John R. MacArthur: Some liberals finally on to Obama’s betrayal of liberalism

[Better Believe It]

Some liberals finally on to Obama’s betrayal of liberalism
By John R. MacArthur, Publisher of Harper's Magazine
September 14, 2011

His concessions to the Tea Party during the debt-ceiling fight at last roused economist and columnist Paul Krugman to near-fury in The New York Times. Calling the deal “a disaster” for the economy, he slammed Obama for “folding” in the face of “blackmail.” Krugman said: “He surrendered last December, extending the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.”

Even the deeply conflicted Nation magazine began to remark on Obama’s increasingly spurious liberal credentials, though not quite with its full-throated institutional voice. In a signed “comment,” the estimable William Greider argued that “people who adhere to the core Democratic values Obama has abandoned need a strategy for stronger resistance,” which “would not mean running away from Obama but running at him — challenging his leadership of the party, mobilizing dissident voices and voters, pushing congressional Democrats to embrace a progressive agenda in competition with Obama’s.”

Perhaps Greider had heard the apparently impromptu statement of Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.) at a press conference on July 27 during the debt-ceiling battle: “I say we have to educate the American people at the same time as we educate the president of the United States. Because the Republicans, Speaker Boehner Majority Leader Cantor, did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The president of the United States called for that. And my response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this.” And Conyers hadn’t yet heard the president’s Sept. 8 “jobs” speech in which he called for “modest adjustments to health-care programs like Medicare and Medicaid.” We can just imagine how modest.

Things died down a little in August after the “compromise” to lift the debt ceiling. But Obama just won’t stop insulting liberals; indeed, there doesn’t seem to be any concession to the right that his chief of staff, Chicago’s first brother William Daley, can’t persuade him to make. On Sept. 2, Obama stuck it to the liberals once again when he said he was backing off from a stricter air-pollution standard, supposedly to save jobs. Environmentalists were predictably upset and expressed their feelings of betrayal. The journalist and activist Bill McKibben called the decision “flabbergasting,” adding, “somehow we need to get back the president we thought we elected in 2008.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.


Please read the full article at:

http://www.harpers.org/subjects/JRMPublishersNote

[jannyk]

1. K&R!

[COLGATE4]

104. +1

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[The Doctor.]

132. And the more they can keep this sort of discontent with Obama circulating,

the easier it will be to steal the election and make the loss look plausible.

I'm pretty sure it won't happen this time around though.

[No Elephants]

143. Three problems with your plan. Sanders is not a Democrat. Sanders does not wish to become a Demo-

crat. Sanders does not wish to run for President.

If we are going to draft someone, I suggest Tom Harkin. He voted for DOMA, but has since then supported gay marriage.

Granted, he came out for gay marriage only after Iowa recognized gay marriage, but, in all, I'll live with that, especially since both Obamas who are in the white house are still awkwardly dancing around that issue.

He voted against things like repeal of Glass Steagall and renewal of the Patriot Act.

Is he perfect? Probably not.

[kwolf68]

2. Spot On

Obama WILL NOT win without an energized base. There are direct advantages to having your 'base' fired up...they get publicity, they inspire 'non ideologues' to become interested.

If the next year is like the last year, Obama is gone in 2012 and I don't think the election will even be close.

He can fix it...but he better become the guy we thought we had elected.

[SammyWinstonJack]

165. Problem is , he never was who we thought we had elected. And don't look for him to

become what he isn't. Empty promises between now and the election is all we'll get.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. But, sometimes he talks like a duck. But, he waddles like a New Democrat.

[closeupready]

4. Obama is not a liberal.

K&R

[DeSwiss]

52. There ya go.

You can't betray what you never believed in to start with.

- K&R

[No Elephants]

144. Headline says he betrayed liberals, not liberalism.

I never considered myself a liberal until after Obama was elected=--and then only because I was posted on a center right board. However, for the sake of discussion, let's pretend I am a liberal.

He betrayed me because he told me about a number of positions that he changed once he was elected.

Then again, if I had squinted harder I probably could have figured it out. For one thing, Daschle was an early primary supporter. But, dumb ole me, I trusted Democrats and did not even realize how hard I should have been squinting.

[bhikkhu]

114. Nor was Clinton, or Carter...

Though about the OP - before you believe what it says, you might ask why there are no quotes or statements from the president about "the cuts". All reports I have read source either "anonymous sources" or repugs - and you have to go back to the Nixon/Muskie era to see this much buying into what those guys say.

It doesn't turn out good, judging by history - though it sure does get a page rec'd up quick on DU!

[sulphurdunn]

226. Clinton, Carter, and every Democrat

who has been elected to or has run for the presidency since Clinton has been a testament to the complete domination of the party leadership by Wall Street and the DLC (or whatever name it has morphed for itself now). Howard Dean furthered this rush to the right with his 50 state strategy which filled both houses with rich Republicans, like Obama, masquerading as Democrats, and for which he was betrayed by them.

[bhikkhu]

230. So everybody is republicans

...good luck with that. Another one who can't tell the difference.

[sulphurdunn]

236. Is the statement false?

If so, let's hear why. Insults are not rebuttals.

[bhikkhu]

244. The democratic party is not completely dominated by Wall Street and the DLC

Howard Dean didn't fill both houses with republicans with the 50 state strategy, and Obama isn't a rich republican.

[No Elephants]

145. The article says he betrayed liberals. You do not have to be a liberal in order to betray liberals.

Indeed, if he were a liberal, he probably would not have betrayed liberals.

[NightWatcher]

5. "some" & "finally"? How about "lots" and "from the beginning"

Geithner, Rahm, fucking retarded, drone attacks, no single-payer.....

[Raine]

87. Yes EXACTLY, Rick Warren speaking Jan 20 was

a give-away to many.

[Enthusiast]

124. That should have been the wake up call.

And Rick Warren truly was a slap in the face of thousands of supporters.

[bvar22]

186. The other VERY Early Wake Up Call:

The DLC New Team
Liberal Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SidDithers]

6. Unrec for OP's continuing anti-Obama campaign...nt

Sid

[monmouth]

16. This particular OP posts this crap then leaves with no comments. I

guess it takes time to look up all of those anti-Obama articles..

[Better Believe It]

19. He makes some valid points I agree with. And do you have an opinion on the article?

Or do you prefer just doing your usual "drive-by" personal attack?

[Bobbie Jo]

71. So what are YOUR thoughts

On the article? You always seem to avoid the same question when asked.

Why is that? I'm listening....

[Le Taz Hot]

149. Care to address the actual points in the article

instead of attacking the messenger?

[Bobbie Jo]

210. Perhaps when the OP shares their "thoughts" others would

be more inclined to make an equal effort.

Since that ISN'T going to happen, the reaction he/she is getting is more than fair.

[russspeakeasy]

44. You keep leaving out the decimal point.

:evilfrown:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Fuddnik]

91. Just wait til we start on your Prime Minister.

Right now, I can't even remember his name.

[bvar22]

187. !

Its easy when you have no skin in the game.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Youth Uprising]

228. Exactly!

Three of Obama's most zealous supporters on here are Canadian, Australian, and French citizens. They have no skin in the game and are not directly impacted by Obama's disastrous policies. They have nothing to lose and won't have to suffer the consequences of his actions. They have access to affordable healthcare and have a vastly superior quality of life than ours. They don't have to suffer the consequences of free trade, further cuts to social programs, or the erosion of civil liberties. What's sick is that these people then turn around and accuse people like me of being limousine liberals (projecting) when obviously they had the good fortune and the capital to be able to move to those places. The rest of us are stuck here and have to tough it out while these faux-liberals sip their martinis and watch. This is all a game for them and people like me are spoiling all their fun.

[bvar22]

229. I have a problem with anybody who currently enjoys Single Payer National HealthCare....

...insisting that Americans should be happy to settle for Far Less than THEY have.
That rubs me the wrong way.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[LiberalLovinLug]

243. Please don't lump all Canadian DUers together

I have been one of Obama's harshest critics. I went from being thrilled (and jealous) in November of '08 when I saw what I thought was progressive Hope and Change coming to the USA. I was crying with joy listening to his acceptance speech. I was so happy for all of you, my liberal brothers and sisters down south of the 49th.

But like many of you, that initial thrill has slowly eroded after each right-of-center appointment, position taken, and promise abandoned. I was particularly appalled at his utter lack of fight for at least a Public Option for medical insurance, EVEN THOUGH 70% OF THOSE POLLED WERE IN SUPPORT OF IT! I was disgusted, but not surprised, to not find ANY real journalism or investigation on our medical system, (or Frances, Australian, British, whatever...) during the debate before the new insurance bill was passed. I expected that lack of effort from FAUX News, but even CNN only had GOP blowhards explaining the "failure" of our system to the American viewer.

