What's the point of trying to belittle President Obama's accomplishments?

[ProSense]

People are going to criticize President Obama on almost every issue. That's expected, but what is the point on trying to belittle his accomplishments?

Is the assumption that anyone would have had the same success in preventing a depression (that is, passing a stimulus)? That health care would be where it is now if any of the other top candidates had been elected? That any of them would have achieved the same level of international success? It's almost a certainty that none of the other top candidates would have won the Nobel Prize, and none of them would have engaged in the level of international diplomacy that Obama has, including his efforts at non-proliferation.

Some people certainly spend a lot of time belittling the President's accomplishments, but who do you propose would have done the same or better?

One doesn't have to agree with President Obama on everything to acknowledge that he has made a difference. Obama's record is going to speak for itself. Anyone who thinks it will show failure is not dealing with reality.

[asdjrocky]

1. I support what I feel is right, over what I feel is wrong.

I don't blindly support people. Unlike some here at DU.

[ProSense]

2. Most people do. n/t

[asdjrocky]

4. Sure most do.

It seems a lot here at DU, just support the man no matter what.

[ProSense]

6. "It seems a lot here at DU, just support the man no matter what."

That's not even close to true. Still, maybe some people have no real contention with his points of view. What's the point of being upset with support for the President? They voted for him.

There are people who can't acknowledge that the President is doing anything right. Does that upset you?

[pscot]

19. Those people who don't acknowledge the President is doing anything right

are called Republicans. The criticisms around here are based on his performnce on specific issues. Appointments, ranging from Geithner to Dana Perino have upset people. Administration handing of the too-big-to-fail banks is a hot topic. DADT is another. Constitutional issues and the refusal to even look into the abuses of the Bush years make some people crazy. The decision not to put out an administration HCR plan, but to let Congress do the heavy lifting, also raises questions. The feckless urge to make nice with Republicans and cater to the whims of the blue dogs and corporate Democrats is another major issue. Ramping up the war in Afghanistan is not going to go down well with a lot of otherwise loyal Democrats. Then there are smaller irritants, like the reluctance to re-open the Siegelman prosecution/persecution, the glacial pace of judicial/U.S.Attorney appointments, the tolerance policy toward the Quisling, Joe Lieberman. Not all DUers are equally concerned about all of these things , but you must admit, it's a long list. There's something there to piss off almost everyone, to some degree. It's rapidly reaching the point where the loyalists who can uncritically swallow all of the above are a dwindling minority.

We aren't criticising him just to drag him down. We're trying to get his attention. We want to change his behaviour in specific areas. We see the Obama administration as a work in progress. We're hoping it can be improved. Blind loyalty is a Republican trait.

[ProSense]

26. "We aren't criticising him just to drag him down. We're trying to get his attention. "

This OP has nothing to do with criticism. It's about people belittling the President's accomplishments. Criticism is not the same as saying he is a failure.

[patrice]

34. 1+ . . . Blind anything, for or against, is not Progressive.

[Clio the Leo]

36. Do you have any thoughts.....

..... on why the Clinton's health care bill failed?

[Aramchek]

44. oh, your definitely trying to drag him down, and failing miserably

[ClarkUSA]

8. I could say to you, "It seem a lot here at DU, just" trash "the man no matter what."

This is Democratic Underground and it shouldn't surprise anyone there are alot of big Obama supporters here.
Just because we don't whine and complain publicly about President Obama here does NOT mean we haven't
disagreed with him.

Substantive policy criticism is fine but the 24/7 bitter bile and contemptuous vitriol expressed toward Pres. Obama
and his supporters 24/7 by the usual suspects who never ever liked Obama in the first place is what the OP is talking
about.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

9. The people on DU who support Obama's personality

and not his policy are in the minority on DU. Check the greatest page.

[patrice]

33. Mischaracterization is evidence of destructive intent - or -

It's a mistake.

SOME people see things in a more complex way than other people do.

SOME people REALLY are trying to re-unite factions in this country and are not just hiding behind bi-partisan labels and plausible deniability.

SOME people think in terms of all of the things, good and bad, that COULD happen relative to what they think SHOULD happen.

