7 Months

[Farang]

Liberals are too quick to get angry, as they should be now to make sure the public option isn't dropped. But the fact is it is going to get rammed through Congress eventually, piece by piece or through reconciliation or whatever, as it should be. What's the point of political power if you don't use it? While my support of Obama has waned it is because he hasn't been so quick on the trigger, I'll give him time and if he doesn't have the guts by the end of the year to push this thing through then he'll have lost me. But judging by the stimulus package, he has no problem passing major legislation without Republican support.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...08/21/obama/index.html

Another good read by Greenwald. I don't know why anyone ever thought Obama was someone special. Certainly after 8 years of Bush and Cheney, a bag of shit would have looked good, but many saw Obama for what they knew he was. Just another politician, lacking honesty, integrity, and blowing smoke up his constituents' asses. Americans once again voted for the "lesser of two evils." And they got it. But we can't continue doing it.

This is absurd. You are quoting an article that explains that Obama is a failure because he's not progressive enough and your whole wankerism is to vote third party to force the Republicans and get them back on track. You are part of the disease. Only the Democrats have a chance to deliver a progressive agenda. There is no chance anywhere else and certainly not from your deluded state of thinking. You are totally antithetical to the thrust of the link you made.

Yeah, I knew this would happen.

I didn't post this because I'm upset that Obama hasn't been able to be a "progressive."

I posted this because the Republicans aren't the only ones being fooled.

Fooled? Who is more progressive, Obama or the Republicans? More means to a greater degree I believe. Lets see if we can get an answer to that simple question, please.

I don't know. It's pretty close so far. At least the Republicans could get a health care bill passed. They doubled the Dept of Education.

When it comes to civil liberties, they are both tied for failure. When it comes to fiscal responsibility, they both fail. They are both corporate whores. Neither is honest, neither has any integrity. They are both war-mongers.

It's a tough call, Moonbeam. Good question.

Except the republicans had 12 years of republican control of congress with nothing approaching healthcare.

They did a great job at republicare. Give seniors more benefits - in exchange for votes. It seemed like free money for seniors - even though some that I've talked with said they didn't need or want it. Turned out it wasn't free, after all.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Did it really take anyone 7 months to figure this out? It was obvious to me early-on in the campaign. That doesn't mean that he's any worse than any of the other guys who were in the field, just that no one should expect too much.

I agree, early on in the campaign it was crystal clear. That the ruling elite would have been scared to death of any true change. Instead they embraced Obama. He was, and still is, one of their own.

 

[Gothgar]

Revolution, the only solution
The only response of an entire nation

-SOAD

 

[Lemon law]

This thread question is absurd on its very face. Of course Obama is a politician as are all politicians. The point is, some politicians end up being especially good because of two things. ( 1) They accomplish many things and change the system. (2) The changes they cause makes the lives of everyone in the countries better.

There are many politicians who pass the first test, but very few that pass both tests.

I have to thinks of a great and visionary statesman President named Woodrow Wilson, who pushed for a league of nations and a less draconian peace for Germany.
Lesser politicians wrecked that Wilson vision, and as a result we got WW2.

And in the same way, Obama, who has the same statesman potential can't get anything done if others wreck the vision. And if Obama can't get health care through now, our current system is likely to collapse very soon.

Sadly the other alternative is a semi democratic dictatorship, but if that is what it takes, its better the than the GOP alternative of stagnation.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...08/21/obama/index.html

Another good read by Greenwald. I don't know why anyone ever thought Obama was someone special. Certainly after 8 years of Bush and Cheney, a bag of shit would have looked good, but many saw Obama for what they knew he was. Just another politician, lacking honesty, integrity, and blowing smoke up his constituents' asses. Americans once again voted for the "lesser of two evils." And they got it. But we can't continue doing it.

I must be ahead of the curve. I knew years ago that Obama was just another piece of crap politician.

 

[ZeGermans]

Still waiting for Obama to do something "liberal" that isn't just a big business payoff disguised as progressive-ism well enough to troll conservatives.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Firebot

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Actually it was clear before election that Obama was a radical. People voted for the greater of two evils - because most of them aren't too great either and cant tell whats real anymore. Obama might as well have been surrounded in clouds of sulfur and wearing pentagrams he was so obvious.