Also, I tune in to American politics because what happens down there greatly effects us up here. We have 1/10th the people and economy. We are tied through Free Trade agreements. And many Americans might rightly assume that the US is Canada's largest trading partner, buy may be surprised to learn that the reverse is also true. Our nations are in bed together, we've been giving the business to each other in more ways than one for a century.

And I'd like to find these mythological "limousine liberals" sipping martinis. Beats me how you could get to a position of having a personal limousine driver, sipping a drink in the back seat, by being a left wing activist and advocate.

To use a great Canadian artist's words and song, Leonard Cohen, I went from this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU-RuR-qO4Y

It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.


To this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F8QM3tjkTE&feature=related

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

[slay]

99. REC cause Obama is his own worst enemy - as well as liberals - well that and

those who still apologize for his betrayals constantly are a problem too. good to know where you stand "Sid".

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[The Doctor.]

134. That ain't Queensbury.

Nor is it allowed. I want it to stay though so either a) You can back it up. Or b) You can wear it.

[Le Taz Hot]

148. Care to address the points in the article

as opposed to attacking the messenger?

[demwing]

158. Sid - in response to your Sig line:

Obama's job approval among his DU Supporters is 100%. Obama's job approval in the US is 42% (Gallup - Sep 5-11). Does that mean Obama's DU supporters are not in the real world?

[bvar22]

188. Nicely done.

:nuke:



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ganja Ninja]

166. Rec for OP's continuing anti-Obama campaign...nt

[SwampG8r]

169. so who will you be voting for here in the us election?

just out of curiosity...who will you be voting for sid?
i know you wouldnt come here to lecture american voters without being able to back it up with an actual vote.....or would you?
and if you would then why would you?

[frylock]

183. counter-rec

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

245. Yep

But these guys love their echo chamber.

[AverageJoe90]

7. a couple of problems:

It wasn't Obama who first called for Soc. Sec. cuts(I forget who did, though.....I do know it was a Republican, however.), and does playing a political chess game = surrender?
Seriously, man, those following the professional left need to wake up and smell the Seattle's Best coffee.

[dawg]

9. Oh that "professional left" ...

when will they ever learn?

:sarcasm:

[LondonReign2]

10. We just don't comprehend the grand chess strategy

Obviously!

[QC]

23. It's far too fiendishly complex for the comprehension of mere mortals.

We should just trust and obey, for there's no other way....

[truebrit71]

25. Indeed, Dear Leader's strategy is beyond reproach and must be followed...

...even when it seems eerily familiar to republican policies....that is just a trick that we stupid proles are simply incapable of wrapping our feeble minds around...


:sarcasm:

[LondonReign2]

33. Obey, yes

but also cheer wildly...lest you forget, the failure of Liberals to cheer wildly enough is the principle root of the problem.

[QC]

37. If we don't clap loudly enough, Tinkerbell will die. n/t

[JAbuchan08]

94. love this comment, Imma be using it in the future

[Bobbie Jo]

211. Recycled material.

YAWN.

[JAbuchan08]

234. It's good to recycle,

although Obama might cut a deal with the Republicans to avoid it.

[Bobbie Jo]

242. Tedious.

YAWN. ZZZZZZZZZZZ

[newspeak]

191. oh, I will be voting, especially if someone like Perry is

nominated by the truly sociopathic repugs. However, if there is a more liberal primary challenger, I will back him/her. I don't need an article stating that liberals are disillusioned, all I had to do is look at his choices for his cabinet, his choices to solve the economic crisis, his heritage foundation clone health insurance bill.

And, I really don't give a damn how many people approve of him, it makes me in the minority. Of course, I don't consider this a football game--oh, our teams winning, let's get on the band wagon."

I'm a FDR, Wellstone democrat and proud of it--have never been, will never be a NEW (dlc, turd way type) DEMOCRAT.

[AverageJoe90]

195. Yeah, Wellstone was great. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Not so long ago, the "professional left" were "Reds" or "Hippies".

Now it's "Professional Left", "Looney Left", "the Fringe", and "Utopians".

[Le Taz Hot]

152. The difference, of course,

is that "back in the day," those terms were hurled by conservatives. In 2011, it's coming from the ranks of the New "Democrats." Black is white and up is down.

[tblue]

182. You got that right.

Astounds me every day.

[bvar22]

192. Not so long ago, the "professional left" were ...

...Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Pro-Working Class "DEMOCRATS"!




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[newspeak]

194. absolutely spot on~!!!!!

Us "commie", radically left, once were the "mainstream-center FDR/LBJ pro-working class democrats."

[Better Believe It]

12. I don't play chess so forgive me for not understanding President Obama's political chess moves.

Maybe someone can break it down for me.

[Fuddnik]

89. It's his golf game that inspires me.

Do you realize that he got 12 holes-in-one, the very first time he played?

[RC]

43. Playing 7 to 10 or whatever dimensional chess = god works in mysterious ways.

Both are different ways of saying we are not smart enough to understand what has happened.

[Enthusiast]

125. Obama created the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

The commission findings were preordained. Obama is leading a charge to dismantle social security and medicare.

[Bluebear]

150. One of the most idiotic things I've seen here and that's saying a lot

[jtown1123]

162. Yes it WAS Obama who offered up the SS cuts. Don't be so naive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-unlikely-to-put-social-security-cuts-back-on-the-table-sources-say/2011/09/14/gIQAsW9LTK_print.html

[bvar22]

190. It WAS Obama who put them "On the Table" ...

... in the debt ceiling negotiations,
and the republicans already have THAT Campaign Commercial In the Can.

How are you going to feel when you see this ad:

"President Obama tried to cut your Social Security,
but John Boehner & The Republicans stopped him by walking out of that meeting."
This will be followed by actual Press Conference Video where Obama himself admits to it.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Myrina]

18. ... and don't forget the Statistical Police!!

"84% of voters who previously worked in Obama's cabinet or on his campaign said they strongly support him, or something"


:rofl:

[truebrit71]

29. Oh, oh,oh, does that include Cap'n Cut 'n Paste with today's handy-dandy talking points?

...also, I believe the statistic this is used is more like "875542779.6% of all liberals support Obama"...(more or less...the actual stat might go out to three decimals i don't rightly recall...)

:evilgrin:

[russspeakeasy]

47. The actual percentage is 102.5%

:evilgrin: Must be true...I saw it in a poll.

[mvd]

11. Sure, it would be nice if we could have a peaceful..

bipartisan existence. But politics isn't like that. We have people in this country who cheer a hypothetical uninsured person's dying, and the President needs to distance himself more from the Repukes instead of trying to be nice to them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Obama has liberal credentials?

Isn't he technically a blue dog?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Crdentials? No. But, he makes up for them with empty slogans.

[lark]

63. Technically, he's a DINO

because his policies are straight middle-right.

[Enthusiast]

126. No, technically

he is a Republican masquerading as a Democrat.

[jaxx]

17. Unrec

I see a pattern here, constant anti-Obama, anti-Democratic rhetoric.

[LondonReign2]

20. No so anti-Democratic

Continuing the Patriotic Act and spying on Americans is anti-Democratic

Serving up a warmed-over Republican health care plan rather than the public option you supposedly supported is anti-Democratic

Greatly extending useless wars you said you'd end is anti-Democratic

Unilaterally offering to cut Social Security and Medicare is anti-DEmocratic

Extending tax cuts for the rich that you vociferously said you'd end is anti-Democratic

Continuing renditions is extraordinarily anti-Democratic

Nominating Republicans to prominent positions is anti-Democratic

Beginning every negotiation agreeing to your opponents wishes and undermining your base is anti-Democratic.

Adhering to Democratic principles and ideals regardless of the letter after your president's name? Not so anti-Democratic

[jaxx]

21. Rightwing talking points aren't reliable.

As for the 'base', we support the President by a very large margin.

[LondonReign2]

27. LOL

You're right, you're right. Obama didn't do any of those things listed! He never compromised, or put SS on the table, or extended the wars, or extended tax cuts to the wealthy, or continued the Patriot Act, or appointed Republicans! Those are just silly right wing/liberal talking points!
:sarcasm:

[jaxx]

31. They are the same distortions used by the rightwing.

Why use them on a Democratic website?

[LondonReign2]

32. Why do you insist verifiable facts are distortions?

Are you simply unaware that he did these things?

[jaxx]

36. Because there is some truth and some false in those statements.

Such as the damned patriot act has been changed, it is not as it originally was. Others are the same thing. It distorts the truth to present them as 100% truth.

[LondonReign2]

42. Yet reauthorize the Patriot Act he did

along with all of the other actions listed.