SOME people are concerned about how liabilities and some types of ir-responsibility inher in some shared goals.

SOME people think re-uniting with those with whom we actually DO share SOME goals, while not forsaking those things that we disagree about, will be GOOD for EVERYONE.

SOME people are not about "no matter what", are you?

[butterfly77]

47. No..

Most people know that,he is trying to fix many problems that no President in history has ever dealt with. Most people know that he has only been in office for 10 months and that he can't fix all of these problems in that amount of time and no president has ever fix hardly anything in one term. Most people know that their are bush leftovers all over the government who are trying to sabatoge his every move with the help of the media.

Most people know that no matter what he does he will be criticized but what he is dealing with is ridiculous. Most people know that when he gets ready to make his speech on Afghanistan the media will get the speech before hand and tell us how we are suppose to interpet it and put their own spin on it. Most people know that the republicons are trying to stop healthcare because they are hoping they will win seats back in 2010 and then they can kill it.

Most people know that their are a lot of republicons on board DU spreading lies and hyping up the uninformed who have never paid attention to politics and who believe their bullshit. Most Americans know that the media and the right are now trying to complain about the President not creating jobs and when he holds the summit this week they will criticize it as though jobs will automatically be created just because he had A meeting.Most people know that wallstreet can and the chamber of commerce are letting people go from jobs and trying to create the image that it is the presidents fault. If they win some more seats they will then try to pretend that the republicons have come up with some new ideas and are creating jobs when they can do it now a lot of these people hate Obama so they will do anything to make it look worse.

Most people know that GEORGE BUSH AND THE REPUBLICONS FUCKED UP THE COUNTRY AND THINK THAT WE DON'T KNOW IT AND WILL LET THEM WIN AGAIN SO THEY CAN FINISH THE JOB!!!

[Cha]

24. That wasn't the question.

[Aramchek]

3. some people would rather act like jackasses than help to rest of us pull the load

[treestar]

18. Exactly

Speaking against your own leaders is its own reward. Working hard to support our own candidate is wrong because the freepers do it. To be snide and superior is so great that it's worth doing even if in the long run it undermines reaching the progressive values we say we advocate. We'd just rather be pure here and now.

[patrice]

35. Right On, treestar!! People get a physical buzzzzz, A FIX, off of that shit.

[rucky]

5. The nature of this board can lead to myopia.

You start a discussion on a specific topic, and comments tend to focus on the scope of the OP. You can pretty much find a thread to back up any theories you may have - simply because of the sheer volume to topics and the variance of opinions. I think most people here have both compliments and criticisms for Obama, but a disproportionate amount of the attention seems to shine on the extremes - which really doesn't help elevate the level of discussion, here. Meta-discussions about "some DU-ers" are getting really tiresome, as well.

I appreciate your fact-filled posts designed to re-focus people, though. I hope they do help people keep things in perspective.

[kestrel91316]

7. ANYTHING to tear down Democratic leaders (particularly the effective ones)

ANYTHING. And also they want to sow dissent and promulgate hard feelings among us.

[mopinko]

10. yup. people who believe all sorts of conspiracy theories about all kinds of

things somehow never wonder if the bile and bullshit here could be coming from anywhere but honest, intellectual assessments of objective reality. :crazy: really.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Not everyone has your purpose-driven life

The point of speaking candidly about Obama, or any other topic, is to speak candidly.

It is its own reward.

You ask what is the purpose of belittling Obama's achievements. Well, if someone's agenda is to belittle them then the purpose is to damage his reputation.

If, however, one is just noting that they are paltry and probably at or below the base-line we could have expected from any incoming Democrat then one is noting something.

The world is there to be noted.



Bonus flame-bait points for saying that nobody else on the planet could have achieved as much internationally when the man's chief competitor for the office is the current Secretary of State.

:hi:

[ProSense]

12. Despite your ridiculous dig

Bonus flame-bait points for saying that nobody else on the planet could have achieved as much internationally when the man's chief competitor for the office is the current Secretary of State.

My point still stands: It's almost a certainty that none of the other top candidates would have won the Nobel Prize, and none of them would have engaged in the level of international diplomacy that Obama has, including his efforts at non-proliferation.