You realize that the article is comparing Obama to Bush right? If Obama's a radical, what does that make Bush and Republicans? Must be nice living life like an ostrich.

His head is buried like an ostrich but it's not buried in the sand.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Still waiting for Obama to do something "liberal" that isn't just a big business payoff disguised as progressive-ism well enough to troll conservatives.

I thought that doing something liberal was a big business payoff?

Perhaps he is redefining the democratic party.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Did it really take anyone 7 months to figure this out? It was obvious to me early-on in the campaign. That doesn't mean that he's any worse than any of the other guys who were in the field, just that no one should expect too much.

7 months..... how about 7 days?

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I thought that doing something liberal was a big business payoff?

Perhaps he is redefining the democratic party.

Liberals are supposed to be opposed to the Big Guy.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Did it really take anyone 7 months to figure this out? It was obvious to me early-on in the campaign. That doesn't mean that he's any worse than any of the other guys who were in the field, just that no one should expect too much.

7 months..... how about 7 days?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may have tool the American people a little more than four years to learn what I knew months before 2000, that GWB was a total Turkey, sadly GWB was the devil they knew and Kerry was the devil the American people did not know in 11/2004.

But the question is and remains, will we again follow the GOP to bring back the days of GWB, or will we follow Obama to bring about reform?

That is the alternative now, learn it and live it.

Please weigh in if you dare to think GWB is the future model to aspire for. The very GWB&co who came very close to wrecking the domestic and world economy, started two quagmire wars, and ran the moral standing of the USA into the sewer.

I submit for consideration, that budmanton and whippersnapper are mental midgets.

 

[compuwiz1]

What's hilarious is those who want to judge a man's presidency on the first 7 months. Is anyone really deluded enough to think that anyone is going to fix this clusterfuck in that amount of time. I don't care who we elect, nobody can fix it that fast. It took a long time to fuck it up and it's going to take a lot longer to repair all the damage that's been done.

 

[ProfJohn]

Let me see if I understand this...


Obama sucks because he is NOT progressive enough??

Is that the point of the link in the OP and the Krugman article??


Talk about crazy... The far left may have a right to be angry with Obama for not being radical enough to make them happy. But do they not understand that if Obama does start to make them happy he will end up making the rest of the country unhappy and thus lose big time in 2012??

It makes no sense at all. The further Obama goes to the left the more his ratings drop and the more his ratings drop the less likely he is of getting bills passed.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let me see if I understand this...

You don't.

 

[Arkaign]

Hmm. I'm starting to think that the 20-percenters of the GOP are going to blow a golden opportunity just like the Dems did in '04. Bush and the Republicans had pretty royally blew it by '04, but the D's still lost. It wasn't entirely to Kerry being a terrible candidate, it was also due to the 'message' from the left looking a bit loony to the general population. There are a lot of rational conservatives out there, but they're drowned out by the wingnuts, and don't really have a message other than 'Obama is Hitler, Death Panels!, Birth Certificate!', and other assorted dumbshit talking points. Fox is only feeding the fire. By all accounts, '10 *SHOULD* see the GOP picking up significant steam, but it's not going to happen if they don't get a positive message out there about what they can do.

Obama didn't win by smearing his opponents, he won by staying positive and winning the independents. Those independents aren't going to go GOP with scare tactics and goofy bullshit, they're going to need some substance.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
What's hilarious is those who want to judge a man's presidency on the first 7 months.

Is anyone really deluded enough to think that anyone is going to fix this clusterfuck in that amount of time.

I don't care who we elect, nobody can fix it that fast. It took a long time to fuck it up and it's going to take a lot longer to repair all the damage that's been done.

Never mind 7 months, the Quirk whackos were judging him before he took office and wishing him to fail.

It started with Limbaugh and the rest have just kept right at it ever since.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let me see if I understand this...


Obama sucks because he is NOT progressive enough??

Is that the point of the link in the OP and the Krugman article??


Talk about crazy... The far left may have a right to be angry with Obama for not being radical enough to make them happy. But do they not understand that if Obama does start to make them happy he will end up making the rest of the country unhappy and thus lose big time in 2012??

It makes no sense at all. The further Obama goes to the left the more his ratings drop and the more his ratings drop the less likely he is of getting bills passed.

Yes, FDR should not pursue social security, Truman should not integrate the military, JFK and LBJ should not pursue civil rights, Clinton should not raise taxes on the top 2%.

No, first, it's called doing the right thing - and leading the country. The country wants different things at different times based in part on how leadership influences them.

What you suggest is basicall "The left-most 40% or so of the country should give the 60% in the center and right everything they want, so they can get their guy elected."

Who cares if they win the election, if they don't pass the programs they believe in? You only argue this nonsense about placating the middle when you are telling Democrats not to do anything, not when you are saying Republicans should do what they want to do. Democrats need to do more liberal policies, not less. They don't lose elections for doing too much liberal, but too little, and people saying 'wh bothter to vote for them?'

Edit: To pre-empt a misunderstanding, I'm not saying they should go extreme and just pass every left-wing thing they like regardless of public opinion.

Just as the examples above were carefully selected and implemented policies with major sales pitches, they should do more, but carefully.

There's not much worse for a democrat than for people to ask at election time, 'what did he do that I like again?'

Popular Democratic leaders are ones where they do things and convince the public, so people can say, 'boy I'm glad he was in office, he did this and that'.

While I think their simply not doing some of the terrible things Republicans do is a good reason to elect them, the pubic has short memories and doesn't vote that way.

That's why Obama is getting little credit for avertinng a worse financial crisis, and blame for the cost of his policy which people can actually point to.

It's why Presidents get a hundred times more public apporval for winning a war than for avoiding it.

If FDR had somehow masterfully used diplomacy and persuaded Germany and Japan not to start WWII, would he have anywhere near the credit as he has for winning it?

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let me see if I understand this...


Obama sucks because he is NOT progressive enough??

Is that the point of the link in the OP and the Krugman article??


Talk about crazy... The far left may have a right to be angry with Obama for not being radical enough to make them happy. But do they not understand that if Obama does start to make them happy he will end up making the rest of the country unhappy and thus lose big time in 2012??

It makes no sense at all. The further Obama goes to the left the more his ratings drop and the more his ratings drop the less likely he is of getting bills passed.

Yes, FDR should not pursue social security, Truman should not integrate the military, JFK and LBJ should not pursue civil rights, Clinton should not raise taxes on the top 2%.

No, first, it's called doing the right thing - and leading the country. The country wants different things at different times based in part on how leadership influences them.

What you suggest is basicall "The left-most 40% or so of the country should give the 60% in the center and right everything they want, so they can get their guy elected."

Who cares if they win the election, if they don't pass the programs they believe in? You only argue this nonsense about placating the middle when you are telling Democrats not to do anything, not when you are saying Republicans should do what they want to do. Democrats need to do more liberal policies, not less. They don't lose elections for doing too much liberal, but too little, and people saying 'wh bothter to vote for them?'

That last part makes absolutely no sense man. Look at it like this.

Conservatives --------------- Moderate ------------- Liberal.
1 3 5 7 9
If moderates want someone to be 9, but instead he is at 7. Why in the hell would they say? Fuck it, we can't get what we want, let's just vote at 3. They wouldn't do that. Instead they would at least take what they can get. Unless they are childish little brats throwing a temper tantrum and cutting off their nose to spite their face.





*edit* The 1-9 didn't come out on teh page like I tried. Just imagine 1 at conservatives stretching to 9 at liberals. You get the idea.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Hmm. I'm starting to think that the 20-percenters of the GOP are going to blow a golden opportunity just like the Dems did in '04. Bush and the Republicans had pretty royally blew it by '04, but the D's still lost. It wasn't entirely to Kerry being a terrible candidate, it was also due to the 'message' from the left looking a bit loony to the general population. There are a lot of rational conservatives out there, but they're drowned out by the wingnuts, and don't really have a message other than 'Obama is Hitler, Death Panels!, Birth Certificate!', and other assorted dumbshit talking points. Fox is only feeding the fire. By all accounts, '10 *SHOULD* see the GOP picking up significant steam, but it's not going to happen if they don't get a positive message out there about what they can do.

Obama didn't win by smearing his opponents, he won by staying positive and winning the independents. Those independents aren't going to go GOP with scare tactics and goofy bullshit, they're going to need some substance.

Excellent post :thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: Craig234
Who cares if they win the election, if they don't pass the programs they believe in? You only argue this nonsense about placating the middle when you are telling Democrats not to do anything, not when you are saying Republicans should do what they want to do. Democrats need to do more liberal policies, not less. They don't lose elections for doing too much liberal, but too little, and people saying 'wh bothter to vote for them?'

That last part makes absolutely no sense man. Look at it like this.

Conservatives --------------- Moderate ------------- Liberal.
1 3 5 7 9
If moderates want someone to be 9, but instead he is at 7. Why in the hell would they say? Fuck it, we can't get what we want, let's just vote at 3. They wouldn't do that. Instead they would at least take what they can get. Unless they are childish little brats throwing a temper tantrum and cutting off their nose to spite their face.





*edit* The 1-9 didn't come out on teh page like I tried. Just imagine 1 at conservatives stretching to 9 at liberals. You get the idea.

First, see my edit in the previous post - before I saw your post, I wrote it to 'preempt a misunderstanding', but it applies I think.

Second, 'moderates' by definition don't want a 9 - if they want a 9, they're liberals, not moderates. Maybe you meant to say liberals.

Your argument i why there's a 'bias for the middle' - but that's one factor, with the point I made being another. They have to stand for something different than the other side.

Quick, what did Jimmy Carter do as a Democratic president, that you coudl point to in the 1980 election? Probably nothing comes to mind. There you go.

It sort of works both ways - Republicans who have been IMO more 'radical', for bad policies, seem to have done better than more 'moderates' - 43 won re-election, not 41.

Anyway, to aovid repeating my edit in the other post, I'll leave you to that and see how it affects your response.

 

[OCGuy]

He was just another politician when he threw his former pastor under the bus instead of manning up.


Anyone who didnt see this immediately is just another retarded voter.

 

[BoomerD]

He was an Illinois Senator for 2 or so years...did you expect any different?

I don't H-A-T-E Obama...but as a life-long Democrat, he is the first Democratic candidate since 1972 that I haven't voted for...and because I didn't have better options, that means I've had to vote for some total "turkey" candidates...but I'm fucking tired of having to vote for the one I hate the least. NO MORE! If the Dems can't field a candidate I can stand...then I'm gonna vote 3rd party. (Not much could make me vote for a Republican...hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it ever will.)

HOWEVER, unless it happened in some secret ceremony, I never saw anyone hand him the Magic Wand that will allow him to change the economy into a strong thriving one...or to honorably end the war in Iraq...or to kill Osama Bin Forgotten...with a wave of his hand.

That means it's gonna take lots of hard work, and plenty of time...It took Bush longer than 7 months to break the economy...I'm sure it'll take much longer to fix it.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let me see if I understand this...


Obama sucks because he is NOT progressive enough??

Is that the point of the link in the OP and the Krugman article??


Talk about crazy... The far left may have a right to be angry with Obama for not being radical enough to make them happy. But do they not understand that if Obama does start to make them happy he will end up making the rest of the country unhappy and thus lose big time in 2012??

It makes no sense at all. The further Obama goes to the left the more his ratings drop and the more his ratings drop the less likely he is of getting bills passed.

Thanks - forgot the prime directive of politics. It's not to do the job and do it well - it's to get reelected.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
...

*edit* The 1-9 didn't come out on teh page like I tried. Just imagine 1 at conservatives stretching to 9 at liberals. You get the idea.

I use periods to separate fields. Tabs and multiple spaces (whitespace) are always compressed to one space. Hopefully, the new forum s/w will enable multi-field alignment somehow.