If you are in support of a right-Center President you are entitled to your choice. To the point of the OP, I, as a Liberal, do not support many of his actions. Perhaps, as others have said, we Liberals shouldn't be surprised; had we looked a little closer at his actions we might have realized he wasn't as he portrayed himself.

Gullible me, however, fell for all the things Candidate Obama said he would stand and fight for. If President Obama ever begins to do what Candidate Obama said he would he'll once again have my full support.

[jaxx]

57. Listen up. I am a liberal Democrat....since 1968 first vote.

The Democratic POTUS is not center-right, if you'd paid attention you would know that. We liberals know what he stands for, and it is us, the people. I won't argue with your calling yourself gullible, because believing the crap about center-right is very gullible. It's easy to dis the President, it's in fashion now....for a little while longer. Remember, the majority of liberal Democrats support President Obama by a large majority. Join us.

[LondonReign2]

65. I've listed his actions, none of which are remotely Liberal

If you want to consider those actions liberal, well, then I guess we have a different definition of what liberal is.

Again, to the point of the OP, President Obama is not living up to what Candidate Obama claimed he stood for, in fact in many cases he is doing the polar opposite. Why would I want to join somebody that is doing the polar opposite of the very things that he promised and were the basis of my vote for him?

[jaxx]

67. Ok, then don't join.

The Democratic Party and Democrats can do without the games. Top priority is to reelect PBO and those in the house and senate who are running, plus bring in more seats to both houses. That is the goal. Dissing candidates is not progressive or productive.

[Amonester]

83. Yep. And fairy tale forbid they would start working now for 2016.

If they're so disappointed, maybe that's what they should do, but they won't.

It's too difficult.

[xiamiam]

117. unless it is the wrong candidate..then it is absolutely necessary..nt

[tomp]

138. Really? YOU get to decide what "the goal" is.

are all "liberals" so arrogant.

[tgal]

224. Great post tomp

thanks.

[deutsey]

72. I'm with you, although I was never sold on what Candidate Obama was saying

just because it didn't jibe with the kind of people with whom he was surrounding himself.

Even so, I voted for him and hoped maybe he'd surprise me a little. Unfortunately, he hasn't.

[leeroysphitz]

142. Obama clearly IS center-right. Any other conclusion is delusion. n/t

[HowHeThinks]

146. A majority of liberal Democrats?

I beg to differ with you. Certainly a majority of Blue Dog Democrats, but LIBERAL Democrats? Not even close. Liberal Democrats feel betrayed, and rightfully so. President Obama has made more concessions to the GOP than he has to liberal Democrats. And that's a fact, Jack.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

225. No you're not.

[Claudia Jones]

51. oh sure

Those right wingers are always complaining that the administration has moved too far to the right. Yup.

[jaxx]

58. That wasn't addressed in the original comment.

Don't move the goalposts.

[LondonReign2]

73. Sure it was

You claimed my factual statements about Obama's actions were merely right-wing talking points. The poster correctly pointed out that the right wing was not in disagreement with any of those actions and therefore would never use them as talking points to criticize Obama.

It seems you feel that having the last post, no matter the content, somehow wins the point, so have at it.

[JAbuchan08]

96. THe only reason they are considered "right wing talking points"

is that the right-wing delights in pointing out how our leaders don't follow our stated principles.

[Jakes Progress]

76. Please study American politics before posting.

See. Right Wing is the term used to denote more conservative political leanings. When you call an article that complains that Obama is too conservative a "right wing talking point" you indicate that you don't really know what a liberal and a conservative are.

Now you can wail away at those pesky progressives and liberals who don't agree with you and who complain about the conservative nature of your guy. But to call them right wing is just bass-ackwards.

[Divernan]

109. Not rightwing "talking points" but simple facts.

In fact, the Right Wing does not criticize Obama because of those points, but in spite of all these actions he has taken or failed to take which have furthered and continued the Right Wing agenda.

[xiamiam]

116. untrue..although we all hoped it would be different..nt

[Doctor_J]

177. I don't see any right-wing talking points in the post to which you responded

Can you point them out please?

[rhett o rick]

232. If you are legitmate you can tell me by what rationale Pres Obama appointed Jeff Immelt. If you

you cant answer, you have no place here.

[creeksneakers2]

84. It wasn't a Republican health care plan

Obama is ending the wars about as fast as he said he would.

Obama didn't unilaterally offer SS cuts. The GOP was pushing them and threatened the economic health of the country.

All presidents appoint some people from the other party.

[newspeak]

197. oh, so the main tenants of the health care plan

didn't come from the right wing "unthink" tank, Heritage foundation?

[newspeak]

198. oh, so the main tenants of the health care plan

didn't come from the right wing "unthink" tank, Heritage foundation?

[creeksneakers2]

207. I strongly doubt it

Where is this Heritage Foundation plan?

[newspeak]

217. check the DU history

we discussed the heritage foundation health care plan, which was even stated on their site. Of course, it's been taken down. But, you can go to the DU threads and find a copy of the heritage foundation health insurance plan.

[creeksneakers2]

246. Here. They are still on the web

Their plan is very much different and in some ways the exact opposite of Obama's. The Heritage plan wants government out of health care. It includes Ryan's voucher idea.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/03/Restarting-Health-Care-Reform-A-New-Agenda

[Muskypundit]

220. If it wasnt a repub health care plan, than it was a corporate health plan.

And since they are one in the same, its a repug health plan. It was further to the right than nixons plan.

But Obama is ending the wars as fast as he said he would. He never claimed he would pull out of Afghanistan. Never. He said he would draw down Iraq, and he is. I'll give you that.

All I know about those ss cuts is that Obama was the ONLY one who proposed them in the negotiations. Some repugs may have been making noises about that, but not anyone in the negotiations. Except Obama.

I'll vote for Obama because he is an intelligent, sometimes irritatingly pragmatic guy. He is clean as far as presidents go. And he is firmly in the center when it comes to deal making. I'll vote for him because a second term will unleash him if he truly is a liberal. I'll vote for him because the other options are the end of this country. I'll vote for him; but will work a helluva lot harder and smarter in 2016.

[creeksneakers2]

247. How many Republicans voted for it?

Its crazy to call it a Republican plan.

[Muskypundit]

249. They are not dumb.

By all of them voting against it, they could campaign against it; even though it had a lot of what they want in it

[truebrit71]

22. Yup. We must not criticise Dear Leader. Btw what time is today's 15 minutes of hate?

..I think we should focus on liberals, progressives and the professional left who refuse to accept Dear Leader's 9th Dimension Ninja-Chess skills...Silly whiners don't realize that Dear Leader almost has the opposition right where he wants them...you know...back in charge...

:puke:

Epic, EPIC fail on your part...

[jaxx]

24. The epic fail is yours by comparing PBO to the nazi dear leader.

I'd say you're way out of line.

[truebrit71]

26. Where did I say 'nazi'? The fail belongs to you...

...and you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line putting words in my mouth...

But thanks for playing!!!

[LondonReign2]

28. You must forgive her

She knows not her nazis from her 1984.

edited for gender accuracy

[Divernan]

113. OMG! How can anyone not know the difference between a fascist and a communist?

Obviously the same kind of mental giant who's enamored of the Emperor's new clothes.

[jaxx]

34. That doesn't work.

The dear leader bit was out of line and no amount of denial will work.

[Claudia Jones]

53. wrong

"Dear leader" is associated with Korea, not Germany.

[jaxx]

61. It's associated with both.

It is the common way hitler is referred to.

[Bluebear]

85. OMG just make shit up as you go along.

[Divernan]

111. You are delusional. "Mein fuhrer" translates to my leader, not dear leader.

Such nonsensical posts may satisfy your required post count for the day, but absolutely destroy what credibility you may have had.

[tomp]

139. as if it makes a difference whether it's.....

....."my leader" or "dear leader". the mentality is the same: follow the leader blindly, no criticism allowed.
obvioulsy jaxx is suffering from terminal obamaphilia.

[Bluebear]

151. DER Führer....der means "the" in German, not "dear".

[mitchtv]

100. +1

thanks, for a moment of "correct"

[Divernan]

110. No, kiddo, "dear leader" refers to Mao or Kim Jong-il. Neither were Nazis

You really should broaden your reading of world history.

[Fokker Trip]

180. Umm. The title Dear Leader was not used by the Nazis. Ever.

The Nazis never referred to anyone as "Dear Leader", that's a term used for North Korea's Kim Jong-il.

The Nazis used the term Führer to refer to Mr. Hitler.

It would help your argument if you got your facts straight.

[rhett o rick]

233. NO you are out of line unless you can explain how you differ with the left on specific

issues. If you cant, you are a fraud.

