The problem isn't who's running the Government, the problem IS the Government...

[MrScorpio]

And, NO. I'm NOT paraphrasing Ronald Reagan here, because Ronald Reagan was a lying-assed hypocrite.

I'm talking about people here who are accusing President Obama of committing the same types of wrongs that Bush did.

Well... In some cases, yeah. That's quite true. Because it's inevitable that the Government functions under a certain amount of continuity from administration to administration in order to exist.

THAT, in any cogent sense of understanding of what's going on, is simply why establishing precedents in government is EVERYTHING.

You simply never want bad precedents to ever be established, because of the very nature of how our government was designed, those precedents create their own justification for perpetuating themselves.

And much of the subsequent considerations of those precedents are never about abolishing them, but rather about making fine adjustments on the margins.

Reagan, when he accused the government of being the "problem", knew full well that he only meant that it was "problem" for those people (whom he served) who were waiting for him to change the function of government into upwardly directed monetary funnel, rather than one that distributed wealth and rights in a more fair manner.

What I'm saying is that, our government is simply set up to do crappy, illegal and completely unfair shit, regardless of whomever is running it.

What we're seeing is not a process that began overnight and which could be resolved at the drop of a hat. It is the result of a prolonged, well-designed effort by individuals and interest groups who have used precedent to create and maintain such a situation that facilitates all of that crappy, illegal and completely unfair shit, regardless of whomever is running it.

In spite of that, I'm a fervent supporter of the current President, Democrats in Congress and liberals, Democrats and progressives in general.

However, I really don't expect a lot of radical change out of these people for the better, given the combined arrangement of our current economic and political system, the body of laws that are currently on the books and the utterly hypocritical and highly destructive actions of the Right Wing.

So, yeah. If you're wont for accusing the Prez of screwing up, by all means, have at it. Your complaints are perfectly justified.

But please understand this, the problem doesn't necessarily lie with whomever ever is playing the game, but it is more likely a RESULT of all of the hows, whys, whens and whatfors of the GAME ITSELF.

[GeorgeGist]

1. Rubbish.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Yes, the government as an "institution"

is "institutionalized".

Those who have never worked for the government can't fathom what civil servants go through with each President, their appointees, and the continual upheaval. But despite this, knowing the mission of their agency, civil servants try to cobble together a means for basic functioning as best they can as the appointees come with lofty ideas, and go, often leaving chaos in their wake.

[MrScorpio]

3. Exactly

I worked in DC at the Pentagon for three successive administrations.

In some ways, they were quite different, while in others, they were all completely indistinguishable.

It's hard to see how both of these things can coexist unless one is making an up close observation, absent the personality driven characterizations that one finds in our media.

The media creates much of this "difference" to further whatever agenda that it happens to be pursuing at any given moment.

Much of that is simply curry favor for those interests of whom they're willing to serve.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Have worked under 5 Presidents

and sadly, with each successive one, the media-manufactured "politicization" of government (i.e., not distinguishing between the elected official, appointee, or civil servant) has become more and more extreme - and not so much to promote better efficiency or functioning, but to generate ratings.

[treestar]

4. Exactly that's why

they lose credibility when they start on Obama - this particular issue, Obama pulled things back. So they should be railing against the Congress/Presidents/Life of the days since FISA and before that, when Presidents had no checks on their spying. They refuse to start from that premise - they are just shit stirring.

[dawg]

6. Except that we do rail against all those things, but some DU'ers take everything ...

as a personal attack on Obama.

None of us think this started with Obama.

But these things are just as wrong when he presides over them. He doesn't get a free pass.

[treestar]

8. That's because of the many DUers who start shit by using a personal attack on Obama

Defend him from unwarranted attacks and get called all kinds of stupid names.

The ones who make it about Obama are the ones complaining, every time. They'll start out with "Obama's betrayed us by having an NSA!" which is ridiculous and we try to correct that and get called Obamabots for our trouble. When we are only pointing out that it is a feature of the US government that exists with any President.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I don't believe you when you claim to quote a DUer saying

"Obama's betrayed us by having an NSA!". You ascribe that statement to multiple people 'they'. You also claim to be a group yourself 'we try to correct them'. Who is this 'we'?
I challenge you, singular or plural, alone or as a nameless group, to link to even one person saying that which you place in quotation marks and claim is said by 'them'. It's how 'they' start out.
Prove that any of that is true. Link to that quote. If you can, you will, but you can't, so you won't.

[treestar]

12. That is just a generalization of all the many, many threads saying something like

Obama has betrayed us over X!

They are the ones that made it about Obama, and that was the point.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. It is a characterization, a reporting not of fact but of your perception of things.

It is not objective. It is an unfair and dishonest tactic to characterize others, in quotation marks no less. It means you make up things and claim to have heard them many times. You asserted that exchange as common to your experience on DU, what 'they' say but you can't not show one example when asked.
It is only about Obama in your mind and your retelling of things.

[treestar]

15. I have spent lots of time on DU

and you cannot do away with that or with my experience with DU by making ad hominem statements.

One does not have to be a supporter of the President to see that most of the attacks are ridiculous and that it is the attackers who are always bringing him up. You then state we cannot defend him from ridiculous attacks or we are the ones obsessed. So you'd like those attacks to stand uncontested.

[dkf]

5. I agree with that. It's also why the legal system is a problem.

A liberal interpretation on self defense gets passed down to all future trials and expands it beyond where you may think it should be. Then what used to be manslaughter is now self defense.

[dawg]

7. We need leaders who will make real, substantive changes.

Who knows? If there was enough push from the people, President Obama himself might be willing to push for new laws that would better clarify the limits of government surveillance.

But nothing will ever change if all we do is make excuses when *our* guy is running the show.

[scarletwoman]

9. Nothing but NOTHING will ever change unless we can get private money out of election campaigns.

Our system of privately-funded election campaigns has created a closed loop, unvirtuous circle of unrestricted influence by and for the Owner Class throughout every governmental institution.

No fundamental systemic changes are possible while this paradigm is in place.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. The problem on DU is that people hear criticism of institutional or administration

policy as criticism of Obama. That's their problem, this overly personalized way of seeing the world.
It should also be noted that if the who does not matter when criticisms are offered, it would be wrong to demand praise for the who when good stuff happens.
Can't laud the persons on one hand but divert all criticism to the institutions without being a hypocrite.