He does not lead. He reacts. We are adrift.

[Faygo Kid]

I'm sorry, but we are screwed. We have a president that is nowhere near FDR, and we will coast into the utter destruction of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

I truly hope I am wrong, for I will support him in 2012, when the GOP nominee will be the most nuts of all time.

[JoePhilly]

1. I heard he kicks puppies competitively, for distance!!!!

The gnashing of teeth around here has well passed epic proportions.

You might as well be screaming that Obama plans to kill granny.

[Drale]

4. Anyone who claims that is going to get punched in the mouth

because we all know its the repukes who want to line our grandparents up and watch them starve to death.

[JoePhilly]

5. If the GOP could, they'd push the old out into the ocean on ice flows,

except that there are way fewer ice flows thanks to the gloal warming that isn't happening.

I think at some point ... the GOP will be telling us that we can send granny "up state" to a nice farm, where the air is clean, and where granny can run around in nice fields.

[jefferson_dem]

9. The GOP flacks have to love all this phony blurring of distinctions on our side.

He's just like Booooosh... He's just like Reagan... He's just a trojan horse... He's not FDR ... Or Clinton ... So he really sux... Or something.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Of course they WANT to -

he'll just be FORCED to, completely against his will.

[boxman15]

2. I disagree with the notion that he does not lead, but

even if he did, if we filled Congress with liberals who do not support major Social Security and Medicare cuts to beneficiaries, then it won't happen. We won't have to worry about it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. And that, of course, is why we must elect all Democrats

no matter how much they hate SS and Medicare - bring back the fucking blue dogs who will save SS by killing SS.

[Ishoutandscream2]

3. Agreed. Unfortunately

nt

[Skittles]

6. CORRECT

[villager]

7. dutifully unrecc'd by the "adrift is okay with me!" crowd...

sadly

[jefferson_dem]

8. Awww....

Enough with the pity party whininess... :nopity:

This is getting downright embarrassing. Chin up...be proud. We are Democrats!

[CakeGrrl]

13. And it's a wonder the GOP keeps rolling Dems?

Where's the show of strength? Fight?

Weak sauce. Helluva nerve proclaiming POTUS as such when this forum is overrun with "Woe is me."

[Mimosa]

25. Proud of what?

We need a Tip O'Neill.

[Ikonoklast]

10. FDR had both houses of Congress.

Get back to me when Mr. Obama has that same advantage.

Until then, he has to deal with political reality.

[Fire1]

12. +1

[lib2DaBone]

11. A strong Primary challenge.. and , No, I don't mean Ralph Nader...

[admonish]

15. I'm thinking a much better strategy is

to vote some dems in the house and senate. Obama is indeed trying to compromise but if he indeed did have a majority all around (think 60 solid votes), I'm willing to bet on a much more solid progressive agenda. Obama is obviously a decent and intelligent man who knows he can't ram things through congress without back up. He is certainly not perfect, and perhaps it was his speeches which have created an unreasonable expectation of his performance, but primarying him and/or the constant barrage of attacks (from all sides) is not the correct action in my opinion. Blind allegiance is not necessary, but pulling the same way is.

edited for language

[NorthCarolina]

17. He had both houses of Congress for 2 years 08-10 and

I didn't see him working on his campaign stump promises then. How far to the right will Democratic voters follow a Republican President that calls himself a Democrat, before they wake up and realize that they've been majorly duped?

[admonish]

21. It was certainly a weak majority,

that is, uncooperative blue dogs made up a small portion of it and they demanded certain provisions (aka the ability to present themselves in a good light back home in the red states) and did tend to water down the work he did do.

I believe way too much time was spent on health care and I put much of the blame on Obama who I think looked at it extremely ideoligically and let's not forget our good friends the tea party and their first summer after the citizen's united ruling and their big bag of money.