[girl gone mad]

30. Anti-Obama is not anti-Democratic in this case.

[jaxx]

38. Ha!

[LondonReign2]

40. A pointed and well-reasoned rebuttable

I doubt anyone could argue with that

[jaxx]

41. Then why try.

[rhett o rick]

106. Your come-backs are always so insightful. Time for an alert. nm

[Bobbie Jo]

68. Wow, ya think??

The Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Campaign...Day 1095.

AKA: Ratfucking 101.

[Solomon]

77. LOL. I was just laughing about

how these dogpiles always draw them all to one spot.

LOL

[xiamiam]

115. wonder why?..must be our fault..nt

[Enthusiast]

127. It is pro-Democratic rhetoric.

[Le Taz Hot]

153. Care to address the actual points in the article?

[Bobbie Jo]

212. Just as soon as the OP does....

Or is it sufficient to simply cut/paste your way through?

[NorthCarolina]

35. K&R

[Phaedrus76]

39. Yeah, I will hold my breath.

First we need the progressive caucus to get some press, then our voices will be heard on the liberal media.

[tpsbmam]

137. Our voices ARE heard in the liberal media. They're NOT heard in the M$M/corporate/ReTHUG owned

media. BIG difference.

[certainot]

174. not only are liberals not heard in the MSM , liberals allow RW radio to dominate

there is NO organized response to those 1000 + think-tank coordinated radio stations that largely determine what is and what isn't acceptable in media and politics.

[newspeak]

203. I haven't been paying too much attention to Perry

but hubby said he's gotten a couple of newspaper endorsements. Anyone know if this is true? Because the corporate owned McPravda, like they did with little boots, will start feeding us shite and telling us it's cake. Remember the hard hitting journalism of little boots insider trading of his own company? And, how about his drug usage and military record? Anyone mention buying the pig farm before the primaries--of course, ya'll just want to have a beer with him--nothing about ever being a mean drunk? Or did we hear of any hard hitting reporting of federal investigations into two of his heads (that he appointed) (I believe labor and housing). Those investigations apparently went bye-bye after he was selected.

Nothing? Hey, but Dean "yells", so he might be unstable and Kerry is too stiff and is trying too hard---and, and the swift boat liars told us he isn't really a hero, not like little boots who partied his way through vietnam.

Let's face it--most americans have become so gullible, it is the corporate owned media that's been choosing our fearless leaders, and you can bet they better be for the global corporations over country, over the american people.

[hulka38]

45. It can be emotionally difficult for lefties to come to that logical conclusion.

[kentuck]

46. Disappointment reigns supreme...

...and it is a difficult emotion to deal with...

[HereSince1628]

50. Yes, both are very true...

2012 will be a good year not to be a mod on DU.

[bemildred]

48. “There comes a point when you have to ask: What is more dangerous, terrorism or counter-terrorism?"

The right question.

[ProSense]

49. "Speaker Boehner Majority Leader Cantor, did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. "

They're innocent I tell you!!! Innocent! The evil one is President Obama!

Ryan's 2010, "Cut, Cap and Balance" and the GOP Contract on America were figments of our imagination!

[Claudia Jones]

55. misleading

Republicans have been opposed to Social Security for decades. Your post is highly misleading.

[ProSense]

56. BS!

"Republicans have been opposed to Social Security for decades. Your post is highly misleading."

Ryan's plan, "Cut, Cap and Balance" and the GOP Contract on America weren't introduced decades ago.

[LondonReign2]

59. Hmmm, so you're saying Obama doesn't want to put SS on the table?

Seems like one of you-- either you or Obama-- is wrong:

"President Obama has done what some members of his liberal base have considered the unthinkable, and now he’ll have to face their outrage.

Obama signaled at his press conference today that changes to Social Security could be a bargaining chip in a deficit reduction deal with Republicans – something many Democrats have staunchly opposed.

“The reason to do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure that those benefits are there for seniors in the out-years,” Obama said. “ And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/with-social-security-on-the-table-obama-draws-progressives-ire/

"The Obama administration, in seeking $4 trillion in spending cuts in a debt limit deal, has put major changes to Social Security and Medicare on the table if Republicans agree to increased tax revenues."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-puts-medicare-social-security-cuts-table-031442907.html

[ProSense]

64. Hmmmm?

"Obama signaled at his press conference today that changes to Social Security could be a bargaining chip in a deficit reduction deal with Republicans "

Are we in a time warp?

I'm still waiting for the SOTU in which he announces these cuts.

Betrayed by past speculation about things that never happened, now that's novel.

[sabrina 1]

215. They were offered to Boehner in the 'Grand Bargain'

which Boehner nearly accepted, but the Teabaggers refused, because that bargain also included tax cuts. Why did he do that? And unless John Conyers is lying, I don't think there is any doubt that SS cuts were placed on the table by this President.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. He wrapped it up in pretty paper with a big red bow, then put it on the table

Barack Obama designed his bipartisan "Deficit Commission" http://www.handsoffss.org/what-is-the-deficit-commission-why-did-it-recommend-deep-cuts-in-social-security.html">specifically to recommend deep cuts in Social Security. And they obliged, recommending an eventual 22% cut in the average recipients benefits.

Obama has served up the retirement savings of America's Seniors to the Predator Class. It's disgusting.

[jaxx]

69. Surmising again?

[MannyGoldstein]

97. That the Deficit Commission was run by the two biggest foes of Social Security is surmising?

Or that they voted to recommend a 22% cut?

Or that Obama has not rejected that recommendation, although he's rejected other recommendations from that committee?

Which one is a surmise?

[ProSense]

70. Biden announces progress in cutting Medicare/Medicaid waste

Biden announces progress in cutting Medicare/Medicaid waste

I prefer timely facts to speculation and wishful thinking.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. And that has *what* to do with Social Security?

Next time, can you post orthogonal info on the space program? That's more interesting for me.

[ProSense]

101. Obama Plan Won't Include Changes to Social Security

Obama Plan Won't Include Changes to Social Security

[jeff47]

74. Once again, you have to read the entire sentence. Not just the part that makes you feel good.

Here, I'll underline the important part you missed:

"Speaker Boehner Majority Leader Cantor, did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal."

[creeksneakers2]

86. The negotiations were held in secret

I'm positive the GOP brought up entitlement cuts behind the scenes.

[jeff47]

163. Except Democrats who were part of those negotiations leaked that Obama brought it up, not the R's.

[creeksneakers2]

209. They said not the Rs?

Where could I find this? The Rs had already passed a plan to gut Medicaid.

[jeff47]

223. Medicaid is not Medicare.

Since Medicaid supports the poor, its very easy to cut. Medicare is not only for the poor, so it is harder to cut.


As for "on the table", you are aware of this site called "google", yes?

Here, let me give you one of the first hits for 'obama medicare "on the table"':
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-puts-medicare-social-security-cuts-table-031442907.html

[creeksneakers2]

248. Of course

Your link doesn't say anything about the Republicans not bringing up cuts in Medicare. That was the point of debate, not whether Obama made an offer.

It says the Republicans were against tax increases. Where else would the money come from?

Cutting Medicare has been at the core of the GOP agenda for decades. Its flat out dishonest to say it was all Obama's suggestion.

I know how to use Google. If you are so good at it, why don't you find an article that says the GOP wasn't looking for Medicare cuts during the negotiations?

[ProSense]

54. Another thing

"Some liberals finally on to Obama’s betrayal of liberalism"

Some liberals still strongly support the President.

Whether it's saving the auto industry, labor policies, environmental policies, helping low income communities and families and homeless Americans, establishing the CFPB, and other reforms, the things this President has done, will have a lasting impact on real families.

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

by Richard Kirsch

It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.

Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.

<...>

There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”

<...>

The Right has always understood how high the American view of the role of government would be lifted if people came to rely on government for something as essential to a person’s well-being as health care. This year, the animus that the Right maintains toward the New Deal and Great Society programs and philosophy — Social Security, Medicare, the constitution allowing the federal public to regulate commerce — has become visible in the Tea Party movement. The last thing that the corporate and ideological Right want is for health care to be a new pillar added to the foundation of government social insurance.

more

In fact, the benefits of health care reform are coming more and more into focus.

Even a staunch critic of a misstep by this President can acknowledge that he has move the progressive ball forward in significant ways.

The choice is clear: Continue along the path of progress or ensure that any progress made by President Obama gets wiped out.

Progress or devastation, that is the choice.

Obama 2012

[Pholus]

80. Here's a problem -- how is "the only adult in the room" compatible with being a Democrat?

Seems to me that by adopting the first as a meme you are already distancing YOURSELF from the second.

Edit -- my subject was too offensively direct. Rewrote it to make it more of the philosophical problem it poses for me.

