed. It's about some of us think the policy direction of this administration and the office of the president fails to put ordinary people first.

[ProSense]

153. Look around this thread.

A lot of people talking time.

[Political Heretic]

155. Hokay... in the interest of fairness, let me grant that some people are talking about speed.

No one is ever going to get anywhere in conversation if no one is ever willing to give any ground. So, I'll go ahead and stipulate to the fact that there are some people out there who don't think that policy of this administration is going in the wrong direction - they just think the administration is going nowhere, has done nothing, and needs to take action on a host of issues faster.

Granting that, I must point out that you have responded to me before with a "time" argument. Even after I've chanted my mantra that it's not (for me, I guess) about speed, but rather about direction. So that particular rebuttal doesn't work for me. Let me delve into something a little different at the risk of getting to "personal..."

If I try to interpret your position fairly, I'd describe it like this:
I believe you feel this administration has done good that far outweighs any harm or mistakes that it has made. I believe you would argue that in an imperfect world and system, one can't make national public policy subject to a "purity" test, because since nothing will ever be perfect, nothing would ever be accomplished. I believe you would argue that one must look pragmatically and political, social and economic realities and attempt to support parties, politicians and administrations that do the most net good, without sacrificing the good on the alter of the ideal.

Now, it was my attempt to be absolutely fair and respectful in summarizing your position. If what I said was inadequate or you take issue with it in any way, please correct me. Because that would potentially be a good learning exercise.

If I characterized your position correctly, then here's where we differ:
I feel compelled to stand with the poor, both as one of the poor (though not without racial, gender and historical privileges) and as one who feels morally and ideologically committed to the needs and interests of the poor regardless of what income or social level I ever find myself in.

For me, in terms of politics, standing with the poor means supporting policy that prioritizes the needs of the poor first, while putting the wants and wishes of the powerful and privileged second. Let me be clear - I am not suggesting ignoring the wants or wishes of anyone. I am only suggesting that the focus and prioritization of policy ought to be the poor.

While on a purely personal level, my deepest commitment lies with the poor, politically I can easily expand this category to include what I'll call "ordinary Americans." Ordinary Americans would be the bottom 80 percent that is working middle class, working poor, and the broader poor (indigent, non-working, mentally ill and untreated, etc.)

And that that means, to break it down another level, is that if policy sufficiently benefits Ordinary Americans (as defined,) if it priorities the needs of ordinary Americans first, ahead of the wants and wishes of the powerful and privileged - not to the total exclusion of those wants and wishes, but with primary concern focused squarely on the 80% of America - then I support it. And I support any political party when it has that focus. And I support any administration in general or president in particular when it has that focus.

This is not ideological purity. Allow me to make my case for why it is not: I would be willing to support policy that was "good enough," which is far from a "pure" stance. How is "good enough" to be defined? I have a specific answer. Policy is "good enough" if:

• It has sufficient benefits (for ordinary Americans)
  
• It has no critical problems (for ordinary Americans)
  
• The benefits effectively outweigh any remaining non-critical problems (for ordinary Americans)
  
• All things being equal, further effort to produce different or better policy on this issue would be more harmful (to ordinary Americans) than helpful.
  

Because I use that criteria for considering my position on policy, I do not feel the charge of "purity" can be fairly levied. I would be willing to support policy that had problems, as long as the benefits for ordinary Americans sufficiently outweighed those problems.

That's a pragmatic approach, though one with boundaries. I still maintain a firm commitment to my moral convictions, and yet I do so while recognizing the reality of an imperfect world and an imperfect political system. Thus all I ask of policy is that it do more good for ordinary Americans than harm.

That's the lens I am applying when I consider policy.

So in the future, if you see me being critical of actions or policy from this administration and/or congressional Democrats, remember my description here and ask me to explain why I think x policy or action does not have sufficient benefits for ordinary Americans. I promise that I will answer, and then I will listen to you argue why you believe that it does have sufficient benefits for ordinary Americans. The exchange will likely be positive, possibly even fruitful and certainly interesting.

It's important that we start getting to know each other and you realize that those of us who are labeled as more "fringe" or "radical" are not always completely irrational. :)

[LWolf]

143. If he were actually trying to right wrongs, he'd deserve time

to accomplish those things.

Instead, he is escalating the war.

He is escalating the privatizing and union-busting efforts to bring down public education.

I could go on.

He would have to be making an effort to move in a better direction to be given "time" to succeed.

When he's headed down the wrong path, I don't intend to give him more time.

[Political Heretic]

152. That's DIRECTION. This is why its not about "time" or "speed"

[LWolf]

158. Yes.

If the direction were right, I'd be happy to give him whatever time was necessary to get there.

[madokie]

144. you bet he does

[2tr4nqued]

147. If Obama makes the wrong choice on Afghanistan

I will turn against him. There is no excuse for killing. I will not vote for a president who escalates war. Those who agree with me should sign this petition.

If Obama escalates, I will not vote for him.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/shut-up-and-bring-them-home-if-you-want-our-vote

[Cha]

159. Of course..in the

real world. Thanks for this Pro Sense.