As does the point of the entire OP.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Cool

If you started out in January saying, "All I care about is the Nobel Peace Prize and non-proliferation" then you're rolling in clover.

Kudos to the man for those things. They are good things.

I think Obama has been good internationally.

[ProSense]

20. If you want to take that away from the OP,

go ahead. The point is stated clearly, and it does not say that "Nobel Peace Prize and non-proliferation" are the only issue. Maybe you should read the OP again.

[Igel]

40. Non-proliferation.

Okay, there's the Russian-US START I replacement framework, which will probably reduce warheads to something like 1500-2000.

How did we get to the 2200 or so that we have deployed? Because of people who obviously would never have pushed for reductions. After all, START I is impossible--it was signed by Bush I and reduced nuclear warhead levels. And then there was a 2002 treaty signed by He Who Loves Nuclear Desolation that further reduced them by a fair amount.

To say his likely advance is earthshattering is to implicitly praise those that went before for what might turn out to have been greater acts. Not something I much feel like doing, mostly because what they want is pretty much wanted by everybody. I can't gin up fake opposition viewpoints, sorry.

Iran is a morass. Obama could have embarrassed Iran--for good or for bad, I can't know--but didn't and let the opportunity pass and gave them a minor PR victory. Fortunately the IAEA managed to dull that victory.

North Korea has had no steps taken in either direction.

The Nobel Prize is a point, but it's personal in nature and was given not so much for what was done but what was perceived. It's like giving a chef a prize for best chocolate cake based on the aroma coming from the oven. Everybody's going ooh and ah, so something's changed. But there's still no dessert.

This doesn't belittle Obama. It reduces him from great and imposing to being a mere mortal. For some, that's unacceptable--heroes must be larger than life. It's not said to belittle Obama. It's said because I firmly believe that every American in the electorate should engage in critical thinking, and while critical thinking is a handy weapon against your intellectual enemies it's also an important tool to making sure that you can honestly and fairly evaluate your own argument. It's the same for evaluating politicians from either party, or their ideas. Partisanship is not my highest value.

[ProSense]

41. "How did we get to the 2200 or so that we have deployed? "

What does that have to do with Obama?

Also: "Iran is a morass. Obama could have embarrassed Iran--for good or for bad..."

You consider this good foreign policy?

This is typical: take whatever good has been accomplished, even when it goes further than ever before, and try to claim it didn't go far enough, which serves your objective: "reduces him from great and imposing to being a mere mortal."

Why is that more important to you than acknowledging his accomplishments?

"It's said because I firmly believe that every American in the electorate should engage in critical thinking"

How does acknowledging his accomplishments interfere with critical thinking? As I said in the OP, criticism is one thing, belittling the Presidents accomplishments is another. You obviously are putting an emphasis on ensuring that he isn't considered "great."

[treestar]

16. How great a reward is it if in the end you get the opposite of what

you say you want?

[RufusTFirefly]

14. Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

I think the issue is one of perspective. There is no question that Pres. Obama has made a difference on some issues. But on some truly fundamental issues, he is a colossal disappointment. And for those who say it's not the President's fault, I have but two words for you: bully pulpit

All presidents have a bully pulpit. In fact, Pres. Obama's should be bigger than most. He should be able to use all his international recognition and accolades as what President Dumb Shit used to call "political capital."

[shadesofgray]

15. +1

[treestar]

17. You're disappointed that President Obama is not you

That's all I can conclude.

If Obama has the bully pulpit, he'll use it as he sees fit. He can't use it as each and every individual DUer sees fit.

If he just mimicked you, he'd be a weakling. Nobody strong slavishly follows another.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Good point. Thanks for setting me straight.

After all, I'm the only one who wants us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, who dreams of a decent health care system that takes care of people not corporations and that would finally usher us into the civilized world, and who's tired of bailing out Wall Street fat cats while much of America is struggling just to make ends meet.

Silly, selfish me.

[ProSense]

25. "dreams of a decent health care system that takes care of people not corporations "

Maybe if you relied on facts instead of spin, health reform wouldn't be a "colossal disappointment."

