Supporting Obama doesn't mean enabling a bad decision he makes

[CreekDog]

It's not helpful if nobody on his side, so to speak, is warning him of their discomfort and concern about mistakes he's making.

For example, if there's someone in the White House that is always saying to him, "That's a great idea, I support it 100%" and never offers wise counsel in the form of critiques and criticism and alternatives --are they a good advisor? Remember Bush's yes-men and women?

And as a supporter, is one's role any different? If all the decisions are supported, then it seems they are supported because they come from one man, not because they are the right decisions.

And that's not really what we're trying to accomplish, is it?

:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

1. Supporting doesn't mean agreeing, or enabling. What supporting means

is that when he does something you don't think is a good decision, you don't assume the worst motives behind the decision and write him off as a BAD MAN and a FAILURE and EVIL.

[CreekDog]

3. are you saying that everyone who offeres criticism does that?

or even most of them?

because that's how a lot of us are treated, including many of us who vigorously supported him and his ideas until recently when it became clear that his political instincts weren't advancing his agenda as effectively as we were hoping.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Some do, yes. Some offer thoughtful criticism without attacking the man's character.

I start from the position that Obama's a good guy at heart. Not everyone here does.

[CreekDog]

6. what relevance does being a "good guy at heart" have?

and what kind of prerequisite is that to having a fruitful discussion with you on political policies and decisions?

i don't know any of these people except what i know of their public faces and positions --and if they are the same, you and i have no ability to know whether they are the same in private or not.

[TwilightGardener]

7. If you think a politician is well-meaning and is starting from a position

of earnest problem-solving, as I feel Obama is, it mitigates the tendency to go totally fucking off the deep end and BASH rather than criticize. It's a matter of trust. That's the relevance. Policy is only half of it.

[tblue]

14. "I have no windows into men's souls." - Queen Eliz. I

CreekDog, you rock!

What he thinks or feels or hopes are really of no consequence. I don't know why anyone would think they cam read his mind. Who cares? Actions are what matters. Words are important but actions are the bottom line.

So weird that people hate on other people because they think that they think they know what Obama thinks.

[CreekDog]

23. Thanks for the quote

:hi:

She's wonderfully efficient with her words.

[lumpy]

24. No longer is she wonderfully efficient with her words.

Queen Liz 1st is dead and gone.

[CreekDog]

26. ah, yes, thank you

:rofl:

[BeFree]

2. Navel Gazers check in here

I mean like, duh!

There being so very few that are 100%ers, this almost seems as if someone was gazing at their navel and wondering if they should pick 100% of the lint or leave some for later.

[CreekDog]

4. you can't find any posters whose every post is in support of an Obama action?

not looking very hard.

[BeFree]

9. Know what?

Bully for them! Why you want to shit on them is way beyond my way of doing politics.
In other words, the last thing I want to be seen as doing is knifing my friends.

[CreekDog]

10. well you just said they weren't here

:rofl:

and AGAIN, the truth comes out --you equate not supporting him all the time to bashing him or using the terminology that i won't use which is far uglier.

[BeFree]

15. Sorry

You are not making a bit of sense.

Your attempt at 'equation' is nonsensical. Maybe even horse shit?

[CakeGrrl]

8. Yay, more lectures!

Does your goodwill ambassadorship include giving one to those who are convinced that he is "the enemy", a stealth Republican sent to destroy the Democratic Party?

What are those detractors trying to accomplish?

If someone's being mean to you in a rule-breaking way, take it up with the mods.

[CreekDog]

11. who are you talking to?

you seem to be blathering on about people who criticize actually being Republicans.

which is how you talk to me by the way.

have you looked up my posts from 2009? and 2008?

am I really a Republican or a basher since Obama came on the scene?

or does thinking so make it easier for you to bash me when I post?

[tblue]

16. Supporting a Pres who supports Repub policies

is more Republican than calling him out for doing that -- no matter what. Not that hard to understand.

[TheKentuckian]

30. That's the facts, Jack!

What they are trying to do is move the entire discussion away from policies and ideas to pure partisan opposition bickering over distinctions and social wedges.

We are actively ceasing to solve problems and moving to full on perception management. It is to be all about who catches the blame and finger pointing.

[boppers]

33. Name me a president who doesn't support *some* Republican policies.

I'll start. Since the Republican Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which presidents from either party have actively fought for it's repeal?

Too distant? Too long ago?

Okay, lets get more recent. Do you believe that the right to join a Union is a fundamental human right?

If so, you just agreed with Ronald Raygun.

Not all "Repub policies" are bad. Just most of them.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

12. Derp. n/t

[treestar]

13. I would agree, though take with a grain of salt the idea

that I or most other posters really know what is best to be done as to how to do it. A President is lucky to get advice from everywhere, but if I were President, I would rely on experts and people who post on internet boards would not rate high - likely there is too much we don't know. So I have a hands off approach really. An elected Democratic President can use his/her judgment as far as I'm concerned, and I will not look actively for reasons to be unhappy. A Republican President would be doing "wrong" IMO because I don't agree with their vision.