[ctwayne]

130. The 2014 Mirage

The main provisions of Obama's heath insurance reform do not take effect until 2014. That date is very important. It means, if the Republicans win, they will repeal the law, and it will never take effect.

Imagine if Obama said he favored a surge in troops in Afghanistan, but in order to please his large liberal and antiwar base, the surge would not happen until 2014. Meanwhile he would use the hundreds of billions saved to either pay down the deficit or else increase government social programs.
Why did Obama order an immediate surge in Afghanistan, but let people die without health insurance for four more years?

[madrchsod]

62. he`s better than anyone the republicans will nominate

[jeff47]

75. "The other guy sucks more" doesn't get people to the polls.

The goal of a negative campaign is to drive down turnout. To make it a battle only between your partisans and their partisans. To make "independents" stay home instead of voting.

Obama can't win re-election with that strategy.

[defendandprotect]

82. 2010 was a perfect example of that -- the explosion after the MEICARE4ALL betrayal -- !!!

Goint to take a gross or two of magic wands to whitewash those back room

deals with Big Pharma and the private H/C industry!

[The Doctor.]

133. Actually, those should be made an issue of, not 'whitewashed'.

Why? Because, it will help to illustrate how much power those industries have over Congress, and just the kind of power Obama is up against.

Would you not agree?

[Exilednight]

79. That's a pretty low hurdle. n/t

[dotymed]

120. That is shit and not nearly good enough for America.

WE MUST primary Obama with a true progressive,IMO, Bernie Sanders. No more "lesser of two evils. Let's fix America.

[TMED]

175. Alduous Tyler is going to primary Obama

(As soon as he raises $5,000.) Primary Challenger to the President!

Platform:
http://americachangestoday.com/platform.html


Donate:
http://americachangestoday.com/donate.html

ACT Now - Donate!
This weekend, here in Madison, we have an annual event called Fighting Bob Fest. It's in its tenth year and it regularly gets over 10,000 attendees. It will feature Senator Bernie Sanders, Jim Hightower, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Thom Hartmann, Greg Palast, John Nichols, Ellen Bravo, Representative Tammy Baldwin, Mike McCabe, Tony Schultz, Dr. Cornel West and many others, and is a HOTSPOT of Liberal and Progressive activism. I've put in for a large order of flyers for the America Changes Today campaign, enough to make sure one gets in everyone's hands there, and the bill for that will be about $600, due noon Friday, September 16. So, I ask, as urgently as I can, that everyone who can donate money into the donation account PLEASE do so now.
This one event may very well be the only thing needed to push the donation thermometer to the very top and beyond (allowing the FEC filing to be completed)! I must have these flyers to make that happen. Please act now and give whatever you can, one dollar, five, ten, one hundred... it all adds up, and it all needs to add up now.
Thank you for choosing to ACT.
America Changes Today.

I intend to declare as a Presidential Candidate to challenge President Barack Obama in the Democratic Party's primaries and caucuses. In order to do this, I must file the qualifying paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which requires that I first collect $5,000 in contributions. If you support the vision of a nation united in progressing to a future where we all do better because we've made sure that EVERYONE is doing better, one where We the People are ascendent, and They the Corporations are merely the tools of our prosperity, please consider helping me reach this turning point by donating today.

[tomp]

140. unfortunately, he has to be better than he is...

....if he wants my vote.

[HowHeThinks]

155. Do you mean.......

as a Republican? I'd have to agree with you there. President Obama is a better Republican than any of the GOP cretins who've thrown their hats into the ring.
As a progressive Democrat? Ahhhhhhh, not so much. :shrug:

[Doctor_J]

178. That seems to be the president's campaign slogan

catchy, but not very inspiring

[defendandprotect]

81. It was blatantly clear the first day after the election --- !!!

Eloping into the White House with Koch Bros/DLC Rahm Emmanuel -- the notorious!

Setting up a team of economic advisors made up of those who had created the

financial coup -- meltdown?


Would take a circus full of "pink ponies" to wash all of that away and the destruction

that Obama and his team have done with their own little hammers!

[txlibdem]

88. Pres. Obama is a good talker but never fights for anything - ever

We need a strong leader to push back against the 100% batshit crazy Tea-GOP and their failed ideas and insanity. What do we have in office now? A leader of the free world who has no spine, only little strings that the GOP uses to pull him this way and that.

He's either the most ignorant man to hold the office or he is a Republican - by his policies or in his heart, take your pick.

[Zax2me]

90. http://www.attackwatch.com

Watch it - you might get reported.

[Divernan]

112. Only if DU sells/donates our personal info to the White House

[provis99]

92. Obama has NEVER claimed to be a liberal.

When are these people going to wake up and stop projecting their own liberalism onto him?

[Claudia Jones]

103. that is odd

So many of the defenders of the administration put a lot of time and effort into trying to convince people that he is a liberal. The people in the administration do not want to appear to be left wing, by the way. They have made the calculated decision that their political future lies in appealing and pandering to conservative and "independent" voters.

People here who disagree with the conservative actions by the administration are not necessarily surprised, they simply disagree. Most critics are saying the exact same things, taking the exact same position on exactly the same issues as they have all along - before, during and after the campaign.

So which is it? Is the administration actually left wing, as so many of its defenders claim, and are we just too stupid to see that? Or is the administration center-right and so therefore those of us on the left are stupid for expecting anything different from the administration?

Obama spent months and months and millions of dollars "claiming to be a liberal." His most ardent promoters swore up and down that he was, and that all who questioned that were delusional. Once he was in office, those same promoters say that "Obama has NEVER claimed to be a liberal" and that all of the people who believed what was said in the campaign were fools for doing so.

Before the election: "Obama IS a liberal!!! How can you not see that???"

During the first few months in office: "Give him a chance to prove he is a liberal before you start criticizing him!!!"

Now: "What sort of deluded fool thought that was Obama was a liberal?"

[pasto76]

93. Bullshit. This is only a sound argument if Democrat = Liberal. Which it doesnt!

I voted for a democrat. Not a liberal. Seems these days that liberals thought a democrat was going to be a liberal. Sorry for you all.

[HowHeThinks]

157. So........

it's OK with you if the "Democrat" you voted for folds like a cheap card table every time the GOP puts a little pressure on him? It's OK with you if the "Democrat" you voted for aligns himself more with the GOP than the Democrats who elected him? You'd rather see the "Democrat" you voted for make immediate concessions to the right (ostensibly to avoid political bickering) while making absolutely NO concessions to the left, at all?
I'm just trying to understand the unapologetic Obama supporters mind set here, that's all. :hi:

[laundry_queen]

167. They're all just like Obama

Like Barbapapas with the ability to shape shift into whatever form is expedient at that moment in time.

So far we've heard, "He never said he was a Liberal." "He IS a Liberal and you don't know what you are talking about and are a troll." "He might or might not be a Liberal but look at all these wonderful things he's passed." "He CAN'T be a Liberal because it's all the Repub's fault." "He's trying his best but you progressives are holding him back." "It doesn't matter what he is or what he does or doesn't do, or if he's center right or not, he's a Democrat so you'd better shut up or you'll lose us the election."

With all that shape shifting, it's hard to come to the conclusion any of them are sincere about anything but their undying love of Obama. Political activists shouldn't act like the president of a celebrity fan club. Celebrity worship has no place in politics.

[blkmusclmachine]

95. Bait and switch.

n/t

[Jim_Shorts]

102. Rook to bishop three, Obama losing at three dimensional chess

Cenk Uygur can say it better than I : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Agm5a1I20

I need an "under the bus" avatar .... good article

[xiamiam]

118. i love cenk..thanks for posting this..nt

[rhett o rick]

107. I think most liberals figured this out a long time ago. Rick Warren was the first clue. nm

[OnyxCollie]

189. Voting for cloture on FISA did it for me. nt

[mckara]

108. K&R

[pam4water]

121. Finally? I've been on since the health-care debacle.

[WinkyDink]

147. Timothy Geithner, for me.

[Romulox]

171. I've been livid since his NAFTA betrayal and bald faced lie. nt

[Enthusiast]

122. This is no accident.

The actions by President Obama are calculated to demoralize the Democratic electorate.

He pulled the worst betrayals right before the 2010 election and just look at the results.

Obama took a tremendous advantage and turned it into a weakness, a vulnerability. The greatest strength the Democratic Party had was the position on "entitlements" vs. the position of the Republicans. Once again, the president GAVE that advantage away for no gain.

I'm sorry, folks, we were fooled. Obama is working on behalf of the Republican Party/Wall Street or someone, but it clearly is not for us.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[progressoid]

128. Finally?

:rofl:

[HDPaulG]

129. Hillary 2012

I was very wrong with the conceder-in-chief and trying to save his ass. Mr. Rhetoric go back to Chicago or Hawaii. We need someone with balls. HC has larger balls than you easy conceder. I have the impression you never negotiated anything, apart from a grade in school.

PS: Been close to 3 years, where is another of your Nobel Peace prizes? Any global recognition? Pulitzer prize?

You are my bet against the current Repuglicans...But inner self says, we need someone convicted to his speeches.

I don't want to see you lose in 2012...You will do that by yourself, and phuck the middle class. But then again with speaking fee's, your Federal health care and pension...Apart from that, what the phuck have you done?

[Fumesucker]

154. Oh bullshit, Hillary is every bit as plugged into the same groups as Obama.

I don't care for a lot of what Obama does but to pretend that Hillary would have been any better on the average is just as much a fantasy as thinking Obama is a liberal.

Her comments regarding the situation in Tuzla should clue you in to the fact she's not entirely grounded in reality either.

Either that or it was a stone cold lie.

[bvar22]

202. Hillary thinks that the "Middle Class" makes over $97,000/year,

and THAT is who she represents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pw0cFRTLE

Only the TOP 6% of Americans make over $97,000/year.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[newspeak]

208. After Clinton passed poppy bush's NAFTA-GATT

I knew where clinton stood. If Poppy thinks of him as one of his own sons, then we got a major problem with collusion with both parties, and not for the good of the country and its' people.

Hillary apparently attended the C street payer meetings, I believe Hillary and her hubby are both major DLC'ers. So, again, you got to choose, those that McPravda laid out for you. Anyone who stands for labor, for the people, for regulation; are going to be beaten down by the corporate media--they can create scandal out of thin air, and if they can't find anything--they can blow out of proportion someone attempting to speak over a cheering crowd. And then, every damn network plays it over and over again, repeatedly-until the clueless masses accept it as truth. It's propaganda and they have really "catapulted" it since Little boots.

[The Doctor.]

131. It would be hilarious if it weren't so terribly sad. No one, not a single Obama-Hater,

Has come up with a realistic way he could have otherwise dealt with the fucking thugs in Congress.

Fuck it, let the debt-ceiling stand and fall into insolvency!
Fuck it, who needs a health-care bill that'll pass Congress? Let the people keep suffering!
Fuck it, prosecute war crimes and plunge the nation into civil war!
Fuck it, if we can't get the stimulus bill WE want through Congress, then NO STIMULUS!
Fuck it, be just like them, show no compromise, and let the nation BURN!

Some people want Obama to be as fucking irresponsible as the Republican/teabagging goons.

Thank the Divine there's an adult in the White House that wants to actually accomplish something rather than act like the spoiled brat holding his breath that some of you want him to be.

I love this one-sided bullshit from people who refuse to acknowledge what we're ALL really up against. I'm just very glad that Obama is not nearly so naïve.

[Sherman A1]

135. Just off the top of my head

and I am not a "Obama - hater" simply a pragmatist ( I knew he was not a liberal when I voted for him one only needed to listen). I have since the election felt that he hasn't pushed back against the GOP's barrage of silliness, he simply finds another fall back position and compromises and then waits for them to move the goal posts again so that he can compromise some more.

1). The 14th Amendment comes to mind for the debt issue at the least it needed to be a very credible threat in the talks along with a good media blitz.
2). Could have pushed a single payer health care or at least a public option.. Might have lost in the end but he could have tried.
3). Yes, war crimes need investigation and there is this little thing about "the law" that might just be an issue.
4). The stimulus bill could have been far different than it was, sure it was better than nothing, but it could have required more from the banks whom had just been bailed out.
5). Sometimes you have to be just like them in order to call their bluff.

I also recall something about closing Gitmo, rebuilding this country block by block, town by town, etc and alike but they were not part of your list so I will leave them alone.

Those are my opinions and I suspect we will continue to disagree, I don't want him to be irresponsible, I want him to lead and to fight for the people who helped get him elected, so far I am vastly underwhelmed.

[The Doctor.]

136. The word I used was "realistic".

I really don't disagree much with you at all. I wish he would have pushed harder. I know all too well that you can't placate bullies into being nice, you have to hit back.

Here's the thing;

- The more I watch what he does, the more I realize that he's walking in a minefield. Everyone wants him to do the Tango, but he has to tiptoe right now.

Think of each one of your points;

I'll start with #2 because that's the simplest one of all;

2) YES! He could have done that. And we'd have NOTHING right now. Period. That fight wouldn't happen again until the next Democrat held office and you know it.

1) The 14th amendment. Yes, I agree. Even if it couldn't have been effectively executed, he could have just said; "I will not allow the nation to be held hostage by a fringe group of radicals, and I will use whatever Constitutional power at my disposal in order to ensure the United States of America remains solvent and responsible to our obligations."- or some variation thereof.

YES! I would have loved to hear that too. BUT... what would the media have done with it? I'm amazed that so many on DU are so terribly oblivious to the current media environment. I'm glad Obama is not. He is being careful right now because he can do more good with 8 years than with 4. If he took the approach you stated, the media would actually educate their listeners about the 'unitary executive' and 'usurpation of powers' JUST for the impact it would have in Congress. The teabagging factions, illusory or not, would be screaming for a fight... and they'd get it.

3) Ummm... see above, but enhance by 3 orders of magnitude. Like I said; Civil War. If you don't understand that or believe it, then you haven't been paying attention. If Obama managed to avoid an 'early retirement', he'd still be dealing with the massive fallout and get absolutely nothing good done at all. Add the backlash of a wingnut GOTV on Whale Steroids and you might get an idea of how that would end up.

Not well.

4) Yeah, get a bill passed that the banks won't 'allow'. Good luck with that.

5) Yes. He could take a chance on letting the nation burn. Are you sure, with that level of responsibility on your shoulders, that you wouldn't?

I really don't know what I'd do either, but I'm pretty sure I'd have a hard time living with a serious failure. That, and any such failure would truncate my time in office by half.

I really believe he's doing small 'goods' now so he can do greater ones later. And he's smart enough not to risk losing that opportunity....

For ALL of us.

If I'm wrong, I'll be very disappointed. If it helps at all, I'm seldom wrong. But people have already made up their minds despite the fact that he's done more good than a less careful man could have in this media-damned nation.

[Sherman A1]

141. I never said not to compromise

it is part of the process. I would like to see the discussion start farther to the left and move toward the center than start in the center right and move further right and that frankly was my point. It is about how the negotiations seem to take place, not that I don't get everything that I want in them.

Do not assume that I do not understand the "24/7 right leaning media must have a story environment", nor assume that I don't get it.

We may disagree, but your post is rather condescending toward someone whom you do not know. You may be right in none, some or all of your points, but there are also other viewpoints and other ideas from other people that you seem to readily dismiss.

My points are about process, not about either the individual issues or the end result (which I think could have been much better for the people, if the process was better, but that is my opinion upon which my vote in 2012 will be based).

[The Doctor.]

179. No condescension intended, just genuine desire to get the point across.

I didn't suggest that you didn't understand any of that, but it might have helped if you made that point about 'starting more to the left' more clear yourself.

Either way, I don't doubt that Obama could have pushed harder or started more to the 'left', but once again we're back to handing them more ammo and giving them an easier opportunity to paint him as a 'tyrant' or 'unrealistic'. This game is rigged. Obama knows that and he's watching his step.

When in a minefield, don't do the Tango.

[Fly by night]

156. Re: "Fuck it, prosecute war crimes and plunge the nation into civil war!"

IF high crimes occured (in the White House, Pentagon, Wall Street, our unverifiable voting booths and everywhere else) AND we don't prosecute, THEN we don't even need a civil war to bring the democratic ideal down. By your definition, we are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of "me first" mercenaries, morally no better than Somalia, just with greener lawns around our about-to-be-foreclosed McMansions.

If our elected leader doesn't stand for anything, we all fall.

Vote (fill in the blank) in 2012 primaries. As for me, right now it's a tie between Tom Paine and Nat Turner. These days, we need both. President Obama is neither.

[The Doctor.]

176. I've explained this before. Essentially;

He had a choice between the damn near certain and violent destruction of the country (and the certain end of his Presidency one way or another), or allowing one more straw to the camel's back with a possibility of seeing us continue down the path you describe where he'd likely have another term to do some good.

Which would you pick?

Do you really believe the nation would come through torture hearings without absolute chaos?

Or are you certain that by not prosecuting war crimes, we are finished as a nation?


The reality is that the corporate media has maneuvered us into this position. We are screwed NOT because Obama doesn't have an investigation/hearings/etc, but because the law has been long since usurped by corporate media. They will never report on the truth of the BA or the realities of the law or legality of prosecuting the BA, they'll do the OPPOSITE and send us straight into the fascism they so dearly want.

So which would you pick?

[Fly by night]

184. A nation that does not hold its (s)elected leaders accountable for their crimes is already fascist.

In addition, false choices (like the ones you pose) are no choices at all. So my answer is "neither".

I believe in consent of the governed and in the democratic ideal. I also believe in leaders (and neighbors) who say what they mean and mean what they say. I also believe in leading by example, not by kow-towing to a corpulent media that I no longer pay attention to anyway. (On that score, I do not care who Sarah Palin or Kim Kardashian fucked, if they can even remember. That seems to be the "beat" that the corpulent media is on. Talk about mental masturbation.)

Obama has lost many of us (and that includes all my neighbors) because he appears to have morphed into something he did not represent himself to be. In a lawless nation, there are no leaders -- just warlords. Obama is leading as if he already believes we are lawless.

BTW, you are welcome and encouraged to state your opinion here but you don't need to explain anything to me. I've spent 41 years working for progressive and moral causes and leaders, starting in the civil rights movement in Mississippi in the early 60s when I first heard Fannie Lou Hamer speak, when I was a white student in the last segregated high school class in my hometown. If you don't think that right can overcome might, you know little or nothing about that struggle or, for that matter, most struggles for human rights, decency and the rule of law. As for me, I will continue to follow the arc of history and trust that it still bends toward justice. I just wish the leaders I supported understood that.

Nat Turner for President -- it is time for a second slave revolt.

[The Doctor.]

196. It's not a false choice at all.

You're welcome to explain what you think the media would do with the story of Obama holding war crimes hearings. If you disagree with the choices, then do explain.

I know that 'right' can overcome might, but we're now in a world where millions of people are very easily convinced that 'right' is actually 'wrong'... and they are violent people.

Have you heard of Radio Rwanda?

If you really believe that Obama would have been able to prosecute these crimes without, at the very least, plunging the nation into chaos, then please... I'd love to read your hypothesis and the reasons for it.

I just have a difficult time believing that Faux Noise and Rush wouldn't seize on the opportunity to whip the wingnuts into a revolting frenzy.

Do you really believe they'd let him get away with it without making the nation pay the price?

[Fly by night]

214. Your problem, Doctor, is that your goal is to keep as many feathers unruffled as possible.

My goal is to take my country back, whatever the cost. One of the strategies to accomplish that might be to eat the rich. I'm cool with that.

Chaos? Just another name for anomie, just a little louder and more energetic. I'm not a Doctor, but from my perspective, Lady Liberty looks a bit anomic right now. Rescuing her might take some demonstrative action . In the end, it will take what it takes. I am not in the least bit afraid of the frightful reich-wing. Like most racists and gun-fellators, they are mostly cowards at heart.

I don't expect any of this to be easy. I also don't expect it to be bloodless. Neither of those circumstances concern me in the least.

That is why I used the Fannie Lou Hamer/Mississippi in the early 60s example, which appears to have been lost on you. But hey, you know what they say about Doctors ....

As for me, I have more important things to do today, including planting a fall cover crop in my Garden, pruning more of my blueberries and firing up the first sauna of the season. You seem to be wedded to this thread. That makes one of us.

When the Obama administration and what passes for a Democratic party is ready to spend a little blood, sweat and tears (and not just rapidly dwindling political capital) to take our country back, well then ....

If you're waiting on me, you're backing up.

Eternal vigilance ain't beanbag.

For more information on the remedies I have been known to suggest (for which I have been labelled a domestic terrorist by the reich-wing flying monkeys in my state, among other accolades), visit this link:

http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens

See ya', bye.

[The Doctor.]

239. Still can't do it, can you?

What I'm asking is very clear, very simple, and very straightforward. The fact that not a single one of Obama's fervent detractors can seem to step up and answer.

Instead, you point to history as though the same circumstances exist as today. I could do the same where history has shown the opposite result you are alluding to. That's why, instead of getting into a historical or philosophical pissing match, I've posed a simple, simple request;

"If you had the choice between the two scenarios I've outlined, which would you choose? If you believe there would be a different outcome for a particular action, please, explain it."

It's very simple, but no need to pull your head out of your garden. I know you can't do it anyway.

[Fly by night]

241. You can always tell a Doctor. You just can't tell 'em much (here or anywhere else).

The past is prologue. This country was founded by brave women and men who damned the torpedos, hollered "Nuts!" and sang "we won't be turned around." It will be maintained by the same.

The future is not for the faint-hearted. I guess that leaves you out.

I responded to you (several times) that there are things worth fighting for, including most assuredly the democratic ideal. You don't seem to get that, or maybe it's just that you don't understand it. Either way, I don't seem to be able to help you.

The only thing we've ever really had to fear is fear itself. On that score, there is no reason to tolerate Doctors or anyone else who recommend inaction -- here or anywhere else -- because of the ball-less boogey-men they hype when our democracy is in peril.

Ignore. Now back to the Garden.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

227. I'd pick "prosecute war crimes" every goddamned time

If he's too cowardly to do what he MUST do as President, then he shouldn't have taken the job, or he should have stepped down when he realized he couldn't execute the functions of the office. It really is that simple.

[The Doctor.]

240. I agree with the sentiment very much.

You realize that doing so would likely put a final end to a free America, right?

Corporations and the super-rich would love for nothing more than to stoke a civil war, depose Obama, and put more of the trappings of fascism into place. I just don't see enough resistance to stop this from happening.

I would not have such an easy time making that choice.

I'm glad at least someone had the integrity to answer the question though. It's much appreciated.

[certainot]

185. and the left allowed limbaugh to sell 'club gitmo t-shirts' from the local radio stations that also

broadcast their local sports- without complaint.

if it's okay on 1000 radio stations......

for many years, with much action and protest, the left and meny dem reps tried to get the US from supporting/condoning/sponsoring mass human rights abuses - torture, death squads, massacres- in central america, with little or very slow luck- so now many new and often naive new voters expect obama to march into the white billionaires house and kick ass.

as long as there is NO organized opposition to the right's best weapon don't expect shit.

[demwing]

159. There it is. "Obama criticism" = "Obama hate"

and as soon as anyone comes up with a way he could have "otherwise dealt with the fucking thugs in Congress," you claim it's not realistic.

[The Doctor.]

173. Yeah, whatever.

Anyone who's not willing to understand the realities that Obama has to deal with while criticizing his efforts smacks of deliberate, intentional, predetermined disgust. If that were all, then maybe 'hate' would be taking it too far. But that's not where it ends. Throw on top of that the unfounded accusations of Obama being a 'corporatist' or 'coward' or 'republican enabler', whatever.

That can genuinely be called 'hate'.

I'll make the distinction between 'haters' and 'genuine critics' when people start making reasonable observations that include some kind of balanced understanding of what I've been trying to point out for a while now.

Otherwise, there's not much of a difference between the wingnuts calling him a 'socialist' and the lefties calling him a 'corporatist'.

I'm still waiting to hear something he could have done differently that wouldn't either be shot down in flames or hand an arsenal or worse to the actual corporatists.

[demwing]

201. ROFLMMFAO!

"I'll make the distinction between 'haters' and 'genuine critics' when people start making reasonable observations that include some kind of balanced understanding of what I've been trying to point out for a while now."

In other words, you'll stop the hyperbole when people just start agreeing with you....

classic!

[The Doctor.]

238. Yep, derision really makes your point.

:eyes:

So, what... just make shit up rather than pay attention?

I didn't say anyone had to agree. Your point is identical to the climate change deniers who think that acknowledging the basic principles of climate science means they have to 'agree with me'.

Acknowledging reality doesn't mean anyone has to agree on anything but the facts. It is a fact that Obama has such realities to deal with. Not to at least acknowledge that only proves one of two things; 'ignorance' or 'deliberate ignorance'.

Anyone who can't acknowledge that the media is intensely hostile to Obama (moreso the more right wing the source) is exercising deliberate ignorance.

What's very telling here is that no one has actually denied that the media would create a massive shitstorm if Obama prosecuted the BA.

You can't either, can you? That tells me everything I need to know about you.

[KoKo]

213. IOWD's....The Media is so powerful they can bring down the Nation if Obama

challenges them. You keep using them as reference for why Obama cannot do what he said he would do in his campaign speeches. If a President and his advisors cannot stand for anything because the Media is so powerful then what changes can be made? We are already on the road to anarchy, because we are becoming a nation that ignores existing laws and has a Right Wing/Media-Military-Corporate Industrial complex who can intimidate a President by re-writing or destroying laws they don't like. If a Democratic President can't fight back against this then our country is already breaking apart and it will get worse with his feckless attempts at compromise.