SUMMARY OF MANAGER’S AMENDMENT

Building on the legislation House Democrats introduced last week, the manager’s amendment provides for several changes to the bill, including the following:

• Establishes a process for the review and public disclosure of health insurance premium increases and justifications for those increases by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and states beginning in 2010. Permits the Commissioner of the Health Insurance Exchange, beginning in 2013, to take into consideration excessive and unjustified premium increases in making decisions regarding which insurance companies will be permitted into the exchange and how quickly to open the exchange to employers for the purchase of insurance for their employees. Provides a total of $1 billion in funding for states for this process over the period 2010 to 2014.
  
  
• Repeals the McCarran-Ferguson Act insurance antitrust exemption with respect to health insurance and medical malpractice insurance.
  
  
• Authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to investigate insurance companies that are registered as not-for-profit companies.
  
  
• Directs the HHS Secretary to work with states that have alternative programs to state high risk pools as a part of the new National High Risk Pool program for people who can’t get health insurance in today’s marketplace.
  
  
• Amends the National High-Risk Pool to make those early retirees whose premium increases are excessive eligible for the new program.
  
  
• Prohibits undocumented individuals from accessing financial assistance from the national high risk pool program with requirements for verification of citizenship or lawful presence.
  
  
• Requires that the Medicare fraud and abuse phone number be printed prominently on beneficiaries’ Explanation of Benefits forms.
  
  
• Imposes a 90-day waiting period for new durable medical equipment suppliers to be paid if the HHS Secretary believes there is a risk for fraud.
  
  
• Establishes a new public health program on mental health and substance abuse screening, intervention, referral, and recovery services.
  
  
• Provides for the development of quality indicators for Alzheimer’s care.
  
  
• Provides for diabetes screening collaboration and outreach through the Department of Health and Human Services in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  
  
• Codifies the Office of Minority Health within the Office of the HHS Secretary and establishes satellite minority health offices in various HHS agencies.
  
  
• Clarifies that states may reimburse nursing homes for costs incurred in conducting background checks on potential employees.
  
  
• Provides a special rule for the expansion of certain physician-owned hospitals that consistently treat the highest percentage of Medicaid patients in their communities.
  
  
• Changes the effective date for a payment change for skilled nursing facilities from January 1, 2010 to April 1, 2010.
  
  
• Imposes performance assessment and accountability measures on the Health Choices Administration, including requirements for improving customer service and streamlining redundant rules, regulations, and procedures.
  
  
• Permits a qualified health benefits plan to provide coverage through a qualified direct primary care medical home plan.
  
  
• Repeals the worldwide interest allocation rules.
  
  
• Closes down the loophole that allows unprocessed fuels (like black liquor) to claim the $1.01 producers credit.
  
  
• Makes clarifications to the interstate insurance compacts that require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop model guidelines for compacting states, ensures that the interstate insurance compacts do not override state laws governing rate review and fraud, and makes clear that the compacting states determine which of the compacting state’s laws serve as primary for the insurance company.
  
  
• Delays implementation of the provision that would eliminate the ability of employers to deduct Federal subsidies with respect to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees by two years.
  
  
• Clarifies that the business/consumer purchasing collaborative provided for in the early access health grants is a non-profit business collaborative.
  
  
• Requires HHS Secretary to conduct a study to determine the existence of duplicative HHS programs and establishes a process for the elimination of any such program.

Text of amendments: PDF

Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement relating to employers in connection with payroll except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an employer from instituting the automatic enrollment program under this section.’’.

<...>

‘‘(2) if the employer plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and a cost sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange; and

‘‘(3) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange, the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.

PDF


There is also the Wyden Amendment here.

More facts here and here.

[ProSense]

21. " But on some truly fundamental issues, he is a colossal disappointment. " What utter BS.

It's easy to make unsubstantiated prouncements.

[FrenchieCat]

30. The bully pulpit still has to pass media muster to get to the people.....

when you have corporate media arguing whether they will even telecast a Joint Address to Congress rather than some dumbass show....
When Corporate media announces how fewer listened this time than the last time....
When Corporate media run poll questions asking if we are seeing too much of the President...
When our President goes to China, and the only people that report on it is the Chinese Press,
and in this country, the only person one reads and sees is some failed quitter ex-Governor from Alaska and her dumbass book....What does that say about the power of the Presidency,
and the message that eventually get to the masses?