Obama can and does multitask well, but the GOP is phenomenal at dragging their feet and forcing non progressive compromises. I think much more "blame" should be placed where it belongs - GOP and RW propaganda outlets and more of your anger should be directed at those entities.

[truedelphi]

24. + my household. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

26. Yeah, admittedly mine too until we hit one too many WTF moments. nt

[Arkana]

29. Did you happen to take a look at the people who made up those majorities?

Because most of them were there thanks to Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, and their true colors shone through the minute they were asked to pass the first bill out of the White House.

[NorthCarolina]

30. I recall the polls during the health care debate that showed over 70% public support

for single payer or at a minimum a public option, and a Democratic President who not only failed to take to the bully pulpit in support, but who instead removed them from consideration. The House vote was nothing more than showboating. There might have been the New Dem caucus to contend with, but with public support running at 70-75% without ANY encouragement from the White House, imagine the public support had the President openly pushed for it. The DLC New Dems may hate public institutions as much as the next Republican, but one thing they hate even more than that is not being reelected to their cushy jobs where the graft flows like loose shit through a tin horn.

[emilyg]

14. Correct.

[MissDeeds]

16. Agreed

K&R

[tblue]

18. We expect so little of our leaders these days.

If they don't punch kittens on tv, we say we still got a chance. Egad, the bar is low. And look what it's gotten us! Anybody who thinks we are looking at any kind of success or a real recovery is suffering from an astounding lack of imagination. No wonder we are double dipping. We are content with the status quo!

[woo me with science]

33. Representatives.

Not leaders. Representatives.

They are supposed to represent us.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[rug]

20. And that's a generous assessment.

[BklnDem75]

27. Another 'anything less than FDR = doom/leaderless' thread...

Love the whipped cream base. No substance at all.

[Arkana]

28. FDR cut deals with Southern racists to get his social agenda.

He ignored lynching, segregation, and the horrors of the Jim Crow South.

He lied during the 1940 election about American involvement in Europe in a desperate gambit to save falling poll numbers.

He also signed an executive order that interned Japanese Americans during WWII in a disgusting buckle to racist pseudo-patriotic fervor.

None of them were perfect and all of them had to swallow some godawful things.

[boppers]

31. Lots of revisionism about FDR.

Great guy if you were a) white and b) wealthy and c) could avoid the draft.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. The difference is that FDR had an agenda

Obama wants to be loved by all and wants to be re-elected. To be loved by all and be deemed a transcendent political figure, Obama will do anything. Roosevelt actually stood for some things.

Sure, Roosevelt tolerated asshole allies in Central America and made tenuous bargains with Southern Democrats, but he was ALWAYS focused on making things right for the weak. There is no comparison.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Obama enables theocrats, neo-feudalist corporatists and environmental despoilers

Who's better? Who's worse?

Roosevelt actually stood for things on the ethical point of right or wrong on occasion. Obama does NOT; it's all about personal gain and momentary potential of success.

Whereas Obama fosters and assists wars of economic conquest, Roosevelt actually tried to mobilize a selfish Congress against fascistic aggression. Yes, Roosevelt continued our manipulation of Central America, but Obama has too.

Roosevelt didn't give a tinker's cuss what people thought about him if it ran counter to those core moral issues for which he stood. Obama is willing to throw away virtually anything for momentary gain.

It's without parallel. It's laughable. It's tiresome. Compromised though Roosevelt was, he had beliefs and he had the strength of conviction to stand against everyone for them. The character issue is a non-starter.

Roosevelt, for all his many faults, had a spine and core beliefs; such have yet to be seen in Obama.

[NYC_SKP]

32. For FDR, Three out of Four Congressmen were Democrats, a 75% Democratic Congess.

FDR's 1935 (74th) Congress:

Senate--

....Dems: 73

....Reps: 21

House--

....Dems: 322

....Reps: 103

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[babylonsister]

36. Thanks again for pointing this out; someone is adrift, and

it's not the Prez. :crazy: