General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold.
First there is the inconsistent degree of agency that is attributed to the presidency, which is done by both critics and defenders. On the defender side any agreeable action is seen to be accomplished out of the president's free will, and absent his involvement is seen to be impossible. Take the ending of DADT or Lily Ledbetter as examples. This view isn't far wrong in those cases. Any disagreeable action, however, is seen as a systemic inevitability, far outside the president's ability to resist or even publicly disapprove.
Bad arguments from critics and defenders alike see the influence of the presidency at work only insofar as an action is disagreeable or agreeable, respectively.
Much that is wrong and evil has taken place over Obama's term, however, and defenders have the thankless task of proving again and again that in such cases the most powerful man in the world holds a powerless office. They must argue that the president had no choice but to place Social Security and Medicare at risk completely of his own volition, as in the Deficit Commission; that he had no choice but to offer them up for cruel contraction in the debt ceiling debate. It is likewise difficult to justify appointing Immelt, Geithner, Summers and Daley to positions of any influence, or to believe we are opening a vast market for US goods in India and South Korea given the explosion of our resulting trade deficit with China after a similar trade deal.
The flavor of the defense in those cases always centers on placing the presidency in a place of impotence, in a place of utter weakness not only in terms of action but rhetoric. This is deeply unsatisfying. It is not only that the president holds something akin in many cases to a magic wand in the veto pen that must be ignored. We must also ignore that nothing can force the advancement of people unfriendly to workers and the New Deal; nothing can force the advancement of those friendly to finance and private replacements for education and the safety net. We must ignore a free embrace of the opposition's terms of debate - compromise and outreach are trumpeted in this presidency with regard to right wing figures. Critics see this as laudable - magnanimity in disagreement - even while left wing figures are scolded, ignored and marginalized.
The bar for strong resistance is ridiculously high on the critic side even as it is ridiculously low on the side of defenders, but in this case and in these times one must admit it is easier to argue the presidency has great power and responsibility to act than to argue it is a mostly useless office and powerless to influence the political debate when times are difficult.
Defenders will never lack for obstacles to right action by the president to hold responsible for inaction. They are everywhere. But in unforced errors and unilateral actions to undermine our party's liberal legacy, the obstacles are less apparent than the president's free will to do as he does and say what he says.
At this point defenders (of party leadership as well as the president) resemble family members of an addict who are in denial. They look at an empty pantry, a clean space where the microwave used to be, and invent justifications, however implausible, for the theft and sale of necessities. Where the road to rehabilitation for the addict is clear and feasible, they make of minor obstacles tremendous and insurmountable barriers to justify a lack of action, and freely cling to the sort of lazy perfectionism that dogs any addict's plans for improvement, treatment, and health. The addict's plans are always fraught with prerequisites and strict time-based conditions - should any step fail or see its opportunity lapse, however minor the step, it is seized upon as a perfectly sane excuse to entirely abandon the attempt at kicking the habit.
The habit, as should be clear, is endemic to the leadership of both parties - it is the influence of money and the lure of the highest social class's company and esteem. The addict's excuse in the traditional sense is a socially desperate and miserable situation. There is no such excuse in our nation's highest offices.
Short version: Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term. We must vote for the better candidate in this election, but if we continue as we have the better candidate will resemble Huntsman or Romney before too many elections have gone by.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tridim
(45,358 posts)I'm going to vote for him because he is a good President and a good man.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)and will continue. The alternative would be the ruination of the country.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What use can it be at this point? He's our nominee and we need to focus on the positive.
Non supporters get to decide whether they will vote third party or not vote at all. Why are they here trying to discourage us and get us to do that? They can use other bandwidth to support their candidates or their non voting.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)He's not
But he's not a great prez either.
Like with everything in the US these days, he's...uh OK... and better than the alternative.
USA!.... USA!... We're mediocre!... We're mediocre! 
SammyWinstonJack
(44,311 posts)USA!....USA!....We're the envy of the World!...We're the envy of the World! 
demosincebirth
(12,810 posts)find many things I don't like about the good ol' U.S. of A.
GOTV
(3,759 posts)
flamingdem
(40,779 posts)here or elsewhere, I'd like to know your criteria.
akbacchus_BC
(5,827 posts)policies but for crying out loud, he is the best you all elected, but no, some people have to beat him down all the time. He did say he was representing all Americans, he tried to work with the Republicans but all they wanted was to make him fail and they are doing their darnest to make that happen. The rethugs want America to fail to bring down this President! Frankly, he should not run again!
You know what, if a rethug gets into office, the world would be in a turmoil! I have no idea what Americans want!
bigtree
(93,312 posts)"Short version: Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term."
I think I read that right.
"Short version: Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term."
...you read it right. Those "morally bankrupt and contemptible" unions support ruining the country.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233214
bigtree
(93,312 posts)Fucking perfect that someone can come onto a place which is supposed to be a Democratic refuge and get away with calling Obama supporters 'morally bankrupt and contemptible.'
If I were a republican viewing this, I'd see it as an opportunity to bash the president's supporters here, just like this original post, 24-7.
What is the actual difference between a supposed Democrat calling Obama supporters 'morally bankrupt and contemptible' and a republican doing the same? The effect is certainly similar. I feel like I'm in a hostile place where I'm considered 'morally bankrupt and contemptible.'
Way to go new DU!
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)which makes sense because it seems that group is bogged down with an odd sort of blind faith following of a president who has seemed to many to abandon and undermine Democratic principles as well as democratic principles.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)who are actually Democrats and still support this president 'morally bankrupt'.
DU is no longer supportive of Democrats if this is now allowed, there are those posting here that never supported either Democrats or this president, and can now bash both with impunity.
Awesome.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)but worked to get him elected. I'm one of them.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Now we are supposed to praise him and follow him blindly? Really?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)That *used* to be verboten, now it is acceptable.
I wonder if I can now personally attack posters who criticise Obama here with impunity, as long as a jury deems it acceptable?
One deadlocked vote shows the flaws in the jury system, this was never allowed to stand before.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)call any posters even, um, those creatures under the bridge in fairytales, but any rightwing zealot and paid astroturfie gets to come on DEMOCRATIC Underground and attack DEMOCRATIC President Obama without having to fear to be called out for what they really are.
peace frog
(5,609 posts)and will continue to be critical of Obama as I see fit. Don't like it, how very unfortunate for you, but it deters me not one whit.
spooked911
(8,194 posts)And I am a life-long Dem.
Muskypundit
(717 posts)We democrats are supposed to be the intelligence people. Intelligence questions everything, and has no unfaltable god.
And criticism doesn't equal hatred. I am critical of Obama. I am going to voice my criticisms in hopes that somehow, my voice matters, and something maybe gets addressed. That's more useful to this nation than a bunch of yesmen.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)We 'democrats' are 'morally bankrupt' and 'addicts', per the OP.
Criticism is one thing, do you then agree that the OP is valid since he demonizes all that disagree with him?
Muskypundit
(717 posts)If he would have left that out of it. It was unnecessary, and detracted from the message.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Came across loud and clear.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
green917
(442 posts)The President himself asked us to hold his feet to the fire and to let him know when we're displeased with his course of action. The original poster may have been a little overly vitriolic in his contempt for those enabling and condoning some of the more (imho) egregious things done by President Obama but that doesn't change the fact that this President has not been honest with large subsections of his base and the American people in general. When President Bush lied to us, there was no one here (or on any other, ostensibly, Democratic blog that I read) that came to his defense because he's a part of the other side. Now that it's a Democratic President who has been less than honest with the American people in general and the liberal wing of his base in particular, there are those here who feel the need to justify his actions by chiming in what a "powerless" position being the leader of the free World is simply because he's on our side and has a "D" next to his name. This is the phenomenon to which the OP refers and, although, his rhetoric may have been a bit overly harsh it doesn't mean that he's not, in some sense at least, correct. Many of us in the liberal, progressive wing of the party (the damn "dirty" hippies) feel as though we've been marginalized and sloughed off by a man that many of us spent a lot of time and money getting elected when the very same President makes every concession to individuals who have overtly stated that their sole purpose is to see that he not be re-elected. Pardon us but, many of us are not inclined to take that slap and turn the other cheek (probably because many of us are Atheists but, that's another discussion for another time). Speaking only for myself, I will vote for Barack Obama to continue being the President of the United States but I will not stop chastising him when he commits what I see as egregious errors in judgment regarding the direction our Country is moving in....last time I checked, the Constitution guarantees me (and the rest of us damned "dirty" hippies) the right to redress grievances with our Government. In short, quit telling us that we have to shut up and clap louder while the modern iteration of our Party's leadership sells out our core beliefs as Democratic party members!
Response to green917 (Reply #360)
fordangelina40 Message deleted by the DU Administrators
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)to the robust supporters so I've searched a bit SaintPete said it http://www.democraticunderground.com/100234632 Old&InTheWay did too more obliquely dionysus too I'm sure you can find more if you want. Just because they say it doesn't make any of us Republicans
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You called me out, then backtracked and changed the story when asked to support your accusation.
I am not responsible for what is posted by any other member on this or any other website, I take credit or blame for only those posts under my name.
I know you won't apologize for it, so I won't ask for one from you, as every other poster on this site now knows that you make false accusations against other members with no facts in evidence to support them.
Anything else you wish to accuse me of, that someone else may have posted?
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)"DU is no longer supportive of Democrats if this is now allowed, there are those posting here that never supported either Democrats or this president"...
there it is!
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You said that I called non-supporters Republican voters.
I never posted that.
Ever.
You have nothing to support your accusation.
Do you deny that there are, indeed, non-Democrats and posters that never supported Mr. Obama on this site?
I see them posting here every single day.
In fact, there are many here that do not call themselves Democrats, and many here who state that they will not support this president in the upcoming election, they POSTED IT IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)plus you need the carefully look at post #287..........
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
I hear there's a place out there called FireDogLake, where they toss everyone who doesn't stand with them 100% of the time overboard in order to preserve a delusional state of purity. Not unlike the Tea Party.
I think you might like it there.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Is it just to elect the Democratic nominee no matter what he or she stands for? No matter what that candidate's record is on the economy, on human rights, on fairness to labor?
I beg to differ.
If we were here just to discuss how wonderful Obama is, we would not need to be on a website of Democrats.
If you want to sell your candidate, go into the big, wide world and start selling.
As I understand it, this forum is a place where Democrats can discuss things amongst ourselves and try not just to support our party but to improve it.
You might be surprised to learn that many of us who criticize Obama's policies strongly support a lot of other Democrats -- some members of Congress, some local politicians, some aspiring politicians.
I belong to my local Democratic Club. Do you? How active are you as a Democrat in the real world? Because for me, that is the essential question. Let people say what they want on DU. What are they doing to help get Democrats elected in 2012.
Democrats really messed up in 2010. It's time to get some good candidates running for seats now held for Republicans.
Obama is, in my view, far less than he should be, but we can still influence the course of our national history by backing good, strong Democrats who are not as corrupt as many from both parties who are now serving in public office.
It is up to us to participate and do something positive about corruption when we see it. Back good candidates and send the corrupt ones packing. That goes for all politicians, including the president. He did not have to appoint Bernanke, Geithner, Summers, and the Daley with too many ties to Morgan Stanley.
Estevan
(70 posts)an executable path. Wishes and fantasies are not reality.
Our goals as liberals are far more achievable under this president than the alternative. That's the way it is.
That's the way it's ALWAYS been.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Higher incomes for the top 1%?
Good paying jobs for the rest of us?
Lots of jobs for Chinese slaves?
A tax system that evens the playing field for American companies and workers?
Prison camps for Americans?
Respect for and adherence to our Bill of Rights especially with regard to First Amendment rights and of the rights of those accused of a crime?
The best of all possible health care that bankrupts the country?
Never ending wars or peace and the acceptance of our place in the world?
Continued dependence on carbon-based energy sources, especially foreign oil?
Or a truly aggressive effort to develop better sources of clean energy?
Continued privatization of our schools and prisons?
Or an economic system in which business has more profitable and productive things to do than to cannibalize the public sector and eat our tax dollars?
We have to make choices here. I am not impressed with Obama's choices in some of these categories. On which of Obama's policies and goals do you agree? Which of his goals do you reject? Which policies? Which do you like?
Just saying nice things about Obama is meaningless.
We all agree that he is a nice guy with a nice family. The problems are with some of his goals and policies. I agree with him on some things but disagree with him on a lot of others.
It isn't a Rah! Rah! my team matter. It is about deciding what is best for the country. It is about negotiating real change with regard to things we do not like, not just electing a president and a party with a different name.
Estevan
(70 posts)You have 2 doors to open. If you choose door A, you get some of what you want and a little you don't want. If you choose door B you get nothing you want.
Everything you said is valid. But how do you get everything you want when you have a republican house majority with tea sprinkled on top?
Take the Keystone pipeline. If you choose the door with middle class payroll tax cuts you have to agree to the pipeline. If not, regular people see their paychecks decrease. Which door will you choose. Last year the door was temporary extension of Bush tax cuts or no UI extension. Which door do you choose?
Of course when voters had the opportunity to vote in democrats they sat at home because they were mad. So now, everything we want is harder to get and we'll never get EVERYTHING we want anyway because 300million people don't all want the same things.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The payroll tax vacation is one of Obama's worst policies.
I say do away with the payroll tax cut and don't allow the pipeline. Quite simple.
In fact, Obama really wants both to weaken Social Security -- which is why he proposed the payroll tax cut in the first place -- and to have the pipeline. Is anyone really so naive as to think that the State Department approved the pipeline without discussing that approval with Obama in the first place?
Obama needs an excuse to OK the pipeline because our government is already committed to it and Obama fears the embarrassment of reneging on promises he made and should not have made. That's my guess based on the facts I know about that pipeline.
Your example throws the spotlight on the duplicity of the administration with regard to its handling of progressive policies. In fact, he is a conservative himself. If he weren't he would be able to negotiate better deals. The payroll tax cut means very little to the people in this country who need help -- the minimum wage earners and those many, many people without jobs. Tax cuts are not the way to improve the economy. Most of Obama's stimulus plan was tax cuts and those cuts did not improve things much at all.
Estevan
(70 posts)Is a Fox News right wing talking point. Everything else you said points to conjecture and speculation.
It all boils down to what you believe the president's philosophical intent to be and that in turn drives your emotions.
Nice talking to you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The premise of Social Security is that you pay in, most of your money supports retirees in the currently retired generation, and then when you retire, you receive benefits according to what you paid in. It is like an insurance policy. If you don't pay in, you don't get benefits.
This payroll tax cut undermines that basic premise. The money paid out in Social Security benefits over the years has come from the payroll taxes paid in. Now with this tax cut, the benefits to us seniors come not from the money paid in currently and not from the Social Security Trust Fund for which we paid out taxes beginning during the Reagan era. No, now it comes from the general fund. That makes Social Security just another government program dependent on general tax revenue. That undercuts the entire idea of Social Security as being a separate, independently funded program.
That is one of Obama's many bad policy ideas -- the payroll tax cut.
During the primary debates, Obama stated that he would solve problems with Social Security and Medicare by RAISING THE CAP on the payroll taxes. When I was walking precincts for Obama in 2008, I talked to many seniors who were voting for him because of his stance on raising the payroll tax cap and insuring the future of Social Security. Obama reneged on that promise. He will lose some of the votes of seniors that he got in 2008 thanks to his bad policies on Social Security. I will never forget one woman who was undecided. She said she was trying to choose between the babies and Social Security, meaning abortion or the safeguarding of Social Security.
Obama can only win in 2012 if people think they are in better shape now than they were in 2008. I want him to win because he is a Democrat, but honestly, he isn't doing much to help win the election.
His stance on gays and lesbians in the military will help him, and his health insurance reform bill would help him if only more of it were fully implemented now. But really, not many of his policies have improved the lot of Americans in a way that is easily perceptible to the majority of us.
The thing that Obama has going for him is that he is very likeable and, as far as I can tell, leads a personal life that is without reproach or controversy -- great family and a very upright man personally speaking. But too many of his policies are really not well thought out.
It doesn't help that states are cutting back so severely either. The cutbacks will be blamed on Obama even though they are not his fault. The general state of the economy will be blamed on Obama although it is only partially his fault.
So, Obama needs to try to think of some very popular measures that he can sponsor with quite a bit of energy and enthusiasm. The NDAA bill is not a popular measure, not at all. The payroll tax may be popular with people who haven't thought about it, but it won't be popular when people realize what it is doing to Social Security. How in the world can Obama argue that Social Security needs fixing and then propose a policy that defunds Social Security. That inconsistency is a big problem.
shellgame26
(1,169 posts)From Think Progress
"The latest argument to emerge from the GOP has been that extending the payroll tax cut would undermine Social Security, since payroll tax revenue goes directly into the Social Security Trust Fund. Multiple Congressional Republicans have adopted that theory of late, including South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R), who put it to use on CNBC last night:
DEMINT: Republicans are always ready to cut taxes, as you know. We don’t think it’s a good idea to do it by raiding Social Security.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) made the same argument on Fox News earlier in the day:
PAUL: Well, you know, Social Security is $6 trillion short of money. So the president is advocating reducing the amount of funding to Social Security when they’re already $6 trillion short. So it doesn’t really make any sense and it really argues that he’s going to bankrupt Social Security even quicker by reducing it’s funding.
That argument, which has been adopted by members of both parties and perpetuated by news outlets like NPR, has one problem: it’s not true. Each of the plans under consideration is fully paid for, replacing revenue the Social Security Trust Fund would have lost from lower payroll tax receipts with money made up from either alternative revenue sources or spending cuts. The earlier payroll tax holiday, set to expire this month, was also fully-funded, and the program has thus far “been held harmless” from the holiday, as Reuters noted today.
And while the opposition from Republicans may seem like an impassioned defense of a vital and popular program, a look at their history with the program shows it is not. DeMint has supported privatizing the program while Paul is a proponent of means testing — “solutions” that are both bad policy and unnecessary. Despite Paul’s $6 trillion assertion, Social Security actually has a $2.6 trillion surplus and is solvent through at least 2037".
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is contrary to the concept of pay in-pay out that Social Security is based on.
Once you start funding Social Security with tax revenues from the general fund, then you change the whole nature of Social Security from one of earned benefits that seniors can accept with dignity to one that has a taint of "welfare payments" from the generosity of the public at large. Paying Social Security benefits from the general fund changes those benefits into charitable gifts of a sort rather than earned pay.
Just because some Republicans agree with me on this very basic view of the situation does not mean that I am a Republican. I had no idea that any Republicans cared that much about Social Security. In fact they are always wanting to privatize it. I want it to remain a program that permits senior Americans to live in dignity.
As a senior, this principle is very important to me.
I thought this through for myself. I read the statutes and studied this issue. That is how I came to my conclusions.
jtown1123
(3,203 posts)Read this position paper from NCPSSM.
They are a seniors advocacy group that by no means is Republican at all:
http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/vp_payroll_tax_bad_deal_seniors/
jtown1123
(3,203 posts)Yes, Republicans are being duplicitous and claiming they all of a sudden care about Social Security (motive is bad) but the payroll tax cut is problematic...also don't forget that this payroll tax cut is traditionally a GOP idea of stimulus because it puts SS on shaky ground.
The Nat'l Cmte to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is very concerned about this payroll tax cut:
National Committee Concerns
• From its inception little more than a year ago, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has expressed grave concerns about the wisdom of cutting the Social Security program's funds as a means of stimulating the economy. When we first expressed our opposition to this idea, we thought it was bad Social Security policy and that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to end this tax cut.
• It's bad Social Security policy because it undercuts the essential principles upon which the program rests. First, it undercuts the concept that Social Security benefits are an earned right that stems from the contributions that workers make to the program. Second, it undercuts the principle that Social Security is funded exclusively by workers' contributions, and thus does not contribute to the deficits that continue to challenge this country.
• Unfortunately, events have borne out our concerns about the permanence of this tax cut, as the Congress has now extended it through the first two months of 2012 and now is attempting to extend it through the remainder of the year.
• Don't get us wrong. The National Committee appreciates the importance of finding some means for stimulating the economy, especially given the fact that the recovery that we've seen in recent months has been weak, and the risk of slipping into another recession continues to hang over the economy. Clearly, the government must do something to strengthen the economy. We are concerned, however, that the approach that has been adopted is not the best way to accomplish this end. More troubling, we are convinced that using Social Security in this manner constitutes a long-term threat to the program.
• We agree with the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities and the Center on Economic and Policy Research that there are more effective ways of stimulating the economy. For example, extending the "Making Work Pay" tax credits would do more to boost the economy than extending. What is more, it is a less complex and more progressive method of stimulating the economy, and does not threaten Social Security's integrity.
• We acknowledge that the Congress has been careful to make sure that the payroll tax cut does not directly weaken the financial integrity of Social Security by replacing lost funds with general revenues. Still, the perceptual problem exists, and we are concerned that those who want to weaken or change the program will use this change in perception to the detriment of current and future seniors.
Estevan
(70 posts)that the stimulus was not effective. That's not what the cbo thinks
http://m.examiner.com/examiner/pm_60977/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=8GC3W58e
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)don't vote "to punish Obama" for what he did and did not do, that somehow a Republican Congress will pass more progressive legislation. It makes absolutely no sense.
Change in government has always been incremental, not comprehensive and not quick. The Civil Rights leaders knew this and knew it well. What they did back then and what we're NOT doing now is learning how governance actually works. These leaders studied Congress; they studied the laws, and they knew who their allies were (Yellow Dogs) and were not (Dixiecrats).
Why can't we do the same now?!?!?!?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)discuss the substance of the proposed laws, not just the reactions of this politician or that pundit to them.
I would like to have a group here on which we get copies of the texts of controversial laws and discuss them. We should also track the votes on them.
We need to focus much more on retiring certain members of Congress and less on banning people from DU.
If a lot of DUers are unhappy with Obama, there is a reason. I for one have been very, very active campaigning for Democrats most of my life. I'm not happy with Obama. My focus is going to be on congressional campaigns in 2012.
We really have to change Congress in order to change the conversation in D.C. The Teabaggers have made things a lot worse.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)This is all about *completely* changing the makeup of the Congress, especially the Senate!!
I'm a political science professor, and I am teaching my college students to study actual bills, not op-eds or commentary from pundits are who are not inside and don't really understand governance.
Edit to add: Perhaps the Research Forum may be the place to start a sub-forum where we can discuss bills/proposals/amendments to legislation.
Many folks--on BOTH sides (pro-Obama/con-Obama)--don't understand how complete actual legislation is.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)bills/proposals/amendments to legislation - where links to the bills, amendments, and articles have been posted and discussed.
I do not see any reason to have a 'group' that many folks wouldn't even know was there.
Why not keep those discussions out in the open in General Discussion?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Yes, we need to encourage more scrutiny and understanding of actual bills.
We also need to read the judicial decisions every once in a while. I have to admit that I am often lazy about these things and have difficulty finding the federal ones.
The bills in my state are easy to find, and I am used to working with the state codes, but I have not worked with federal bills that much.
Maybe you could start a thread about how to find federal bills, etc. on line. Thanks.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Library of Congress is the best place to go:
www.loc.gov
Also, the Congressional Record not only has the bill text, any amendments, and vote tallies, it is known to record actual floor speeches.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/
Very easy to search for key words, or if you know the bill numbers themselves, just plug them in the search engine on the site.
I think DU desperately needs this in the Research Forum.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I know where to look in the law library. I know how to deal with the hard copy. I also know how to find this information on Lexis -- to which I no longer have access.
So, thanks.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and cuts in payroll taxes, Obama is moving backwards. He is moving toward policies that undercut the progress that Democrats have made over the decades. That is why the strongest Democrats on this board are the most dissatisfied with Obama.
I would have liked a stronger health insurance reform bill, but can live with what we got. But on many other domestic issues, Obama is less progressive than the American people.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)2010 when we decided not to vote.
So, you want a more progressive health care reform bill, right? You will get that, but you won't get it with Blue Dogs in the House and Senate that were NEVER going to allow the Public Option to move forward. Trust me, I spent many days and hours calling Kay Hagan's office, calling Max Baucus's office, and other Blue Dogs, and writing letters.
PLEASE LISTEN TO ME CAREFULLY!
Give the president MORE progressives in BOTH the House and Senate, and you'll see more progressive legislation come forth. I'm sorry, but it will never happen with a Republican-dominated Congress or with a Democratically-controlled Senate full of Blue Dogs and Corporatists.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Obama backed the Blue Dog. That is one of the things that disappointed me. I think he should have stayed neutral in races like that unless there was really something wrong with the progressive.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)here.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)>>> It was Bill Clinton that campaigned his ass off for her.
Bill Clinton Tries to Shield Lincoln From Voters' Anger:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/100581-bill-clinton-tries-to-shield-lincoln-from-voters-anger
Bill Clinton Vs. the Unions: "Here is an article from the Washington Post, it says some national unions made a decision a few months ago, that they wanted to make Senator Blanche Lincoln the quote "poster child" for what happens when a Democrat crosses them. This is about using you and manipulating your votes. If you want to be Arkansas's advocate, vote for somebody who will fight for you. Vote for Blanche Lincoln." - President Bill Clinton
>>> Regarding Pres O and Blanche Lincolon, there was a rampant rumor on the intertubes that Pres O offered Halter a job to dissuade him from challenging Blanche Lincoln. That is not true. The extent of Pres O's assistance for this incumbent was a robocall on her behalf.
Bill Halter, Arkansas Senate Candidate, Said He Had No Discussions With Administration About Job Offer: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38099.html
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)vote
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)"pushing him." Indeed, it is not effective and is counterproductive.
But if you really want to push him, not voting is insane!! You can't expect him to do anything with a Teabagger-led Congress.
The answer is not voting. The answer is working to give him a supermajority in the House and in the Senate. And I'm NOT talking about Blue Dogs like LIEberman, Lincoln, Baucus, and Manchin. Howard Dean gave us a 50-state strategy, which was great. However, as a result of that strategy we got plenty of Blue Dog and Corporatist Democrats who have decided that their interests come first.We need MORE Bernie Sanders, not more Blanche Lincolns.
Do you understand this?
What we are witnessing now is the manifestation of what happens when people--out of anger--decide not to vote.
shellgame26
(1,169 posts)Seems so simple, why do these facts elude so many?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)It is precisely BECAUSE we've been faced with these abysmal choices that we MUST be far more active and far more committed to rescuing our co-opted system from the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our politics, our media and our global economy. This mandates that we remove from office as well ALL of the corporatists’ milquetoast sock puppets.
It is well past time for blaming and shaming, or for harboring resentments toward those who point out the weaknesses and missteps of our POTUS. Our nation is facing a cultural crisis, and our willingness to be activists must transcend merely ensconcing ourselves in front of a computer and pontificating about how wrong it is to criticize Mr. Obama.
Estevan
(70 posts)but criticism without analysis is meaningless.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)criticism of Obama that wasn't based on a lot of thought and analysis.
It is natural to want to support the candidate of your own party, the party to which you have belonged all your life. It is very hard to have to admit to yourself that you do not agree with some of the policies of the candidate of your party.
Estevan
(70 posts)But I'm not naive enough to expect that I should.
He is President of a big diverse country so he's bound to disappoint everyone sometimes.
And to say there hasnt been raw emotional rhetoric passing for critical analysis (on your side of the fence, if you will) is simply a joke.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)at the time of the inauguration (which I felt like everyone else) was so great. Our expectations were very high. And we are disappointed. It is as though we were jilted.
For me, having been a Democrat since I was 9 and having worked for many Democratic candidates, I just am heartsick at the nonchalance with which Obama has rejected or neglected a number of time-tested Democratic policies such as public education, such as dedication to the payroll tax as the means for funding Social Security, such as maintaining a strong Medicare program, such as supporting American workers and unions. The list is pretty long.
Obama does not represent the traditional values and policies of the Democratic Party.
He is too far toward the side of Reagan. Occasionally he gives a great speech that inspires everyone, but then he never follows through.
The current Congress is very difficult to deal with, but Obama is far too ready to compromise with the Republicans.
You cannot be the president of all Americans. We are as you pointed out Estevan, too diverse a country. Obama, whether he likes it or not, was elected to be a Democratic president. Some of his policies have been good, solid Democratic ones -- like enlisting gays and lesbians in the military, but too many of them have been more conservative than the traditional Democratic ones. This administration is a step backwards for the Democratic Party and the American people.
jtown1123
(3,203 posts)President Obama is not strong on Social Security and Medicare. That much is painfully obvious. He was willing to trade them away to end tax cuts millionaires should have never had in the first place. Not an even trade.
Democrats built these programs. It is incredibly dangerous politically to weaken them. It basically tears up Democratic traditional platforms from their roots.
I did NOT sit at home, and I DID vote for every single Democrat on the ticket. If I could not vote for a Democrat in a particular race, I voted for whoever was opposing the Republican.
Furthermore, I am not altogether sure we can trust ANYTHING that's been promulgated about the last election results, since the touch screen machines are now prolific, and exit polls have been deemed ineffective, and who knows for certain whether our 'votes' are even a part of the process these days...
Estevan
(70 posts)My apologies 
All the more reason to come out in droves next election.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--is either low income or outright poor. It amounts to around $200 for them. The $1,000-$1,700 number that keeps coming up is a benefit for the top 20% minus the 1%, and those folks are doing fine already. To put money into the hands of the bottom half of the population, you'd need to reinstate Make Work Pay or boost EITC.
jtown1123
(3,203 posts)Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)The way we got into this situation, with an African-American Democratic President further to the right than Nixon or Reagan and a Republican Party calling him a Socialist and running even further to the right than HE is, is because we keep being told we have to pick Door A. It's not the Monty Hall Problem, it's Xeno's paradox.
For those who don't know how the paradox works: if every step takes you halfway down the road you never reach your goal. The goal is a mile down the road, so you travel halfway then stop. Then your goal is half a mile away, so you travel halfway then stop. Now your goal is a quarter mile away so you travel halfway then stop. Now your goal is 600 feet away, so you travel halfway then stop. Now your goal is 300 feet away, so you travel halfway then stop. Now your goal is 150 feet away so you travel halfway then stop. Now it's 75 feet away. Then it's 38. Then it's 19. Then it's 10. Then it's 5.
Unless you travel the entire distance you never reach your destination. Half measures do. not. work.
And with the Republicans have been playing the game, we don't even get halfway. We travel maybe a quarter, maybe one eighth of the distance for everything we give up. So now the destination is 3/4 of a mile down the road and we give them everything they want to travel another 3/8 of a mile. Each step makes it harder to make any progress at all, and you never reach your goal.
The answer? Stop playing their game. If a Republican (or, as is too often the case, a Democrat) tells you that you have to choose Door A or Door B, you don't pick either door. You walk out of the "Let's Make A Deal" studio and go play "The Price Is Right" instead. And if they don't want to play your game, then they can go pound sand.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's when we pick a door.
Until that time, we as Democrats have the responsibility to keep questioning, to continue to demand more of our leadership -- more integrity, more concern about human rights, more honesty about our economy, a fair chance for everyone.
DU is not an official organ of the Democratic Party. DU is a place for discussion. We should demand much more of our leaders, much, much more.
Evasporque
(2,133 posts)To end those points you listed....in one or two years...we have to go to war with Republicans....fight them in the street. I for one would rather see them lose elections...and we keep chipping away at progress....always mindful of the future...and each other.
Continuously braying like lost distant cow about how awful Obama is and how the Democrats that support him are mindless automatons should offer something more besides divisive criticism....find common ground...write him a letter...write a letter to the editor....I am sure they would be happy to print any Anti-Obama diatribe from a Obama voter.
Real change...is happening, it started and it is just the beginning....don't think it isn't.....lets work to take congress back....and strengthen our senate majority...
Then you will see change happen....a little more expeditiously.
Muskypundit
(717 posts)You get it. +1
Kahuna
(27,365 posts)really light like that. It will be interesting to see if the alerts will be dealt with in an even-handed manner. I just sent an alert on another thread where Obama supporters were called his fellators. We shall see.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--"regarding the future direction of the country."
Logical
(22,457 posts)Many posters on the DU sound like they work for the DNC. They find NOTHING wrong with ANYTHING Obama has done.
And if you complain about any LEGIT Obama error or mistake they always respond with "Here is a list of stuff Obama has done". They never want to discuss the mistakes they want to shut down discussion.
It is a joke. Blind 100% support is not healthy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You sound like you just don't want to hear anything but criticism.
Why can't we be positive about our candidate for POTUS? On a site for Democrats?
Logical
(22,457 posts)are the Obama Cheer Leaders not willing to admit that Obama has some major policy issues.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why do we have to admit anything and give the right ammunition?
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)See the irony in your claim to be some sort of outcast?
You seem to have a fair amount of company. Why so put upon?
AllyCat
(18,456 posts)owners and cops steal our possessions and loot our car while we're there celebrating?
treestar
(82,383 posts)AllyCat
(18,456 posts)We get a few bones now and then (a couple good parts of health care reform, draw down of troops in Iraq, etc) while they continue to give banks free rein, Wall Street is taking all our money, people out of their homes, and education in the toilet. Among other things. I feel like supporters want us to overlook all the really BAD things that this Administration is doing or allowing to continue because we got a couple points on other issues.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Progress can be slow and difficult, especially with our system and the Senate and the filibusters.
You'd be giving up on a battle and blaming the general because he didn't take the fort right away - what if it took days of battle and a lot of loss along the way?
Nothing worth fighting for is easy.
AllyCat
(18,456 posts)And the Congressional Dems aren't either. When they held a majority, they couldn't do anything because they didn't have a "Super" majority. I don't think we are making progress. We're out of Iraq, but have escalated Afghanistan.
We never even CONSIDERED a public option. Our elections are a farce that aren't being investigated. We aren't even going to consider prosecuting his predecessor. Arne Duncan has put NCLB on steroids. We're fighting Occupy and medical marijauna, while there are more homeless trying to find a place to live and get food for their kids and corporate criminals go unprosecuted.
And now we can detain ANY citizen (that might be a terrorist, but who knows? no trial!) for any reason. He signed this and even asked for it?
I just can't get too excited about the little successes when so many bad things have not only been left untouched, but actually been propelled by this President.
I won't vote for a Republican't , but if a legitimate third party showed up that mirrored my values better, I'd vote for that person. It won't happen though. But I'm not going to cheer this Administration and I have no illusion that anything will get better with four more years. But it would be worse with a Con. Hard to get excited about this election at all.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Perhaps if when someone (anyone) posts criticism of Obama if they did it as 'constructive criticism' - such as I don't care for such and such, but if it was done as such and such it would be an improvement.
Normally when criticism is posted about Obama is it usually totally negative and many times posted by folks that 'only' post negative things - and many folks see it as 'bashing'.
I think that is why so many folks feel the need to jump in and say something positive.
As long as folks post negative stuff, I will continue to post positive stuff
Just my opinion.
p.s. I find many things that I do not agree with, but I prefer posting about the good things and not the bad. That's just how I roll 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)post. If you don't like something, say so. If you do like something, say so. We don't owe a debt of absolute loyalty here on DU or anywhere when it comes to politics -- unless we are employed by the Democratic Party or something like that.
I would appreciate your honest opinions Tx4obama, whether I agree with them or not. We can't improve our world or our party if we only praise the status quo.
I remember the Civil Rights Movement. If people had only taken a positive view of the status quo, we would still have segregation. You have to have seen segregation, the separate water fountains, the African-Americans standing in the back of the bus while white people had empty seats at their sides, the separate waiting rooms in bus stations, the segregated schools, to understand that if you want change, you have to make a fuss. Being positive about segregation did not change the situation.
Obama does a good job in many respects, but in certain very important areas, including human rights (killing American citizens by drones, for example), the economy (Geithner and Bernanke???) and education, I am far more liberal than he is. I am not ashamed of being a liberal, and I plan to continue to express my opinions honestly on DU.
No one has to agree with me. I am interested in hearing opinions that differ from my own. It is important to argue about issues and hash them out on DU. Where else can we do that?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I did my civic duty.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)legitimacy of Obama detractors, it would most assuredly been shut down at first post!
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:45 PM - Edit history (2)
We do indeed know where we stand here.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)to leave FOR GOOD!!!
bigtree
(93,312 posts)This post isn't anywhere near the standard of provoking a reasonable discourse that I thought our threads had to adhere to. It's positively flamebait. And, as you say, I'm just burning to take the opposite tack, just to keep from feeling like I'm in some republican refuge. If you can't come here as an Obama supporter during this election and not feel like you're under assault, I really don't know why Democrats would bother to convene here. There is no viable opponent in the primaries. Everyone knows this is our nominee . . . I can imagine the reaction of an outsider looking in who is interested in expressing support for our Democratic nominee on a board called Democratic Underground . . . this goes to the heart of why *most of us participate in this process and why we have an internet refuge.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)One way or another...
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and very thoughtful post about the incongruent arguements given by the more fervent Obama supporters. They could learn from this. That other thread, you know where they rewrite the meaning of being progressive? Please show me if there was anything more to that than sneering at fellow Dems. That OP was un-thought provoking.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)It's fucking disgusting.
JVS
(61,935 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)thank god some of us have more complicated thought processes than that.
emulatorloo
(46,135 posts)Perhaps there are indeed a all or nothing posters, but I would say only a handful.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)this means that you have to claim 100% satisfaction, and not engage in conversations where we reveal any dissapointment. To me, thats bullshit. We should be able to discuss what direction we want the govt to be taking. Not only the accomplishments, but the mistakes made. And we should, as Obama supporters be able to discuss these things, without being called freepers or being told to go somewhere.
So the OP is on target about that mindset, because none of these people are honestly reacting to his OP about the heart of it- the nature of the "defending" they sometimes do- the contradictions and rationalizations that are out there for all to see.
All they do is lick their wounds and stick to the "either you're for him or against him" BS. I guess they see things in a very simple black and white way, and can't fathom that many people are 60-70% happy with BO, and would like things to get better.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)argue with the word you introduced as if it was the OP's. Really, you are not alone in the thread doing this, and it is exactly what the OP is addressing if you ask me. Why alter the words used? To better characterize them incorrectly, of course.
The defenders defend it all, the wrong along with the right. That is not support at all, so the name supporter does not apply. To say there should be only agreement with the President is servile and in fact, morally treasonable to the people. To do so is not support, it is just self indulgence in a fawning sort of courtly politic.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)just Obama supporters.
from the OP...
Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible
there it is in black and white.
I support the DEMOCRATIC president, and I would prefer not to be called morally bankrupt and contemptible. I'm sure I'm not alone in this preference.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)detractors "morally bankrupt and contemptible," a "jury" wouldn't be necessary. The Mods would just close my shit. Period!
Skittles
(169,224 posts)take your blinders off and actually READ
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)since I almost always see that insult. Holding his feet to the fire does NOT make me a Republiscum
bigtree
(93,312 posts)It's generalized as to include anyone who dares express support for the man. It's full of half-truths, and the worst of assumptions about the motivations of posters here. It's an outright attack on Obama supporters. It's ridiculous to posture like it's anything else.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)over simplistic bullshit.
"we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy" why do you want to shut down discussion around that?
bigtree
(93,312 posts). . . the poster, nor yo, have any way of knowing what these folks believe. I see that hasn't prevented you from speaking for everyone, though.
I also see that you're comfortable deciding for everyone else what is 'moral.' Evangelistic bullshit.
Try this. Just say what YOU believe and let everyone else speak for themselves. If you have a problem with what someone says, tell them then and there and be done with it. Don't smear everyone else with your broad brush attacks; you or your self-righteous buddy.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)it gives ammo to the enemy. AND some believe if you have any issues w/ BO, you are NOT a supporter, no matter what you say.
They think they know best what people should and shouldn't say here, and have no problem claiming that good Dems are anything but that. Sorry-everything I listed, is all over this thread. So I DO KNOW what they think.
I think they are hilarious, and see the world as a very simple place.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't want that interminable list. I want to hear in your own words what you like about Obama's policies.
Do you think the economy is going well?
Do you like the way he pushed to get certain appointments?
Are you happy with the healthcare insurance bill?
What is it specifically that you like about Obama's presidency?
I criticize Obama in a number of areas, but there are other things about his presidency that I like.
If you want to persuade people to support Obama, then rather than attacking them for holding opinions different from your own, you would get further if you talk from your heart about the things you like about him.
Virtually everyone on DU is going to vote for Obama in 2012. There really isn't any other choice for most of us.
Why don't you try to at least make us feel good about something we dread doing?
And never mind when people argue with you. Why would you keep coming to a forum in which you only talked to people who agreed with you on everything? That would be boring.
bigtree
(93,312 posts)deal with that
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You can't just get offended and reply in a huff. That will not persuade anyone to agree with you. It won't even persuade anyone that you know what you are talking about. Why do you support Obama?
Do you like his stance on the payroll tax vacation?
Do you like his support for the rebels in Libya?
Do you like his health insurance reform plan? If so, what do you like about it? If you want to win an argument with someone who disagrees with you, you have to organize your ideas and present the evidence supporting your argument with some sincerity and persuasiveness.
You cannot succeed in making a case if you just point your finger and scream. During the campaign, how are you going to persuade Independents and Republicans that they should vote for Obama if you can't even persuade disillusioned Democrats.
You better be able to do better than just scold people for disagreeing with you.
bigtree
(93,312 posts). . . couched in the opinionated drivel and psychobabble
I express many many views on this board and I don't need to prove a thing to you. You want to know my views? I've been here since 2003. My journal is a good place to start. From there, you can google bigtree and whatever issue you want. If I've been interested in sharing my view on a particular issue I will have shared it openly and expressed myself fully.
So you can stop this ridiculous call out. You know well why I'm complaining in this thread.
Skittles
(169,224 posts)seriously, why? I think it's because when you are backed into a corner you CANNOT defend the indefensible so you scream CALL OUT.
bigtree
(93,312 posts)from the bullshit in this bullshit post.
Like your attempt here.
Skittles
(169,224 posts)and YOU KNOW IT
bigtree
(93,312 posts)It's taunting. It's insulting . . .and your little attempt to call me out in this thread instead of addressing the insults is despicable. You couldn't be more dishonest.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Man, just when I think I have SEEN IT ALL in terms of ridiculousness and blatant dishonesty, somebody comes along and blows the other contenders out of the damn water.
"I'm trying to help you argue your case better!" LOL!!!! Oh God, my DU Christmas wish is to please not see something that hilariously idiotic ever again.
Evasporque
(2,133 posts)1. He and I are the same age....I believe early 60's boomers have been ignored and discounted for two long. We grew up not knowing the 50's or 40s and were too young to be overly influenced by Vietnam...what we saw....Nixon, Carter and how he was treated by conservatives....then Reagan and Bush...we sawy our nation crumble. The main streets of our childhood NO LONGER EXIST....I think Obama understands that and that ultimately we have to reclaim some of our own economy and do so on a smaller scale. To do that some of it has to be dismantled, but first we have to get the republican monkey off this nation's back.
I think there are many things he does to allow other aspects of change to occur....specifically...DADT was a big one for me, also instructing the justice department to not defend DOMA, We are out of Iraq....I never thought we would be gone...I don't know what all is left there...but it stands to reason there would be a long term residual presence.
2. I like Obama's Health Refrom....it is step closer and from the perspective of my job I see that this is a stepping stone to a single payer public healthcare system in my lifetime. Changes made will force providers to cut costs and increase quality. It also includes the end of pre-existing conditions and introduces elements LGBT equality in healthcare.
3. I think that bailing out the auto-industry was the right thing to do. We have to retain and return to America's core skills. Manufacturing goods at all levels to sell to each other is essential. Advancements in this area are hindered at every opportunity by Republicans.
4. Maintains a reasonably consistent level of compassion for the poor, the middle class workers and the aged. When Republicans seek cuts there is a battle. When egregious proposals are put forth he does slice them up...Healthcare debate, DADT, DOMA....Bush tax cuts....spending bill and debt increase....he went toe to toe with Republicans....they hate him because he is smart and effective negotiator....we don't see much of that....
I know we need to change a lot of things....I want to be married....I can't in my state....I want health coverage for my transition....I don't have that. I want us out of Afganistan...I want taxes on the rich, I want redevelopment of local micro economies....a effort with private investors ad public grants in coordination...
I was pissed at this OP....but it is here....and so is Obama....I am sticking with him...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I tend to be very pleased with Obama on the topics you mention.
I'm not happy with others of his policies, but I strongly support Obama on the things you mentioned.
Number23
(24,544 posts)[iIf you can't come here as an Obama supporter during this election and not feel like you're under assault, I really don't know why Democrats would bother to convene here.
Do you think a site of genuine Democrats would be full of this much angst and wailing which ALWAYS seems to lead either towards "I'm not voting at all" or some ambiguous third party candidate that doesn't have a chance in hell?
This post from JoePhilly really sums this place up imho http://www.democraticunderground.com/11021290
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I walked many precincts and tabled and called and really campaigned hard for Kerry/Edwards in 2004.
So, a lot of the disgruntled Democrats here are activists who have been extremely active and loyal to the Democratic Party for many years.
I wore my Adlai Stevenson button when I was in grade school.
I campaigned for McGovern. I lived overseas for some years, but when I returned I got active in politics again and campaigned for Democratic candidates many, many times.
We are genuine Democrats here. In fact, I was campaigning for McGovern when Obama was just a child. And he wasn't born when Stevenson ran.
It is people who have been stalwart Democrats all their lives -- and some of the lives have been very long -- who are disgusted with a lot of Obama's cabinet choices and policies. I am a Democrat. That I know. But is Obama??????
I will vote for Obama as I have for other Democratic candidates about whom I had doubts. But I would like to see an end to the corruption in D.C. I genuinely hoped that Obama had the courage and strength to open up D.C., but apparently I was wrong.
Don't be down on us. We are the Democratic Party. If Obama wants to get re-elected, he needs to do a lot more to make us enthusiastic. We are the guys who get out and walk precincts and talk to voters. He has made that hard for us.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--fully intend to at least vote for him in 2012, because anything else would be tactically and strategically stupid.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)that "the randomly-selected jurors" had voted to keep the thread going. I've had my own comments hidden for much lesser offenses.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"At this point defenders (of party leadership as well as the president) resemble family members of an addict who are in denial. They look at an empty pantry, a clean space where the microwave used to be, and invent justifications, however implausible, for the theft and sale of necessities. Where the road to rehabilitation for the addict is clear and feasible, they make of minor obstacles tremendous and insurmountable barriers to justify a lack of action, and freely cling to the sort of lazy perfectionism that dogs any addict's plans for improvement, treatment, and health. The addict's plans are always fraught with prerequisites and strict time-based conditions - should any step fail or see its opportunity lapse, however minor the step, it is seized upon as a perfectly sane excuse to entirely abandon the attempt at kicking the habit."
...utter nonsense!
It's garbage like this why no one can take some of the President's critics serious.
izquierdista
(11,689 posts)Selective memory and fact-picking are not just diseases of the conservative mindset, but the liberal as well. Better that they would go back to clearly articulated New Deal principles and FDR's second bill of rights and see whether their idol meets the mark.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)AllyCat
(18,456 posts)Please delete your post or eliminate the ad hominem.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)or are you content to merely slur the presidents critics and give no reasons?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I think it's a very clear and accurate analogy. Do you care to explain exactly why you disagree or are you content to merely slur the presidents critics and give no reasons? "
...as an "addict" in "denial" and a "morally bankrupt and contemptible" soul, I'm in good company.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108
I will never be as pure and self-righteous as the President's critics.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"okay, more name calling. You have confused 'having issues' with being a 'purist', LOL. "
...saying someone is "pure" is almost as bad as claiming someone is an "addict" in "denial" and a "morally bankrupt and contemptible" soul.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)shutting down any meaningful dialog. Way too much of this crap on DU. Sorry. Not a one issue voter, or a purist by any means. Just a proud liberal progressive (not the new DU definitaion, either) who has seen Obama lose a lot of support. God forbid we talk about it here though right?
Rah rah rah!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)shutting down any meaningful dialog. Way too much of this crap on DU. Sorry....
...fixed!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and focus on the name calling. Sorry. Lists of accomplishments and name calling, no matter how oft repeated are no substitute for real discussion.
"we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy" , do you agree? If so, why is this discussion so frequently attacked here? To me, that's repulsive.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"you ignore this and focus on the name calling. Lists of accomplishments and name calling, no matter how oft repeated are no substitute for real discussion."
...you expect people to "ignore" the name calling? So the name calling is because of the "list of accomplishments"? Are you suggesting that if the President's supporters would "ignore" his "list of accomplishments," they too would realize that support for the President is like an "addict" in "denial" and "morally bankrupt and contemptible"?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and using it as an excuse to keep their head in the sand. I guess I expected too much.
Your second paragraph takes a huge unsupportable leap, no one said "support for the president is like an addict"- they CLEARLY said, refusing to adresss Liberal voters dissapointments was akin to enabling. That making light of them was a form of denial. He also said the president is and should be supported. Not sure how you missed all that! Hopefully, that's clearer now.
Many of us support this president AND feel "we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy". We are not comfortable looking the other way and being handed a list to read. Enough of the lists!
uponit7771
(93,464 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I used a signature line from Erich Ludendorff "I solemnly prophesy that this accursed man will cast our Reich into the abyss and bring our nation to inconceivable misery. Future generations will damn you in your grave for what you have done.""
If it is important to have a political party that supports things like the New Deal and policies on the order of LBJ. To have a government that represents the bottom 60% instead of the top 20% then it is, yes, contemptible and morally bankrupt to facilitate a slide away from such a government.
As for the analogy of the addict. The addict, you see, pawns their microwave in order to buy more drugs. Then they later deny that this actually happened. They imagine that the microwave was stolen, or lost, or quit working and was thrown out. They deny their own culpability in what just happened.
In a similar way, the Obama supporter looks at the political shelf and sees that the Bush tax cuts have been extended and that a Catfood Commission has suggested odious changes to Social Security and the tax code, and those have been embraced by Obama. They see Obama appointing people who are pro-Wall Street instead of pro-Main Street to his cabinet. The microwave of a Democratic Party that stands for the common person has been taken to the pawn shop in order to get Wall Street donations for another term for Obama. Yet Obama supporters are in denial about the fatal, self-inflicted stab wound in the heart of the Democratic Party.
Back in 1968 with Humphrey vs. Nixon it seems that both candidates, even the Republican were to the left of Obama. In the future, facilitated highly by Obama and his supporters, we can predict Presidential elections in 2016 or 2020 where both candidates, even the nominal Democrat, are to the right of George H.W. Bush. We are already poised to re-elected a Democrat who openly does not represent the bottom 60%.
"In a similar way, the Obama supporter looks at the political shelf and sees that the Bush tax cuts have been extended and that a Catfood Commission has suggested odious changes to Social Security and the tax code, and those have been embraced by Obama. They see Obama appointing people who are pro-Wall Street instead of pro-Main Street to his cabinet. The microwave of a Democratic Party that stands for the common person has been taken to the pawn shop in order to get Wall Street donations for another term for Obama. Yet Obama supporters are in denial about the fatal, self-inflicted stab wound in the heart of the Democratic Party."
...is complete nonsense. The Bush tax cuts for the rich would not have been extended if Republican Senators weren't needed to pass the package. In fact, there were a handful of Democrats who did not want the tax cuts for the rich to expire. Republicans taking control of the House made the situation more critical.
Repeating ths claims about Social Security doesn't change the fact that the President repeatedly stated that he would not cut the program, and it has, in fact, not been cut.
Still what does any of that have to do with calling anyone who supporters the President an "addicts" in "denial" and "morally bankrupt and contemptible"?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)you defend Obama by claiming he was powerless to end the Bush tax cuts.
Yet it's quite obvious they could have been ended if he had simply done nothing.
Instead of doing nothing, Obama worked to throw a big pile of money at the top 5%.
You illustrate it here. You are in denial about how Obama extended those tax cuts, about how he offered Social Security for cuts, practically begged Republicans to join him and that it only didn't happen because Republicans would not accept $100 billion in tax increases. Obama embraced the Catfood Commission, embraced the gang of six, has called for Republican-type "reforms" of the income tax. Hasn't happened yet, but he is working on it.
You are in denial about what Obama is doing. You demonstrate that. It's not Obama's fault that the microwave got pawned. The Senate made him do it. I guess the Senate also made him create the Catfood Commission too. And the Senate made him embrace their odious proposals rather than reject them.
The United States is supposed to be a Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". One of the things making it so, is the Democratic Party, which is a party that fights for the "common person" as Kennedy said http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/166
To watch our party betray those ideals, to sit idly by, complacent about what is going on, or, worse yet, to actively assist it, certainly seems "morally bankrupt and contempible" to those who are prepared to give their last full measure of devotion to stop such a slide into oligarchy.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)would have not been passed.
Things are NOT always as black and white as some folks would like, there are always shades of grey that must be looked at carefully.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)despite the Southern Democrats, I could understand what you're saying. But you neglect to consider the history of the LBJ era. How many progressive Yellow Dogs do Obama have in the House AND the Senate (especially)? And not only that, how many Rockefeller Republicans did LBJ have that created a winning coalitions? Obama simply does not have these advantages.
Work to get more progressives elected to Congress in a SUPERMAJORITY!!!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Did you stand up for Liberals when they were attacked and abused by the presidents representatives? Were you as outraged when someone who actually has a microphone and the power to shut people up, began these attacks on people who were supporters and were trying to help, as they had been asked to do?
I saw no such outrage back then, which was a shame as it was those public statements and the constant slamming of people who were simply asking questions at that time, that completely split the party. With the full support of many on DU airc.
This is an obscure OP on an internet board that could not have half the impact of the insults constantly aimed at Progressives who dared to question some of the policies, the cabinet choices etc of the president THEY worked hard to get elected, only to be told to 'stfu' as soon as the election was over.
Politics is tough, I really don't care what anyone calls me, so long as I know that I will always care more about issues than any individual politician and being accused of being 'a hater' or a 'person with retarded ideas' doesn't bother me at all. I simply consider the source.
If you participate in politics, you have to be able to ignore a lot of nastiness and stick to the issues that are important.
It IS about issues, NOT about people. Politicians are no more important than we allow them to be.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I am about issues too. Not party, not politician, not personality. If they don't stand for good policy, they mean nothing to me and they certainly don't deserve to be defended. The people who place policy first are NOT the villains here and shouldn't be marginalized and denigrated for that.
The way I see it, those who choose this president over everything else that could matter are the ones with the advantage. Their guy is the president. Their politician is at the top of the totem pole and he gets to implement policy that I have to assume they prefer. So I don't know why they think they're everyone else's battered victim. They're not. I don't get it.
They've got the presidency, what more do they want? It's not enough that Obama is President, but everyone else has to think, behave, and speak like them, too? You gotta be kidding.
And, dear Obama die-hard supporters, you are the power by virtue of his position and your choice of him, whether you know it or not. Be happy. You may not have this again.
It's tough speaking truth to power, but somebody has to do it.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)more that come to mind
NashVegas
(28,957 posts)Was the name that Michelle's food blogger had for people who thought a well-publicized organic WH garden should avoid using toxic soil.
quakerboy
(14,696 posts)Which of the presidents critics do you take seriously?
warrior1
(12,325 posts)the democrats and Obama got beat up by is supporters last year we got a pile of teabaggers who have made it almost impossible to govern. If that what you want again, we are screwed.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I bet almost all of us did and voted straight-ticket Dem, too.
I don't think the outcome is the fault of people here.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)should not have to do anything to earn the votes they are asking for other than wear the letter of either party. And once they do that, they have a right to people's votes, regardless of whether they have represented the people's interests or not.
If you refuse to face the fact that Democrats lost because they let down the people who voted for them and rather than blame the politicians continue to blame the people, you will guarantee another loss.
Progressives did not lose in 2010, except for two of them. Blue Dogs lost. Think about that before making these kinds of comments blaming the voters. Democratic voters voted for Democrats who earned their votes. That is how Democracy works. Blue Dogs did not earn their votes, so they lost.
And for the millionth time it seems, Democrats lost the Indpendent and youth vote, Progressives as they always do, went out to vote.
But even progressives, now sick and tired of being blamed for not voting, when if they had not, even the Dems who won would have lost, are getting tired of this whole system which seems to be run by people who think they can bully people, falsely accuse them of not voting when they did, and that other brilliant tactic, try to scare and shame them into voting for people who do not represent their interests.
If you do not want Republicans to win in 2012, stop slamming the people who put Democrats in the WH and gave them a majority in Congress and saved them from a complete wipe-out in 2008. They just might decide that it isn't worth it anymore and then you can be sure Republicans will win.
The people the Party needs to be bending over backwards for right now are progressive democratic voters who are sick and tired of the attacks on them by political operatives all of whom need to be fired imho.
Ron Green
(9,867 posts)"fireside chats" to mobilize citizens in a certain direction. How could he have, though, having filled his cabinet with those complicit in creating the problems?
mmonk
(52,589 posts)We also know they did not have to be the cabinet.
tridim
(45,358 posts)American families don't sit in front of the wood stove listening intently to the President speak on the radio set. Today's radios deliver nothing but right wing hate and crappy music.
Here in the present, Obama is using all of the modern media to deliver his message every day. How could you miss it?
Ron Green
(9,867 posts)the modern media effectively, then he's NOT on the right side of the biggest issues. He could have been, but he's not.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Big issues like ending DADT?
Big issues like preventing another Great Depression in spite of Republican gridlock?
Big issues like making health insurance companies actually pay for health care?
From where I sit, he's on the Democratic side of ALL the big issues, and he's steadily delivering.
Ron Green
(9,867 posts)Fox. But they're both funded by the biggest corporate players. And as long as this is the case, we'll not see a carbon tax (cap-and-trade is portrayed as "left" ) or single-payer health care (the public option is portrayed as "left".)
This president could have used the bully pulpit to set the tone and do the right things from the very start: holding Cheney-Bush accountable, for one thing. Or not bringing the Banksters right into his administration. It's a matter of communicating with the people more effectively than does the Noise Machine.
Some true!
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)libraries, community centers, etc
emulatorloo
(46,135 posts)That's the modern version of the Fireside Chat
Ron Green
(9,867 posts)In today's electronic environment, a weekly address is lost. FDR's chats were ground-breaking.
emulatorloo
(46,135 posts)Honest question, I would love to hear your ideas. I think it is very difficult to cut through the noise generated by cable news, right wing radio, et cetera. So I am very interested in what you have in mind.
Ron Green
(9,867 posts)it would have to be at least prime time TV, podcasts, something more than what's on now. My main complaint is that he hasn't called out the right wing loudly enough to effect a real "change we can believe in."
Of course there's the possibility he doesn't truly want to move against the status quo in a game-changing way.
emulatorloo
(46,135 posts)I sure didn't. There is some huge filter out there.
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)You can't force everyone to sit around the radio in our day and age
Hell look at all the TV stations there are nowadays - no one even listens to the same 'news' anymore like they did a decade or two ago.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)like newspapers at the time. People spent money they could have eaten on to buy radios to hear him.
I think Obama needs to do podcasts, emailed as well, twice a week; especially when people are afraid, stressed about something-we need a lifesaver thrown down to us. 48% of Americans now considered poor is an enormous tragedy made by W, I would feel better to hear Obama telling how he is working-in detail on all the issues, what needs to be done, what has been done, what to expect.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)would listen to 'two podcasts' ?
For the President's Weekly Address video click here: http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse
and look in the video on the right side of the page
For what Obama does each week, look for the videos that say: West Wing Week http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse
over in the videos on the right side of the page.
And the White House White Board videos there are informative also.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)are high quality, well thought out, and well produced.
We just need to get more folks to watch them
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Most things we consider lost are simply things we do not value enough to look for.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Which is basically a 'fireside chat' but on VIDEO.
Perhaps you've been missing them all of these years?
They are posted on the White House website and also on YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse
Just scroll the left side bar of the videos to see the Weekly Addresses by President Obama
Hope that helps
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)Ron Green
(9,867 posts)FDR's "fireside chats." He was communicating with the whole country, because radio was relatively new and in virtually every household. A weekly podcast isn't in the same universe. The very least Obama could have done was to hold frequent press conferences, prime-time speeches, whatever... in which he called out the Repubs for what they are, rather than remaining cozy with them while they screwed him and us without concern.
"...and I welcome their hatred." - FDR
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10171994
But surely you must have already have seen it since it was on the TV today.
Ron Green
(9,867 posts)People who don't actively seek out the president's message need to be confronted with it.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)
liberal N proud
(61,164 posts)Critics are usually single issue voters and act like thei opinion is the only one that counts. They sound almost republicanesque!
Logical
(22,457 posts)liberal N proud
(61,164 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I'm a huge cheerleader here on DU - I'm based in reality.
It's just that I refuse to constantly bash Obama on message boards like other folks that I've seen.
Logical
(22,457 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)We even have to ask them nicely to vote Democratic!
Repeatedly we are threatened with their loss if Obama doesn't do this or that!
And they will never be satisfied, so it's no use trying.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Thank you SO much.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
stonecutter357
(12,966 posts)Yes
Enrique
(27,461 posts)for some of the accomplishments, right up until Obama made the "right" decision, some people were insisting that it was impossible for him to do it. They come up with all kinds of things, "read the Constitution", "the president is not King", etc.
At times they even use that excuse after the president has made the decision, which of course is nonsensical.
To give a recent example, I actually was giving Obama credit for adopting a more reasonable deportation policy, and an Obama defender responded by telling me that he couldn't do anything because of the "laws". But that made no sense because as i had pointed out, he did improve the policy, without any change in the laws.
So every accomplishment ironically undermines the argument that Obama is powerless.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)This OP reminds me of the righteous indignation displayed by the Baptist preachers I once knew, telling me that I was bound for Hell unless I accepted everything they said as coming straight from God.
I seem to recall them calling people like me "morally bankrupt and contemptible", as they sat on their thrown at God's right hand.
The only thing missing from the OP is a picture of this ...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"To announce that there should be no criticism of the President, or that we must stand by the President right or wrong is not only servile and unpatriotic, it is morally treasonable to the American public."
The OP addresses the constant defender, the 'right or wrong' defender, not those who are actual supporters. Constant defenders are not supporters, they are constant defenders, often harmful to the process and to the politician.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And you apparently defend it.
The OP claims moral superiority. If you can't see that, than you are not paying attention.
I never trust the self righteous. Whether they take the right wing or left wing position.
They are COWARDS who attempt to use their SELF PROCLAIMED MORAL SUPERIORITY as a weapon.
I was unwilling to accept such nonsense from Baptist Ministers ... and I sure won't bow to it on an internet web site.
BTW ... I agree with Teddy ... dissent is great ...
But trying to claim that YOU own the Moral High Ground, SCREAMS of hypocrisy, and that is exactly what the OP did.
aquart
(69,014 posts)
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Next!!1!
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)We're nothing but morally contemptible and bankrupt addicts, acc to the OP. And it's still up. This is fucking disgusting.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Fuck that shit.
Response to DevonRex (Reply #47)
Post removed
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)The original post was clearly meant to inflame and provoke emotional response, which it has.
If one wanted to parrot your smug addition comment, it could be said that the original post is like an abusive partner telling the abused that they get treated like that because they deserve it; i.e. supporting Barack Obama. Obviously this sort of insulting can go both ways.
Instead, why not elevate the discourse and speak with civility even toward those you disagree with?
stonecutter357
(12,966 posts)calm down
vaberella
(24,634 posts)The asshole clearly called us contemptible because we support the President. Just the first line of his "short version" kills any other point s/he wants to make and you make me sick for defending his statements and marginalizing justifiable anger against the OPs claims.
You called the other thread divisive but defend this obvious divisive thread. Like the OP said to us...maybe those who support him as you seem too...should check your morals. Cause it's twisted.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)The candidate will be supported.
But, there all policies of this administration that we cannot support while calling ourselves moral. Indefinite detention and assassination of American citizens is the clearest, most recent example. The flushing of habeas corpus is another.
Given that the overwhelming majority of Dems will support this president in the election, do we or don't we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'm not sure why this angers his most fervent supporters.
But it's a conversation us voters need to have this coming year. I'm sick of the list of accomplishments and the pony/ purits/ one issue rhetortic that tries to paint me as a baddie for wanting the issues raised. Fuck that.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)it's our responsibility to demand our party supports our interests. that's the participatory part of democracy. otherwise you're just buying the suit and continuing on your way as if it's a retail transaction.
politics is haggling. you never buy the suit without negotiating the terms.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk.
Logical
(22,457 posts)discussion about errors Obama has made because the cheerleading crowd drowns it out with the list of stuff Obama has done good.
They do not want discussion because they do not want to admit Obama has been wrong on some issues.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Really.
That works, oh! so well in real life for you, does it?
Overseas
(12,121 posts)Bush and Cheney for their war crimes. (Probably because too many Democrats voted to support the war on Iraq. But they could have impeached the Bush gang for authorizing torture and tossing out the Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg principles so easily.)
They didn't even dare filibuster the nomination of right wing judicial activist Sammy Alito to our supreme court because they were so afraid of the Nuclear Option-- the potential elimination of the filibuster. Had they dared to go ahead and stop judicial activism on the right even if the filibuster was removed, the Republicans would have lost their most valuable tool in opposing our president at every step of the way.
So I did realize early on that a substantial part of my opposition to President Obama's inability to return our country to what worked in healing our economy after the last Great Depression was due to a disunited group of Democratic legislators. Had they all banded together after the Bush Crash to demand financial regulation, Medicare for Everyone and the early rescinding of the Bush tax cuts for the top one percent, that would have given the president more power to heal our economy.
So I guess it really is the power of money in our political system as it now stands that I am most opposed to. That financial power intimidated so many Democratic legislators and still does today. Pretending they wanted to compromise for grand bipartisan reasons was a convenient cover. Because the multinational corporations had become quite bipartisan in their campain spending.
And earlier Democrats had allowed the media consolidation that enabled the right wing takeover of most of our news. So we got a 24/7 anti-Democratic Party news channel that pushed our other media to the right and made it even harder for Democrats to stand up for our principles.
bigtree
(93,312 posts). . . is that the poster hasn't bothered to show up and defend it. Hit and run.
Inspiring.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
jpgray
(27,831 posts)I am sorry that this OP has been so hurtful.
What should be impossible to ignore is that our party and the country can head into complete disaster all while nominating and electing candidates superior to those of the opposition. We could elect Democratic presidents for the next eighteen years and still lose the New Deal. If comparison to the alternative is the only standard, the principles of the party are changeable for the worse indefinitely, so long as the party platform of the Republicans remains still worse.
It is our responsibility to elect the superior candidate, which will be Obama. It is also our responsibility to ensure we do not lose but gain ground on fundamental Democratic principles. With each election we should be making progress on fundamental values. We should not take pride that we have ceded less ground than we might have done each election, because after several elections we will be far from the values that made our party in the first place.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I don't have to address anything in that slimeY OP. know this.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)posted already. All I see here is a lot of righteous indignation and wound licking. Not any counterarguement at all. Not a peep.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)emulatorloo
(46,135 posts)There is a big difference
Number23
(24,544 posts)by right wing evangelicals and Republican politicians caught with their pants down. Often literally.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)You should be able to understand that. Ultimately it's a thread directed to hurt others and attack those who actually support Obama. The OP claims to think Obama supporters are basically garbage and you want us to find substance in that. But interestingly enough s/he claims to support Obama---to go as far as to vote for him. Do you defend that...because then s/he thinks of himself as contemptible too. Ultimately killed any substance. There is none. But I'm impressed your searching and found some.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and do have serious issues we would like to discuss here. That we do not make excuses for him and pretend everything he has done been 100% great. Yet we are still his supporters. Our votes and opinions are just as valid as those who defend his every single action. And that those who defend his every action often use arguements that completely counter each other. And this appears to be dishonest.
Not only that, but the disgusting threads saying support every policy or leave are sickening, simple minded nast BS, and I'm fed up with it.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)You can. Go ahead.
"I am sorry that this OP has been so hurtful. "
...were you thinking? And look at the number of people defending your characterization.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the notion that many Dems- Obama supporters too - feel this discussion is sorely needed. Now more than ever.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the notion that many Dems- Obama supporters too - feel this discussion is sorely needed. Now more than ever."
...you don't seem to "wrap your head around the notion" that the OP is offensive!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)"You continue to avoid the substance of the OP. That's interesting. "
...you mean the "substance" like this:
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)pretending Obama has walked the moral high road every step.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Ron Paul is picking up a lot of youth support because Dems have kept their heads down, pretending Obama has walked the moral high road every step. "
...it be wild if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination and the Presidency. Then everyone could spend time discussion who is better Ron Paul or Obama, and comparing notes about whose supporters are "morally bankrupt and contemptible."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)silly me.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)They know there are many issues unworthy of defense.
240 posts and no discussion about any of the issues yet.
Great way to fix a problem, stick your head in the sand and blame the ones that notice there are problems.
bigtree
(93,312 posts). . . the fact that you think your broad brush insults represent what you've just written . . . speaks for itself.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)is they are rude insulting and have no compassion or empathy.
When people complain about Obama's policies that are hurting them and are told they are just "haters" or "whiners" or they didn't get their pony, and they have to listen to this shit while they are wondering how they are going to pay their bills or get their medication or cover their heating for the winter it tends to make them want to vote for Obama even less.
Now I could tell them, "hey wouldn't it be more unifying, if instead of laughing at someone in distress, if you offered some sympathy and then maybe explained why you see things differently? But that would draw more scorn and derision.
For my part, especially during this last go round with NDAA I tried to be nice about it, I tried to get them to read the bill they were defending, and come back with a better understanding of what was upsetting people. But that didn't fit in with the "hysterical" meme that was being whipped around.
I even gave them the benefit of the doubt on the "detention" section. too bad they were all "MISINFORMED" about the language being removed. 
I'll vote for Obama, but not because he's the best man for the job like I thought in 08'. And certainly not because of anything some hack on the internet said. But because I.Have.No.Choice.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The problem with Obama's 'defenders' is they are rude insulting and have no compassion or empathy. "
...forgot "morally bankrupt and contemptible."
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)It's the attitude that hurts. When one is in pain the pain has to be acknowledged first.
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)My enthusiasm is gone. I'll not contribute money or effort to his re-election. He'll get my vote, but that's it.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)AND I agree with those who say I.Have.No.Choice! This man as a leader has been a failure to me, and I first voted for McGovern. One can say that now the Repukes won't get off the dime, but had Obama not bent over backward and leaned over to the other side so many times, perhaps the situation would be a whole lot different.
No money, nor effort will I give either. Geez, I even wonder if in the end I can MAKE myself actually vote for this person. The FEAR of the alternative is all that motivates me now, but one more cave in and I think I'll crawl under the bed.
PITFUL & PATHETIC! Most of all I feel HOPELESS and HEARTBROKEN!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Every.Word.
newspeak
(4,847 posts)also my feelings. I campaigned for McGovern. Again, I am not a "new democrat," "a reagan democrat," "a DLC democrat." I'm a pro-labor, pro-public education, pro-regulation, pro-SS, medicare, anti-privatize the shite out of everything democrat.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)it wouldn't matter who got elected. They want it both ways.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)"we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy" - much more than we do to continue to pretend that everything is 100% peachy.
And yes, I'm an Obama supporter.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"...and few here are willing to admit the intellectual dishonesty the OP is refering too. "
...a good read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108
It's possible that it's an example of the "intellectual dishonesty" you speak of, but you decide.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Pleas stop spamming me with your journal posts. I feel they are off point, tangeital to this discussion.
I already am an Obama supporter, just not a pure enough one, I guess.
"refusing to discuss the OP's point... about simply wanting to have it both ways, is bullshit."
...couldn't get pass the bullshit name calling.
"I already am an Obama supporter, just not a pure enough one, I guess. "
Welcome to the "morally bankrupt and contemptible" club.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)that Obama is super effective except when he can;t be asked or expected to do anything. I agree with the OP completely, but acknowledge his language was somewhat strong. But yeah, on certain issues, I do believe the unwillingness to adress these issues is morally bankrupt. Sorry, I'm not one for sweeping things under the rug.
The OP pointed out some very big weakness in the arguments used saying that Obama has always done his level best. I just don't see a single peson here arguing he's wrong about that. I wish one of you could offer a counter to it, but it's not happening here.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I am an Obama supporter who is disgusted by the simple minded thought that it's 100% or 0...."
...I'm equally disgusted with the "simple minded" anti-Obama sentiments.
The OP pointed out some very big weakness in the arguments used saying that Obama has always done his level best. I just don't see a single peson here arguing he's wrong about that. I wish one of you could offer a counter to it, but it's not happening here.
That's just nonsense. All the OP did was take the opportunity to call out Obama supporters. If the OP wanted a discussion about Obama's flaws s/he should have refrained from name calling.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)To dismiss as nonsense with no reasons given at all. You don't even seem to understand the OP is not about Obama's flaws. Now I understand why you are flinging the lists at me, you missed the point entirely.
It's about making lame intelelctually dishonest excuses for BO's misteps- about arguing two diffferent ways that cannot both be true. Can you see the difference? It's very different from what you took away. I think your defensiveness has caused you to completely miss the point.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's about making lame intelelctually dishonest excuses for BO's misteps- about arguing two diffferent ways that cannot both be true."
...it's about a difference of opinion so the only way to address that is by name calling.
Got it!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"wow, you have still no idea what the OP said, or are pretending not to. Good luck with that!"
...I know exactly what the OP is about: the person is pissed that not everyone agrees with her/his opinion so s/he resorted to name calling.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)hootinholler
(26,451 posts)I joined the other day.
I appreciate your welcoming open arms.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)you are in the wrong place. Not just on DU, but on the internet as a whole.
You are just avoiding the issues, you know it, I know it, and so does everyone else.
Maven
(10,533 posts)then ending your sentence after an ellipsis?
It's hard enough reading your establishmentarian drivel without such odd cadences.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is never portrayed as "powerless." The critics need to re-learn that it is meant to be limited in power, though.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Additionally, you can limit google search to a specific website. If you're going to be dishonest I am going to embarrass you in a big way.
emulatorloo
(46,135 posts)I think OP is misinterpreting reminders of, for example, the importance of electing more Democrats to the House and Senate as claims that the President is "powerless."
treestar
(82,383 posts)to someone pointing out that one can blame Congress as easily for not passing any particular thing.
I could not possibly be embarrassed by you - you don't have that power. Why would you want it?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)+1000.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)That's a big part of the bottom line. And I totally get your post, but...
This last beating of progressives/liberals by Congress and the President in his reversal of his previous stance regarding vetoing the NDAA, has sparked new outrage among progressives posting here, and caused another spate of posts critical of Congress and the President.
I'm not saying that we progressives/liberals should STFU, but seriously, what's the use anymore, except for progressives/liberals to express outrage? Or, then again, maybe we are actually helping hone the debating skills for ardent Obama supporters, so that they can more easily convince Independents and fence-sitting Democrats that are not very politically aware to vote for Obama.
*At this point before the election*, I'm very sincerely glad that there are some people that are such ardent supporters of Obama that this may cause them to not be overly cognizant of possible faults in the President's tenure so far.
Those among us that are not overly pleased with his Presidency, while we will vote for him, do not have the enthusiam in our hearts that is needed to go out and actually work to get him elected.
This is a shame, and we have good reasons for feeling the way we do, and it sucks, but it is what it is.
It's either Newtie or some other fascist tool, and a stronger fascist Congress, and a stronger fascist SCOTUS, or Obama and as many Dem Congresscritters as we can get in there. on edit Most importantly, it could mean the end of the fascist SCOTUS that selected Bush and brought us the Citizen's United decision.
Hopefully, the ardent Obama supporters here will do much, much more than just post defensive arguments on DU, and will get out and get active for the cause that they so vehemently support with opinions from their keyboards.
I'm supporting Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, the Wisconsin recall movement, Move to Amend, and participate in, and support Occupy. These are people and organizations that have earned my respect and trust, and can therefore enthusiastically support.
Here's hoping that the ardent Obama supporters can generate the enthusiasm that the rest of us have lost over the last 3 years. If they cannot, I will not blame myself if Obama loses the election. I will have voted for him, and will be bummed if he loses. But Occupy, by virtue of its genuine progressive democratic nature, totally encompasses my ideals and beliefs, and directly acts on making these ideals come to fruition in real time. There is no ambiguity. I know exactly where Occupy stands and what we seek to achieve. So that is my focus now, and it is what I am enthusiastic about.
Like so many other progressives/liberals, I am bitterly disappointed at the many gains the 1% has made over the past 3 years, to the detriment of the 99%, enough so that we were forced into starting a movement dedicated to protecting and promoting the democratic interests of the 99%.
So, get out there and go get 'em, Obama supporters, I wish you success, and also wish I could sincerely share your enthusiasm.
peace
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)hootinholler
(26,451 posts)Thank you, perhaps some will read that with an open mind and heart.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)Thanks for this post, you said it way better than any one has.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Thank you for this post.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)You say what a lot of other DUers are thinking.
Yes he is better than any Repuke candidate, goes without saying. Thus the compunction to vote for him. And even though it may be a hard lesson long overdue for the DLC if the liberal base handed Obama's ass back to him, and might even start getting them to think about moving back to the center-left for the next election after, in this point in history it would be such a disaster for the country to bring in a Republican President that the only course is to vote for Obama.
Repeal of DADT was inevitable even without Obama in office. Top generals were calling for its demise. The Repukes could've only held out for so long. (Just like the US will eventually catch up to the rest of the free world on allowing gay marriage)
The Iraq war actually even went past the deadline that even Bush set up for withdrawal. Why should Obama get kudos for this? It was also inevitable. The American public had grown war-weary and the treasury was getting bare. The Repukes knew this and thats why they gave barely a whimper compared to a few years ago when it was all about "tail between your legs" and risking the security of the USA if we left. McCain had said he wanted to stay there 100 or even 1000 years, but he's not to vocal now.
So in summary, Obama's greatest achievement is towing the Washington line and not doing any MORE damage and holding the status quo by "not looking backwards" . No prosecuting war criminals, no closing Gitmo, continued renditions and torture, continued Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, vetoing new environmental pollution recommendations to name a few. Although some would argue that the RomneyCare private health insurance plan, and the increased War on Drugs (particularly medical marijuana dispensaries), are steps backwards.
Obama works for the 1%. I'd say the Repukes work for the .01% So I guess that's something. At least he will throw the rest of us a few bones now and again. Hardly inspiring, but reason enough I guess to vote for him.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
Matariki
(18,775 posts)without suffering serious consequences.
We NEED to hold their feet to the fire regarding policy and we need to work to make sure the best, progressive, and most honest people are elected.
I'm not understanding the desire to squelch any discussion about Obama's policy decisions - especially when they go against what we stand for as Democrats and progressives.
Robb
(39,665 posts)I mean on DU2 there was a perfectly good conspiracy theory going that mods were somehow "squelching discussion". Depending on who was complaining, we apparently were "squelching" every side of the argument.
No mods on DU3. Yet somehow disagreement is now painted as anti-free-speech.
Seriously. What the hell?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)it would be nice if Obama's policy decisions could be discussed without it devolving into personal attacks.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)are claiming to be stifled, censored, and oppressed.
oh, and i forgot contemptible too.
MineralMan
(150,509 posts)and "contemptible." Sorry. I'm not either of those things. If that's your conclusion, as it seems to be, you're going to be disappointed with the results of the 2012 election, I think.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"To announce that there should be no criticism of the President, or that we must stand by the President right or wrong is not only servile and unpatriotic, it is morally treasonable to the American public."
He's addressing the exact thing the OP is addressing, not support but the poisonous twin of support, constant agreement with all and calls for no criticism from others. That is not support, it is a shirking of a citizen's duty.
At any rate the lexicon the OP uses is spot on in terms of our political tradition it would seem, considering TR and all.
MH1
(19,040 posts)NOT the President?
There's a huge difference between "Obama has done contemptible things' and "all of Obama's supporters are morally bankrupt and contemptible'.
Do you REALLY not see that?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The OP speaks of defenders who defend wrong headed policy along with good policy. Do you really not see that? The word used is 'defenders'. You chose to type 'supporters' as if it was the same word, then you "all of Obama's supporters are morally bankrupt and contemptible'. Which the OP most certainly did not say. The tactic you are employing is dishonest. Argue with the OP's words, not your impression of them, your rewording of them.
Read this thread. Not one of the offended readers has stepped up to say 'I am a defender who is offended'. Nope, each one says 'you call supporters names'. Why do you think that is? Why do each of the offended posts use words other than the OP's own as reason for their offense? How is it honest to claim he said 'all of Obama's supporters'? How is that anything but false witness against the OP? To claim he said what he did not say. Just not fair play at all. At all.
And tactics like that are exactly what the OP is addressing. It is not pleasant to see. It reflects poorly on the President and it is not support in any real political sense of the word. It is exploitation for one's personal emotional agenda.
Do these 'Supporters' you speak of get extra ballots, or just one like the rest of us who cast them for Democrats?
MH1
(19,040 posts)Because Obama's supporters, who come to DU, also DEFEND him from the baseless, idiotic, right wing inspired, BULLSHIT attacks.
There is at least one OBAMA DEFENDER other than me, who has said in several places that he is offended. So you want to call ME dishonest??
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)no matter how wrong it was?
Rick Warren? Restarting the military tribunals? Extension of the Bush tax cuts? Harassment of whistleblowers? Taking the Public Option off the table? His Justice Department comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia? Or the latest outrage with NDAA destroying the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Amendments?
Those are actions of his that merit criticism. To not criticize them is, I agree, morally bankrupt. It's tantamount to rationalizing or justifying them. And that kind of mentality is what keeps our political system endlessly sliding further toward the right wing.
Criticizing the man's actions is not saying that we won't vote for him. He is better than the alternative, but for pity's sake some of us are sick of lesser-of-two-evils.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You're assuming your condemnation applies. Take extension of the tax cuts - that had to be done because of the power of leverage of Congress.
People fail to criticize Congress' part in these things. If I saw as much criticism of the Congress or the people who voted the way they do, I'd sympathize.
Obama got all the flack on the PO when Lieberman should have gotten it all. If a poster criticized Obama many times without criticizing Lieberman, that shows me something.
MH1
(19,040 posts)I did not say "all of Obama's supporters". "How is it honest to claim I said 'all of Obama's supporters'? How is that anything but false witness against my post? To claim I said what I did not say. Just not fair play at all. At all. "
sniff. 
Think I'm gonna cry because you called me dishonest, and I value your opinion so much.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)He said the President's "defenders," who offer excuses for the wrong things that he does.
MineralMan
(150,509 posts)I do draw the line at name-calling of supporters of the President, though. That's why I wrote what I wrote in the post you're replying to.
Truly, the OP did lose me at that point. I was no longer interested in participating in the thread. It's a simple statement explaining my non-participation. I stand by it, and will not participate in the thread.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The OP, and TR, address defenders, not supporters. Not one person on this thread has identified as an insulted defender, they all say 'you are mocking supporters' when that is not in fact said at all.
Fact is you can not disagree without rewording. That's the part you should examine. This OP is not addressed to supporters anymore than TR's words addressed all supporters of a President. It is the call for others to cease criticism, along with refusing to criticize wrongs that is at issue. Not support.
Fact is the OP's lexicon closely reflects TR's on the exact same issue. And thus, it can not be out of line at all. TR said 'morally treasonable'. The act of suppressing criticism of elected officials is morally treasonable. I agree with TR.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)I am nothing like you describe.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)out of each Obama term. Wonder when election mode will kick in. But I guess it won't make any difference, really, since that only means the criticizers can't disparage the Pres. Looks like Obama supporters are fair game all the time.
MH1
(19,040 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)The outcasts, the untouchables, inhuman in fact. Doesn't matter what is said to us and a out us. We seem to be worthless.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i_sometimes
(201 posts)Really?
I am so far left I can see the right...but I am not offended because I can also read. OP said 'defenders', not supporters.
Are you a blue link dropping defender? Or are you, like me, a supporter?
One is good, the other is bad.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Are you a blue link dropping defender? Or are you, like me, a supporter?"
...that is what this is about? So the entire OP was written to condemm anyone who drops a "blue link"?
Wow!
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)by attacking the lot of us?
Well, it appears anyone can say anything to and about Obama supporters, one at a time or as a whole, as this thread demonstrates.
This is some kind of underground, I guess.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)I have no idea why the op was written.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)you're going to fit right in.
Sid
i_sometimes
(201 posts)Though I was here till 08, having left during the primary wars. I saw a link at reddit so I came over to see if anything had changed.
Nope.
But DU is till the best Democratic website around even if posting here is hazardous.
Won't be around much but Hi back at ya!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)that others on the left of the political specturm do not share your enthusiasm for Obama.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)What I object to is being called names. Perhaps you believe that's civil discourse. I don't.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)on one of the numerous subthreads therein that you are using to discuss your position on this OP. If you are, in fact, interested in my position on on this OP, please look here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124011396
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)"Why the arguments of Obama's detractors leave many cold."
But at this point, it would be useless. No one will convince you that your position is wrong. And you're not convincing anyone that their position is wrong. You just wasted a whole lotta time creating that long post. Well, as they say, at least it keeps you off the streets.
And by the way, I do believe it probably violates the TOS.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)That because the Obama loyalists are right about the bad and worse choices on the republican side, its not fair or ethical to use that as a sledgehammer to try and shout people down who take issue with many of Obama's policies.
If the Obama defenders would be more diplomatic about acknowledging Obama's failings, instead of responding to every substantive criticism with variants of - "Go vote for the Republican then!" or "Get the hell out of here and go to freeperville!" then the atmosphere would be a cleaner one and more conducive to real discussion here at DU.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)It goes both ways.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)never said it doesn't. Yup, some Obama "bashers" are over the top as well.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)'morally bankrupt and contemptible' kinda turned me off to any subsequent pearls of wisdom.
emulatorloo
(46,135 posts)is the same thing as claiming the President is "powerless."
I doubt you will find a single DU'er who claims the President is powerless.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)
spanone
(140,914 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)if Obama vetoes a bill?
Let's say Obama were to say "I would veto a bill without a public option." Republicans would say "be my guest!"
Let's say Obama were to say "I would veto a bill that doesn't end private insurance." Republicans would say "please do so!"
Let's say Obama were to say "I will veto any increase in the debt limit that doesn't include a tax increase on the rich." Republicans would say "That's fine with us. You will get all the blame for the fallout, and your party will be discredited for a generation. Let us know when you completely change your mind, and have no more delusions that a tax increase is ever about to pass. Tick tock."
Why do you think the veto pen really matters all that much? It certainly matters for blocking proposals of a unified Congress of an opposing party. No question there. But there hasn't been a unified Congress of an opposing party. The Senate wouldn't even take up for debate a bill that Obama would veto. The veto pen doesn't really provide much additional leverage at all in any negotiation that has mattered thus far.
In reality, the power of the Presidency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting a bill passed. That is precisely why he is (correctly) not getting blamed for the inaction of Congress, but is getting praised for signing accomplishments into law. That's what "necessary but not sufficient" means. When a bill passes, his support was necessary for the law to pass. Yet it isn't sufficient -- that's why he shouldn't necessarily be blamed when a bill fails (for reasons other than his not supporting it).
treestar
(82,383 posts)what these posters are demanding. No health plan. Default on the debt. No stimulus (it was not big enough).
Tax cuts would not have been extended for anyone. Unemployment run out.
Guess who they'd be blaming?
dorksied
(348 posts)The people complaining about being called 'morally bankrupt' and such are focusing solely on that, and that is their choice.
But, they refuse to see the point of the OP, by doing that.
The OP is arguing that we SHOULD support Obama, but with OPEN EYES to the facts, and those facts are that those leaders are giving up too much ground, and our country is slowly shifting from a progressive path to a regressive path, inch by inch.
The slow, steady march towards the right that this country is taking, the decisions to cede ground here and there, and the fact that there is a rabid group of devotees that refuse to see, or acknowledge, any fault whatsoever, with the leadership, the path that we're slowly but inevitably marching down, is the fault of the people who refuse to entertain any sort of criticism of the POTUS and the rest of those who are steering us into political oblivion.
If you can't see this, you're blinded by party and have abandoned reason. Party should never come first, what is RIGHT should take precedence.
What you are saying is that the whole "morally bankrupt" line could have been left out with no detraction from the piece itself?
If so, I agree.
Now, I would like you to explain why, if this is true, the "morally bankrupt" is in there.
My simple answer is that the whole reasoned piece above is just a prelude to an insult, that the bottom paragraph is the real message, not the umpteen before.
We tend to say what we mean, whether we wish to or not.
angrychair
(11,639 posts)with your conclusion. The insult renders the conversation mute. While those that support the OP have no issue splitting hairs on the difference between shades of gray (defender Vs. supporter) and also look past the negative comments as not being relevant to the points the OP was trying to make, you fail in your endeavor. It is impossible to not see them as no matter how many times I read them I, an Obama supporter, cannot help but see them and have no real desire to entertain his opinion for discussion. I comment infrequently here but read often. I find it very disconcerting that so many have lost the point. Even those that feel they are doing their best to support the president fail to make their point with the clarity and effort that is needed. We are a victims of our times and the times they are achangin'. People went through the *ush era and gained a specific moral sense of what a president should be and saw, at least what they wanted to see, in the 2008 democratic candidate. The 2012 candidate has not lived up to their 2008 ideal and they want their 2008 candidate back. The fact is that he never existed. I am VERY PROUD of my president and what he has done. Has he given me everything and lived up to my highest expectations? Of course he hasn't. I will continue to express where I think we could be better and DEFEND this president when I feel I need to speak to the situation. I understand that people feel let down and that 2012 candidate could/should have been more like the 2008 ideal you had in mind but he has taken us very far from where we were in 2008, we were in a VERY DARK PLACE, some things are better and some things are not so good. We're getting there. Keep him honest; keep all of us honest, the ideal is a nice place to be. I only ask you to go the extra mile, don't just vote for him but support him. We are making progress and at its core, that is what being a progressive is all about. Thank you everyone and have a great holiday!
gulliver
(13,697 posts)I give the rhetoric a B at best. It shows an above average mastery of emotional appeal, audience pandering, and productive fallacy. The straw man "defenders," the theme and the central fallacy of the piece, are a weakness rhetorically—way over-played. That makes this more of a lash-out piece with appeal limited to a minority. That is the shame, because the writing is a solid A. One wonders what the author is capable of accomplishing were analytical seriousness given the same priority as writing style.
The political and moral analysis is basically an F if genuine or an A if a caricature. I don't think this is a Freeper post intended to sow internal conflict, because too much effort went into it. So I give it an F, as I give the author the benefit of the doubt that the rhetoric is intended to be productive and not merely an expression of sado-masochism or narcissism.
Overall, I think the engine and wheels of the piece work fine, but the transmission has a lot of ego and maybe some damage or underdevelopment in the emotional core. So the wisdom is not there yet. It screams foolishness in fact, but it screams it in such a way that, provided the poster is young, is hopeful.
jpgray
(27,831 posts)We must reelect Obama in 2012. We also must reject and condemn moves to mortgage, privatize, or otherwise contract the social policies that represent our most fundamental values as a party. It seems to me these are not exclusive goals. There are critics and defenders who believe otherwise.
I have a hard time seeing aggressive defense of the Deficit Commission, or our offer on the debt ceiling deal, as being consistent with maintaining or expanding our party's values. Both of these, among other policies and stances, represent a retreat from those values. Defense of such policies is not necessary for electing Obama, and criticism of them on a board where everyone must support his candidacy is not necessarily a call for withdrawing support.
We can be, at once, in retreat on foundational issues while making important progress elsewhere. We can elect Democrat after Democrat and yet see what we once stood for undermined or destroyed, and our platform slide further to the right each election. We can elect Democratic presidents, each one vastly superior to the GOP candidate, and still drive the country into misery.
The arguments to justify a slide to the right by our leaders, if they work for Obama, must also work for someone to the right of Obama, so long as the opposition is yet further to the right. Should the country continue in its present direction, they will eventually work for a Hunstman or Romney, candidates utterly removed from our values, so long as the opposing candidate is that much worse.
It's that sort of thinking that is morally bankrupt and contemptible to me.
Marnie
(844 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)of this, compared to the only other potential alternative. I would also think that such a preference is self-explanatory on a site for progressives.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I have a hard time seeing aggressive defense of the Deficit Commission...The arguments to justify a slide to the right by our leaders...It's that sort of thinking that is morally bankrupt and contemptible to me"
So you decided to create your own straw men in order to call others "morally bankrupt and contemptible"?
Who is mounting an "aggressive defense of the Deficit Commission" and justifyin a "slide to the right"?
You don't like other people's opinion and the only way you see fit to counter their opinions is name calling.
I mean, just look at where you started and ended:
Bad arguments from critics and defenders alike see the influence of the presidency at work only insofar as an action is disagreeable or agreeable, respectively.
Much that is wrong and evil has taken place over Obama's term, however, and defenders have the thankless task of proving again and again that in such cases the most powerful man in the world holds a powerless office.
<...>
Short version: Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term. We must vote for the better candidate in this election, but if we continue as we have the better candidate will resemble Huntsman or Romney before too many elections have gone by.
You started out pretending that this was a balanced argument about "critics" and "defenders," and then proceeded to define the view upon which your premise is based, "Much that is wrong and evil has taken place over Obama's term..."
I assume that impllies that Obama is doing some "wrong and "evil" things, which is why you concluded that "Obama's defenders are... are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term."
But hey, you're voting for him!
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)NDAA and restarting the military tribunals are certainly evil.
He's also done a lot that is wrong.
To not call them what they are is a disservice not only to the rest of the country, but to the President himself. He needs to be called out on his wrong actions so that he can have a chance to correct them.
Defending every action of a President, right or wrong, is wrong. Perhaps even frightening. That's a right wing tactic.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)what you're saying choose to do so b/c it fits with their need to battle for a piece of virtual territory called DU3. the spectacle is awesomely pathetic.
in a democracy there is participation which requires that we negotiate the terms of our representation. it's our responsibility to do so or else democracy becomes a retail exchange where you get Happy Meal #1 or Happy Meal #2. The Occupy Movement has revealed that we're no longer settling for the choice between the two. We demand participation. We're occupying the dialogue. We're occupying the vote. We're occupying this party after too many years of letting it go to seed.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I'll give it a solid A for graybearded wisdom.
progressoid
(52,495 posts)
Marnie
(844 posts)Like Nancy suggested. "Just say No."
If he had vetoed even half the bad legislation, the extra effort the congress would have had to exert to override the vetos would have probably had a maturing effect on the illiterate rabble of the far right. And would have given the Dims in Congress the feeling that they has the support of their POTUS.
He may be the one bending over and grabbing his knees every week or so, that's his choice, but it is the USofa that is getting it up the ass from the RepoSandusky party, and it is not our choice.
jbpdx
(33 posts)Get rid of that pathetic attorney general. Eric Holder, I'm holding up a finger. Can you guess which one?
Estevan
(70 posts)the 21% of democrats who do not support him then your opinion simply reflects the bubble you live in.
And to suggest the "better candidate" is a Romney or Huntsman then you are probably just a plant.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)A fair amount of the remaining 78% still object to many things he's done but see his as the only viable option in the election.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call him on his mistakes and missteps.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Seriously. Talk about divisive trash. Where is a mod to delete this shit?!
MH1
(19,040 posts)Don't worry, if you accidentally click the rec button, it turns into 'Undo' - and you can unrec it.
As to where is a mod, it was alerted and was voted by the jury to be just peachy fine for the new version of DU.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Click on the number, above the Rec icon.
Be careful. Its pretty easy to Rec by accident by clicking on the wrong bit.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)Now, should it?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)There is another OP that was calling for all non-Obama loyalists to leave DU, and that was allowed to stand as well. It appears that DU may get a little rough and tumble for both sides of the debate with this jury system...
Cameron27
(10,346 posts)to keep the playing field level, so you're right, it probably will get a little rough & tumble for both sides. (Skinner commented in meta, and I was pleasantly surprised by his thoughts on the process.) I don't care how hot the debates get, that's what this forum is for IMO, I just hope the petty personal attacks die down.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I can't seem to find what you're referring to.
Thanks
Cameron27
(10,346 posts)this one is specifically about this OP :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=12073
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)stonecutter357
(12,966 posts)Put me on the list,stonecutter357.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Will you be alright?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)guess they fixed that whole "tombstoned when the user profiles were ported" thing that kept you out of the preview.
Sid
Vanje
(9,766 posts)The January 2011 Preview Glitch. Unfortunate.
Again , I am happy to be a DU-member in good standing, in all regards.
tabatha
(18,795 posts)Wish we had that.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)not Democrats working for the good of the party and the country (not necessarily in that order) who have some idea how things work in the real world.
There never was, nor ever will be, a perfect President-- the job itself guarantees that no matter how many people he leaves happy, he will leave at least as many disappointed and upset. And many of those will be in his own party, as they always have been.
Electing a President doesn't mean that you get your personal agenda passed. It just means you have a better chance of being heard.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)Those are personal attacks and you damn-well know it. The cheerleaders are a frustrating lot, but you took it a step too far in that sentence.
greenman3610
(3,959 posts)right. we've heard that one.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)16% do not. And that's their perogative.
Texasgal
(17,235 posts)I am an Obama supporter.
Just wanted to make that clear.
tabatha
(18,795 posts)I think you are talking about yourself.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)This is utter trash.
What progressive goals would a Huntsman or a Romney advance us towards better than Obama?
This OP is utter rot. Maybe we could find a more pure candidate, but it sure as hell isn't going to be found in the Republican party.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Let me put it to you this way.
"What progressive goals would a Dole advance us towards better than Clinton?"
Obama is to the right of Bob Dole on many core issues. His health care plan is a pared down version of Dole's, for example. Dole was also more progressive on gay civil rights.
Yet Obama, for his flaws, was the better choice in 2008. So if we had said in 1995 that "the better candidate will resemble Dole before too many elections" then we would have been right; it only took four.
By playing the triangulation game, and being told we have to accept the lesser of two evils at every turn, we keep moving the "center" farther and farther toward the right.
If we don't stop this process, by 2020 the Democratic nominee will resemble Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney. And he/she will be the better candidate because the Republican candidate will be further to the right. It may even happen in 2016; if Obama loses next year then the Blue Dogs will make the argument that it was because he was "too far left" and push us towards a nominee who, next to Obama, would make our current President look like the Socialist the Republicans say he is.
And we'll only have ourselves to blame for doing nothing to stop this trend.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)Let me guess = the definition of "core issue" is anything you think you can paint President Obama as to the right of Bob Dole. Funny how that works.
Dole was more progressive on gay civil rights? The asshole who used DOMA as a wedge against President Clinton? That Bob Dole? Compared to the man who overthrew Don't Ask, Don't Tell, who signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, who required visitation from gay partners of all hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, who increased AIDS funding despite this age of austerity, who expanded federal benefits to partners of gay federal employees, who lifted the entry ban for people with HIV, who has called for the repeal of DOMA and does not defend it in court any more?
We'll only have ourselves to blame for listening to you, Pab.
BlueMTexpat
(15,653 posts)napoleon_in_rags
(3,992 posts)Those words form a valid critique. As far as the president being responsible for what he has done but not for what he has failed to get done, this statement from the defenders less irrational than your make it look: there are in fact some fairly powerful forces working against the president, and sometimes they win.
But in the realm of rhetoric, I agree. Remember that recent poll though that shows Liberals value leaders who compromise while Republicans dont:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/libe eral-compromise-and-conservative-power.html
That's why Obama was voted in in the first place. Don't you remember his famous speech? "There are no red states, no blue states, the united states." It was a bi-partisan masterpiece, but bi-partisanship means compromise, it means centrism, and when you are trying to build compromise with a right who stands against compromise, it means moving ever further to the right, while the right backs away from you trying to avoid the appearance of compromise with you that ruin them politically.
That's why I'm disappointed about the lack of fiery rhetoric from the president. Right now, Republicans have to take extreme positions to avoid "siding with Obama" so they do, they do the two year old "no" stuff because they can't be seen to be compromising by their base. If Obama would just verbally move his goalposts a little to the left, it takes that pressure off them.
And regarding the liberals who value compromise? Are they being let down by this sort of act?
Just tell them sometimes they don't get what they want in a leader, sometimes they have to compromise. They'll understand, I promise.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)"Obama supporters are morally bankrupt"?
I've said some things about the people that would rather put Michele Bachmann in the White House than Obama. I've said they were 'short-sighted', 'unrealistic', 'childish', and even 'irrational'... and each with very good reason.
But 'morally bankrupt' is lower than I could ever go.
Congrats on a new low for DU.
Be proud, you'll be reminded of it.
I promise.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)I was feeling pretty good about DU3, until this:
"They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term."
Guess what? I'm one of those defenders. How dare you judge me, others here and people I care for and love as morally bankrupt and contemptible? Why this piece of trash wasn't voted out is what leaves me cold. I'm shocked at some of the names I saw that actually recced this garbage. People I didn't always agree with, but respected, nonetheless.
You do realize it's possible to have criticisms of our President with out calling his supporters, which includes many of your FELLOW DUers, names. You could very well have made a good argument in the rest of your post, but those last two paragraphs negated any shred of respect I had for what you had to say.
Good luck. Trust me, that's not what I would like to say to you. I believe anyone that feels they can judge someone as morally bankrupt needs to clean off their mirror. It's obviously covered in filth. But, I guess since it's apparently okay with the jurors to call us morally bankrupt, etc., then it would be okay for me to call our Presiden't critics spoiled, petulant children. It would be okay, but I won't do it. There are still some of his critics that I do respect. So, while you may believe that I am contemptible, I'm also an adult.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)bertman
(11,287 posts)begin_within
(21,551 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)However the role of division of power is prevalent. Many seem to think the President can do it all. Unfortunately if you want great laws you need a great congress. Not really the President. Most people seem to also forget the fact that the President's vetos can also be overturned by said Congress. And it was done to Bush a few times during his turn.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bigtree
(93,312 posts)the new DU
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Just the luck of which jury one gets...looks like there are posters here that are just fine with the name-calling.
Wonder if that sentiment now works both ways, but I somehow feel that will not be the case as Obama supporters here are outnumbered and the odds of getting an impartial jury from here on out seems to be problematic.
Deranged addict that I am.
sellitman
(11,737 posts)You stated eloquently what I've felt for sometime. I've been unfollowed by many on Twitter for voicing the same things.
Yours is one of the best posts I've ever seen on DU.
JVS
(61,935 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)or don't understand, the style of this piece is paternalistic pedantic intellectual-affectation.
akbacchus_BC
(5,827 posts)President Obama will be elected for a second term!
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)it's to put the Barack Obama we voted for BACK INTO the Oval Office.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Period. And his advisers are a majority of clueless, corporate owned clowns. And the veto pen....well, I think that one speaks for itself (cough..indefinite detention...cough).
I use the same argument with his defenders as I do with the heavily prayer touting christians I have to deal with. He can't be given praise when things go right as wise and benevolent, but then not be held accountable for at least a sizable chunk of things that go wrong. Either he's impotent and little more than a figurehead (in which case why worship and praise him), or he has power and has used it for a great deal of bad things (again, why worship or praise this).
And as for those who say this is "Democratic Underground", they're right. And those of us on here should support traditional Democratic ideals and for the soul of the Democratic party above any one individual or figure.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Capable of just whipping his dick out and solving all the world's many problems with a single mighty thrusty. That he does not do this, of course, makes him a "sellout," "worse than Bush," a "fascist" and many other choice terms of endearment.
I'm sorry he's not everything you imagined he would be. Maybe you should have paid a little more attention on the campaign trail, rather than just going "Oh, he's a democrat, he'll deliver my ultimate wishlist!" and you wouldn't be quite so disappointed.
I understand that you, and many other Democrats were so upset with not having your wishlist implemented, that you happily tugged your forelocks and passed the keys with all due fawning and simpering, to the Tea Party candidates you campaigned so vigorously for in 2010, in order to "teach Obama and the Democrats a lesson." Just between you and I, I think perhaps it's you who should have taken a lesson from that experiment. yet here you are, doing the same thing and, I have no doubt, expecting a totally different result.
Allow me to appeal to the adult that resides somewhere within the diaper-soiling manchild now before me; Obama is what we have for 2012. The people who would want to run against him all have the same basic goal; America is to become a corporate labor camp. Obama has surely done things that displease all of us - you have no need to snivel and pout as if you were an especially aggrieved toddler on that score. And unfortunately the odds are poor that he'll suddenly take a new tack after the election.
But however bad he is - and however bad you imagine him to be as well - he's markedly better than the fellows he'll be running against. I agree, it's goddamned pathetic that the office of the presidency has come down to "He's not as bad as the other douchebags," but it's rather fucking late to fix it this campaign season.
Short version: this is the option you have. It's not a great option perhaps, but the alternative is far more intolerable Your experiment with "teaching the democrats in the lesson" just fucked you and everyone else over, so you could feel a few seconds of self-righteousness when you saw the election results. Try to avoid that this year, if you can help yourself. If you really want a liberal in office, you're going to have to start early and work towards it. Yes, work. If you can't be bothered to do more than bitch across a keyboard, well, who needs you one way or another?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and the McClurkins, the Warrens, the Harkins and the constant stream of anti gay, anti equality crapola.
The man opposes my basic rights. All the paragraphs of characterization you type will not change that fact. He is against my family's equal standing. I oppose his policy. So you can be coy and crude and speak of his dick, and yet, the problem remains and the problem is his 'Sanctity' crap. He claims to be mega holy. You talk about his dick. That which gets you through the night, I suppose.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Look chief. You don't dig Obama. That's fine, and your points are valid. I've got my problems with him as well. I just have bigger problems with the competition. Tell me honest; Is a president Gingrich going to lead you to the promised land? Is a president Bachman? Perry? Romney?
I realize the "he's not as bad as the competition" argument is a frail one that leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. Like I said, I'd much rather have a really strong, hard-liberal candidate to run with. The problem is, no matter how hard I wish for that, it's not going to materialize for the 2012 election, is it? Even if you wish with me, it's not going to happen, and you know why?
Because magic isn't real.
We have Obama. Obama's got problems. Nobody's completely happy with him, some people have larger problems with him than others, and I'd rate yours as being quite large. For as lackluster as he's turned out to be, though, he's a better option than the others on the field.
And if you're going to tell me, for one moment, that you can't see any difference, I'm going to call you stupid, and I'm going to call you a fucking liar. Because if you see no difference, then that's exactly what you are.
However bad Obama is, he doesn't want to turn the rule of this nation over to Pfizer, Tyson Foods, and the Disney corporation, like Paul does.
However bad Obama is, he's not arguing that the executive branch should have Judicial power, like Gingrich is.
However bad Obama is, he's not claiming to be sent on a crusade via personal communication with god, like Bachman is.
However bad Obama is, he's not campaigning on how very much he hates the fact that you and your family exist, like Perry and Romney are doing.
I'm not asking you to love the guy. I'm not trying to rally you around his flag, and start up a cheer. I'm telling you that you have the option of either being disappointed, or being disappeared.
Maybe you want to have a fit of righteous indignation and sacrifice yourself on the bayonets of the republicans, just to give a final middle finger to Obama. But I'm going to ask you to find some way to do so in a manner that doesn't fuck everyone else over with you.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)wow
cyberspirit
(67 posts)I have been amazed at the criticism of Obama by the left. So I have sifted through all the opinions looking for something to help me understand. But, I have drowned in generalities. He should have done this, he shouldn't have done that. Easy to say when you're not in his position. What are the critics doing besides criticizing? Just once I would like to hear someone explain how Obama should have done something differently with specifics to the legislative process rather than insult those of us who see Obama as a gift to the world.
The Progressives who stayed home in 2010 and didn't vote because of their disappointment with Obama allowed the insanity in congress to materialize. Do you remember this? Yes we Can. What do you think the we meant?
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)instead of sitting at home. people stayed home and let the right wing take over the house and are now bitching cause what potus cant do.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)well-thought-out article. I can see you spent some time on it. I'd love to see more of this type of post on DU. Too many one-offs (and I absolutely include myself in that -- I've gotten lazy). Rec (of course).
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Short version: Obama's critics are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction the Republicans will take this country over the long term. We must vote for the Democratic nominee instead of trying to convince a room full of educated Democrats that Huntsman or Romney could ever be the better candidate.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)This is about who is President now. Regardless of any election outcome Obama is still President for the next thirteen months and we need him to turn around some of his bad decisions and actions.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Pushing through more progressive legislation than any President in decades.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)on taxes, the environment, and economic stimulus?
While pushing for indefinite detention? Signing NDAA? Restarting the military tribunals?
Yes, he's done a lot of good. He's also done some harm which we need to make him undo.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)"The Case for Obama
The charges are familiar: He's a compromiser who hasn't stood up to the GOP or Wall Street. But a look at his record reveals something even more startling — a truly historic presidency."
Click the link above, there is some really enlightening information for those that want facts.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)but he has done some harmful things which we need to pressure him to change.
Criticism of some of his policies does not disregard or belittle what he's done. Instead, it's those who make excuses for his bad policies that do the belittling.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)It's those who are not interested in seeing the good and only criticize his policies and try to convince a room full of educated Democrats that Huntsman or Romney might be a better candidate than Barack Obama that do a disservice to us all.
patrice
(47,992 posts)And I have to say I'm very sad and deeply disappointed in what has become of DU.
This place isn't really for us.
Swede
(38,198 posts)Like no other that I can remember.
treestar
(82,383 posts)At least in terms of what the critics from the left want from it.
A lot of the demands show ignorance or lack of appreciation for that. Like the ones demanding Obama fix a state matter or intervene in it. Or the ones demanding an Executive Order for things that Congress has to pass. Or the ones demanding that Obama not enforce an existing law if it's something they don't agree with. Or the ones demanding Obama allow questions to avoid legal rulings as if that's going to make a law go away - if it's unconstitutional, why not test it in the courts.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)In my humble opinion, if I do not call out Democrats in regards to issues that I would have called out Republicans on, then that would make me a hypocrite.
To me, politics is not a game. I am not routing for my favorite team. I am not defending my favorite player.
Politics is about people and the issues that effect them.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)that believe "their guy" can do no wrong. It is a very dangerous attitude to hold.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)believing one can never do right. Blinding ideology is what's dangerous here but it is like ambrosia to the self-righteous and they cannot resist.
Julie
JVS
(61,935 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)from a 3 post newbie promoting a link to some sciatic nerve pain blog.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=287462
I exptect MIRT and / or Admins will deal with them in short order.
Sid
JVS
(61,935 posts)but before I logged out, it was invisible to me
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)Promise that.
Don
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)That really let me know where I stand on this site and where all Obama supporters stand. That one post that said he would have left it alone as well. It was a punch in the stomach.
My star expires later this month. Still don't know what I'll do about it. That one line from Admin is the sticking point. I'm trying to think of anything else I would pay for after the owner said such a thing to me personally.
The thing is, this isn't like being called an asshole or any other profane word. All of us can be assholes at one time or another. No. This goes to the heart of our character, as if we were on par with rapists and violent bigots and people like Fred Phelps or those in the KKK, or sociopaths and psychopaths.
THOSE people are morally bankrupt and contemptible. To tell me that I'm like them, and that it's okay for people here to say it, was the greatest insult I have ever received in my entire life. It's probably the greatest insult I'll EVER receive. I cannot imagine anything worse.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Have you considered bullet points? Editing? Helpful tips for persuasive writing?
jpgray
(27,831 posts)Pith without substance. You can find it in the above post and in thousands more on the internet - door-stopper whining is bad enough (guilty!), no question, but it's misplaced kindness not to write it if your aim is to spare readers, since the bandwidth will be wasted anyway. For every long-ass in-need-of-an-editor thread I've read here, I've read scads of drive-by snark with no effort, argument or larger meaning even intended.
Worthless snark is a fair use of a discussion board, but leaves of course nothing to discuss. Congratulations on your personal expression of "tl:dr" - think of the whole hours wasted on reading hundreds of such comments, and not a single contributing anything to anyone.
Evasporque
(2,133 posts)I have some disappointment but I blame specifically...Republicans and their obstructionist agenda...
What the Obama residency will show is that it occurred in time of transition after a long build up and entrenching of conservative ideals and values into popular culture and society. (done through manipulation and consolidation of the media) In the end conservatives are losing. The dregs of them remain seeking those last extreme victories...what we are seeing is the dissolution of the Republican machine.
Post Obama, Republicans will continue their final death throes, further corrupting their own reputation. (This GOP primary race is a case in point)
Post Obama the party and nation will shift towards progress and progressive ideas and solutions to our chronic issues. Obama did usher in change, but he was not the sole proprietor of that change. Post Obama (after four more years...) We will all be proud of his Presidency and how he managed to achieve what he did with a hostile congress, in a conservative populist bubble...and a mess inherited from the WORST PRESIDENT EVER....GW Bush.
Could some things of been different. Probably....but we are where we are now...and as I see it we are moving forward despite being in a very bad situation. I am not giving up hope and I am taking opportunities to effect positive change when I can.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,930 posts)Also, IMHO people can be supportive of somebody without endlessly bitching about each and every one of their faults, right? I'm not 100% supportive of everything that Obama has done/is doing but I don't feel the need to sit around and point out all of his faults and those of the Democratic Party 24-7-365, particularly during an election year. I'm more concerned with the general orientation of the two parties and Obama and the Democratic Party clearly represent a more overall progressive vision for this country (does anybody notice the kind of legislation that comes out of Congress under a Democratic majority vs. a Republican one?) and stand for reason and sanity as opposed to the insane asylum that calls itself the Republican Tea Party and I plan to vote accordingly.
Response to jpgray (Original post)
Post removed
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Getting down's a bitch.
renie408
(9,854 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Well, at least we know who hates us. Thank you for stepping forward.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
Response to DevonRex (Reply #408)
Post removed
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)hidden by a jury, so I deleted my response.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)The OP speaks volumes of truth... people ignore the criticism as if this were just a game. Calling critics trolls or just attacking them without addressing the criticism shows weakness.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)Would the same jury that allowed those comments to stand, permit me to call you and other Obama "critics" names like "smug assholes"; "shit eatin' saboteurs"; "repuke plants"? I could go on, but you see my point, right?
If you had attacked any other group, on this site, like you did Obama "supporters", not only would your post have been locked and/or deleted, but you would have politely been shown the door. The last group of folks on DU who are allowed to be ridiculed & insulted happen to be "supporters", and particularly the BOG.
This is what happens when tree people are allowed to co-opt & pervert the use of the site they claim to despise. Between them & the folks from CC, it's a wonder there's any "supporters" left at this site. If the idea is to run off, or silence Obama "supporters", then that may have already happened. So you're pretty much speaking to an angry & impotent minority of folks who love the idea of an anti-Obama echo chamber. Good luck with that.
And could you define "Many"? http://www.democraticunderground.com/11022658
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Get the money out of politics. Occupy.