[The Doctor.]

237. Yes. Have you been living under a rock?

Are you really that oblivious to what our media is these days?

Not much else I can say to you. Do your own research. I'm sick of providing to people who refuse to learn.

[scentopine]

160. Chess Tips from Obama's Book - "The Art of Winning Chess"

Out of deference for the rich, always let Wall Street go first.

1. Wall Street puts an X
2. You put an X
3. Wall Street puts an X

Now announce a bipartisan victory!

[Modern_Matthew]

161. Fuck this shit. I'm unreccing every negative post about Obama for the next 14 months...

Before every public office in the country looks like NY-09.

[jtown1123]

164. Have fun with that. NY 9 was about Israel, nothing else. Open your eyes.

[FSogol]

168. Agreed. n/t

[Romulox]

170. K/R.

:hi:

[Bobbie Jo]

218. Go ahead and

Add the OP to your buddy list, he/she is good for at least 6 a day.

[certainot]

172. lazy liberals shouldn't expect shit if they keep ignoring right's best weapon

every day for 20 years the left has walked by the blowhards standing on every corner and stump in the country yelling liberals and their families and their ideals are shit.

1000 coordinated right wing radio stations do the heavy lifting for everything the right does and the left sticks their iPods in their ears and walks on by because it hurts their heads to listen to it. clearly, from the increasingly irrational candidates put up by the other party we have passed the time when what they have been yelling is now reality, and the left has allowed it by not getting up in the carnival barkers faces.

there is NO organized opposition to the right's best weapon- the one that changes language and history and swiftboats our candidates and especially progressives and makes sure we get more blue dogs. instead, the left lets the puny but loud and coordinated think tank coordinated and scripted talk radio army (dittoheads, teabaggers) to enable media and politicians for any made-to-order pro-corporate agenda the right wants while they analyze and evaluate as if it is some popular movement.

all the left has to do is stop giving those radio stations in blue communities a free speech free ride. picketing, shaming of local sponsors, boycotts, etc. at least fucking complain when our state universities endorse the racism and global warming denial by broadcasting their sports on them.

obama is only as strong as his support and his support has been pitiful from the start.

the organized left DID NOT GET HIS BACK and cannot say it did or is as long as it continues to ignore the right's best weapon.

[The Doctor.]

181. ....

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[OnyxCollie]

219. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, signed into law by Pres. Clinton,

allowed this to happen

The Telecommunications Act of 1996
http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf

SEC. 202. BROADCAST OWNERSHIP. (a) NATIONAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP RULE CHANGES REQUIRED- The
Commission shall modify section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) by eliminating any provisions limiting the number of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by one entity nationally.
(b) LOCAL RADIO DIVERSITY- (1) APPLICABLE CAPS- The Commission shall revise section
73.3555(a) of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) to provide that--
(A) in a radio market with 45 or more commercial radio stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 8 commercial radio stations, not more than 5 of which are in the same service (AM or FM);
(B) in a radio market with between 30 and 44 (inclusive) commercial radio stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 7 commercial radio stations, not more than 4 of which are in the same service (AM or FM);
(C) in a radio market with between 15 and 29 (inclusive) commercial radio stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 6 commercial radio stations, not more than 4 of which are in the same service (AM or FM); and
(D) in a radio market with 14 or fewer commercial radio stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 5 commercial radio stations, not more than 3 of which are in the same service (AM or FM), except that a party may not own, operate, or control more than 50 percent of the stations in such market.
(2) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding any limitation authorized by this subsection, the Commission may permit a person or entity to own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in, radio broadcast stations if the Commission determines that such ownership, operation, control, or interest will result in an increase in the number of radio broadcast stations in operation.
(c) TELEVISION OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS- (1) NATIONAL OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS- The Commission shall
modify its rules for multiple ownership set forth in section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555)--
(A) by eliminating the restrictions on the number of television stations that a person or entity may directly or indirectly own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in, nationwide; and
(B) by increasing the national audience reach limitation for television stations to 35 percent.
(2) LOCAL OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS- The Commission shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify, or eliminate its limitations on the number of television stations that a person or entity may own, operate, or control,
or have a cognizable interest in, within the same television
market. (d) RELAXATION OF ONE-TO-A-MARKET- With respect to its
enforcement of its one-to-a-market ownership rules under section 73.3555 of its regulations, the Commission shall extend its waiver policy to any of the top 50 markets, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
(e) DUAL NETWORK CHANGES- The Commission shall revise section 73.658(g) of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 658(g)) to permit a television broadcast station to affiliate with a person or entity that maintains 2 or more networks of television broadcast stations
unless such dual or multiple networks are composed of-- (1) two or more persons or entities that, on the date of
enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, are `networks' as defined in section 73.3613(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3613(a)(1)); or
(2) any network described in paragraph (1) and an English-language program distribution service that, on such date, provides 4 or more hours of programming per week on a national basis pursuant to network affiliation arrangements with local television broadcast stations in markets reaching more than 75 percent of television homes (as measured by a national ratings service).
(f) CABLE CROSS OWNERSHIP- (1) ELIMINATION OF RESTRICTIONS- The Commission shall revise
section 76.501 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 76.501) to permit a person or entity to own or control a network of broadcast stations and a cable system.
(2) SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION- The Commission shall revise such regulations if necessary to ensure carriage, channel positioning, and nondiscriminatory treatment of nonaffiliated broadcast stations by a cable system described in
paragraph (1). (g) LOCAL MARKETING AGREEMENTS- Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit the origination, continuation, or renewal of any television local marketing agreement that is in compliance with the regulations of the Commission.
(h) FURTHER COMMISSION REVIEW- The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership

- Of 257 news/talk stations owned by top five commercial station owners, 91% of total weekday talk programming is conservative, and 9% is progressive
- Each weekday, 2,570 hours of conservative talk is broadcast compared to 254 hours of progressive talk
- In Top 10 radio markets, 76% of programming is conservative and 24% is progressive
(Source: Center for American Progress and Free Press)


- Ownership is most important variable contributing to imbalance in programming
- stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows
- stations controlled by group owners, those with stations in multiple markets, or those with three stations in a single market were statistically more like to air conservative talk
(Source: Center for American Progress and Free Press)

[LondonReign2]

221. Yes

I always point to the 1996 Act as Clinton's worst decision as President.

And the biggest issue now is the corruption of money on our political system, but no one that benefited from that system has any desire to take it on.

[OnyxCollie]

222. It was the Third Way/DLC "Democrats" who were responsible

for this mess, yet some will blame "lazy liberals" for allowing it.

Makes you wonder why they continue to push this false meme.

[Divine Discontent]

199. The President needs to speak out again and again about how the rich need to be paying their fair

share, and not stop. I know he's done it of late, and he shouldn't stop - ever - until it gets done! Then, there's no reason to put any more of a burden on the rest of the people... Otherwise, he is just talking one thing and pushing for another, and that's not ok.



http://www.zazzle.com/republicans_2012_keeping_millions_out_of_work_bumper_sticker-128002960205017719

[Maven]

200. Obama was the perfect placebo candidate for the ruling class.

They couldn't have asked for a better lightning rod to channel all of the anger at the excesses of Bush right into the ground.

[Yavin4]

204. Obama Never Was Nor Will Be A Liberal. He's a Meritocrat.

Most of the leaders of the Dem party are also Meritocrats, and the next nominee of the Dem party will also be a Meritocrat.

[Maven]

205. Must be why he keeps rewarding people whose ideas have failed miserably

with continued employment in his administration.

[Yavin4]

216. Meritocrats Value The System Wherein They Achieved Success Over Everything Else

Meritocrats are folks that has climbed through socio-economic classes in their life time largely through academic achievement in highly selective schools and lucrative careers.

They are loyal to a system that made them successful, even if that system is unfair to a large number of Americans.

Case in point: Free Trade Agreements. Meritocrats will favor them because the large corporations and financial interests that made them successful support them. Going against Free Trade means going against that system, and that invalidates their own individual merit.

Now, unlike conservatives, Meritocrats do have some sympathy for those that lose out on Free Trade, so they support re-training or some other small programs, like business tax credits, to help the displaced.

In the end, Meritocrats are always pro system, pro status quo, with some tinkering on the side to help a little.

--On Edit--

The Clintons, the Obamas, Tim Kaine, and most of the top Dem leaders are all Meritocrats.

[Major Hogwash]

206. Fuck MacArthur for bashing Bill Daly.

Let's see MacArthur get elected to something, oh, I don't know, like dog catcher, before he shoots his big fucking mouth off again!!

[WillyT]

231. Kick And Wish I Could Rec !!!

:kick:

[blackspade]

235. Great article.