If Obama has a townhall meeting, and it is only shown once when it is on live a 2:00 p.m. in the daytime, was that really a townhall meeting relegated to the town, or was a using the national bully pulpit? And when during this townhall meeting, no one but the President is ever shown (like the regular Americans that are usually at these things telling their story that no one ever gets to hear about), and then he is criticized immediately following his message, is that really Bully pulpit or is it Bully Pupilt and then an instant rebuttal.

You have to wonder if the President is the one in charge of his bully pulpit, or if even that has been taken away by those who shall decide what is important to us and what isn't.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. You're right about that, Frenchie Cat

This is similar to the way the Corporate Media covered gigantic anti-war protests (almost not at all) vs. how it covers miniscule teabagger hissy fits (24/7).

Thanks for the valuable clarification.

:hi:

[Clio the Leo]

37. You misunderstand who you voted for I'm afraid.....

..... the man is simply not going to demand the Congress bend to his will because he's the President. I believe he has a different take on the meaning of Article 1 of the Constitution than you do .... (and Dick Cheney does for that matter.)

That's a part of the change you probably heard about.

The result is that he is not going to try to bend the House and Senate to his will .... legislation may not be as progressive or be passed as quickly as all of us like .... but it will be passed.

And it is that desire for concensus that, I believe, has resulted in China and Russia voting to censure Iran on Friday. (Something that has barely registered on the DU radar.)

The man has a different approach to governing ..... I dont know why you voted for him, but that is one of the reasons why I did.

[Aramchek]

45. absolutely pathetic

[Peacetrain]

22. People post Obama is not doing anything, and then People post all the things that have been done..

You know what you get in those posts that show all the things that have been accomplished in a short 11 months.

This:

"not another one of these posts.. you guys put this up two or three times a week"

Blaring example.. not two weeks ago..there was the start of Obama has done nothing on the environment, no money etc.. so I put the links in showing how much they actually have done.. and you know what the response to that was..

yep.. nothing :crazy:

[Clio the Leo]

38. And yet we have 10 posts a day about Afghanistan....

.... which is FINE by itself ..... but there's (fortunately) no limit on how many topics can be started in GD:P per day.

It just gives me motivation to post more "dreamy photos of the President looking cute." ;)

[Lord Helmet]

27. It separates the sincere critiques from the knee-jerk haters.

[patrice]

28. ANONYMOUS posters = maybe >50% of belittling PO is about defeating 2010 Democrats.

[patrice]

29. P.S. You can proove that this is true by asking each of the contrarians what they are willing to sac

rifice for getting what they want on whatever they are complaining about.

I have received no answers to that question to date, i.e. it's NOT about anykind of deal-making in order to go forward, because if those trying to destroy Democrats in 2010 started saying what they'd give-up in order to get their way, THAT would piss off some of those to whom they are trying to appeal in their "Abandon Democrats in 2010" dog-whistling.

[impik]

32. What do you mean?

Acknowledging his accomplishments is against the law now among the self-proclaimed "progressives".

[OnyxCollie]

39. What's the point of listing every accomplishment Obama has done to date

when none of them address the issues at hand that he has failed to take action on?

Avoiding cognitive dissonance and protecting fragile egos is hard work.:eyes:

[freddie mertz]

42. Just trying to keep it honest?

Besides, its not belittling if its a response to hyperbole and exaggeration.

[ProSense]

43. "its not belittling if its a response to hyperbole and exaggeration"

How is stating his accomplishments hyperbole? And why is it necessary to belittle his accomplishments?

[freddie mertz]

46. You have a tendency to list "incompletes" as accomplishments.

I know, I have seen many of your "list of the day" threads.

Fact remains that on many if not most of the big issues, the jury is still out.

[ProSense]

48. The OP isn't about a list.

Making progress isn't only the end result. For example, getting someone to cooperate who once refused to do so is progress.

Funny that some people are willing to consider incompletes a sign of failure, but those same people are unwilling to consider progress an achievement.