[JoePhilly]

18. Your strawman is BS.

I don't know of any Obama supporters on this site who don't free admit they don't agree with Obama on all things.

What I do find are PLENTY of Obama critics who will freely admit that they don;t care about anything good that he has done. They say it stratght out.

Many of critics claim that they are giving "constructive criticism". And much of the time that's BS. Calling him a secret Republican isn't "constructive criticism", its a direct attack.

So, spare me the discussion of people who support "sll the decisions" because there are none of those. That claim is false.

Its far easier on DU to find individuals who post nothing but attacks like the one I describe above ... both as response posts, and more frequently as attack OPS.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. The people enabling his bad decisions claim to be his most fervent supporters...

because they agree with almost everything he does no matter how ridiculous. The problem is that they are helping to cause his poll numbers to tank. Unquestioned support of Obama is actually causing more harm than good and his approval ratings the last few months bear that out.

Obama needs to move in a different direction, but many folks are against that, especially the yes men in his administration. His poll numbers will continue to suffer and his reelection chances will be in jeopardy if he doesn't change course, yet many people just can't see the obvious and will continue to enable his bad decisions.

[JoePhilly]

21. False strawman ...

You seem to think that if folks don't complain endlessly about Obama, they have "unquestioning support".

Honestly, there is no reason for me to complain about anything Obama does here on DU. To post such an OP would be redundant by about 4X. On any topic that I might disagree with, there are usually at least 4 OPs screaming far louder, and with much more vitriol than I every could.

And then in those places where I might agree with a criticism ... I find it hard given what has become an insanely unreasonable standard.

Even if I agree that Obama compromised too much on something, I'm not about to agree with the OP who just claimed his a secret Republican.

Here's what I see.

When some one posts a list of the many good things Obama has accomplished ... that gets DISMISSED out of hand by far too many on DU. You want to talk about those who are not "questioning" their position ... I just helped you identify them.

[lumpy]

25. Hear hear

v

[great white snark]

27. +1

[Number23]

28. The screaming and wailing over "Teh List" is so very telling

Nothing kills lies and propaganda more than a list of factual information which is why so many here literally see red whenever it's posted.

Teh List is DU's kryptonite.

[JoePhilly]

29. +100

[jefferson_dem]

20. Let it go.

You have a voice. We get it.

Now...let's unite to squash the hell out of the dastardly teabaggin' republicans (figuratively speaking) next November!

[JoePhilly]

22. Something every Obama supporter "unquestionably" agrees with.

[DirkGently]

31. Exactly. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of constituents to express, ESPECIALLY, criticism.

Excellent point CD -- thank you.

Unraised voices don't penetrate the warm, reinforcing bubble of approval that surrounds any powerful political leader. Rather than assuming critics are trying to undermine President Obama, his most ardent supporters might consider that many are trying to help him be a better leader, in absolutely the correct way. By telling him where he's screwing up, and how badly.

It's the only way he'll know. If everyone says everything is great and their votes are guaranteed, nothing will change, not a single bit.

WE are the sole arbiters of our leaders' job performance. Polls don't cover everything, and a lot of them distort deliberately or by poor design. Elections are pass / fail; the feedback they provide comes too late. The only way constituents' voices are heard; the only time their opinions bear on political calculus the slightest bit, is when they make noise. Cause a fuss. Kick up a ruckus.

Threaten that leader's power and future prospects in politics.

Anyone who is at all concerned or critical of a policy, a speech, a tactic, and says nothing in order to "support," is simply abdicating any role altogether. Both sides will always have plenty to shout slogans and pledge loyalty. Our country and our culture only change when we affect the DISCUSSION.

[CreekDog]

35. thanks

i share your take on this.

[boppers]

32. "No Men"" are just as useless as "Yes Men".

Thankfully, both are easily spotted by their use of binary absolutes. Some examples:
"X always does Y"
"X never does Y"
"X only supports Y"
"X never supports Y"
"X only sides with Y"
"X never sides with Y"

Chances are, when you see such a post, you can mentally dispose of the argument involved, because the argument is not based on an honest evaluation of the situation, but polemic absolutes.

[quaker bill]

34. To some extent it does enable

But it is better to support the least harmful politician even when they make the occasional poor decision.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Is hot air and chest beating really a useful form of support?

I tell you this, when people seek to master a form or a craft, they will seek out and pay for the most critical of eyes to guide them. No one has ever paid for praise as part of a pursuit for excellence. Thus, this concept that rhetorical puffery is 'support' and criticism is 'not support' is not only absurd, it is discounted by every single practice known to human culture.