We are no better than them

[think_critically]

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

I hate to say this but I honestly believe that a lot of us are no better than right wing tea party republicans. We have this sense of idealism that completely falls apart when applied to the real world. We consistently criticize a pragmatic, but flawed president that has a penchant for thinking about the long term consequences of his decisions as opposed to the here and now. We criticize him but glorify Hilary Clinton and her husband when they are in some ways responsible for a lot of the mess we are in now. Bill Clinton may have been good on the surface but deep down his lack of integrity hurt our country and caused him to put politics above principle. With Obama, he risked his presidency by pushing a health plan that will no doubt lead to a public option and eventually a single payer system and we act like that is nothing.

We criticize him for picking Larry Summers to head the fed while completely ignoring the fact that he knows far more about Summers than any body on this board or any body in congress and that he honestly thought he was the best person for the job. We celebrate people like Edward Snowden who is nothing more than a coward who under the guise of protecting our "freedom" purposely took a job with the NSA so that he could release classified information in an attempt to protect us from the "evils" of the NSA. How in the hell can you celebrate a person who cares so little about his "principles" that he left this country and went to countries like Russia and China for asylum. Heroes stand by what they believe in and don't legitimize countries that go against everything that they purport to believe in. We sit here and criticize the president about this trade deal but I guarantee you nobody here knows everything about it and is thus in no position to be so critical.

In short, Obama is a good man that does not have the ability to forcefully advocate for progressive values. That does not mean that he doesn't agree with them, just look at the majority of his policies, but it's just not in his nature to be a fighter. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Alan Grayson will NEVER be president of the united states and Hilary Clinton is the type of democrat that people on here despise so the reality is is that we need to push Obama but support him at the same time. He pisses me off a lot but I honestly think that he is a better president than any of the other politician out there right now would be.

[JaneyVee]

1. This should go well.

Edit to add: personally I believe Obama is the smartest person in Washington.

[cali]

19. personally, I think "thinking' in such simplistic and meaningless terms is very revealing

[JaneyVee]

30. What exactly does it reveal?

[cali]

82. that you think being the smartest person in D.C.

is vastly important, for one thing.

[JaneyVee]

83. It is. We should embrace intellectualism, pragmatism, common sense, and nuance.

[Mojorabbit]

44. Yep nt

[markpkessinger]

75. +1 n/t

[antiquie]

2. Since you "hate to say this," perhaps you shouldn't.

Everything else I want to say to you would be hidden.

[randome]

3. Being a fighter against an intransigent GOP is like banging your head against a wall.

Obama picks his fights wisely, I think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

4. Your concerns are noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns and enjoy your stay. nt

[el_bryanto]

5. First of all your argument would be better articulated if it were broken down into paragraphs

That said, it is true that there are certain tendencies that all humans, including DUers share. Among them we tend to agree with stuff we agree with no matter how strong or weak the argument actually is or what evidence is provided. If it confirms our beliefs we tend to give it a lot of leeway while being very critical of stuff that doesn't agree with our beliefs.

That said, it's clear that you aren't as interested in that tendency as you are in criticizing your fellow DUers for not agreeing with your position on the issues; the fact that they don't agree with you isn't necessarily proof of weakness of thought; in many cases they have been very articulate about why they disagree with the positions you present here (and of course they have made many weak arguments as well).

That said, even the weakest arguments presented at DU are still head and shoulders over the arguments of our Tea-partying friends if for no other reason than they tend towards making American and the world better, while our buddies in Teapartiastan tend to argue for things that will make the world worse.

Bryant

[think_critically]

10. it's not about agreeing with my positions

That is not the point of this thread. With the exception of Snowden I agree with a lot of what my fellow duers say. The point is that we get caught up in our idealism and can't see the forest for the trees. We are smarter than they are and should recognize that change comes slowly and that we should not beat up the best person we have, for better or worse, to help move us forward. This isn't even about Obama it's about our whole approach to persuasion when it comes to the greater public and I say we b/c I'm including myself. Take the keystone pipeline for example, yes I am steadfast against it like most of us on this board and are pissed the Obama even considers it, but sometimes you have to lose the battle in order to win the war. I realized this when poll after poll comes out with people supporting it it's foolish to insist that Obama play a losing hand.

[cali]

20. lol. I'm not idealistic.

I don't think in terms of "smarter then". Plenty of smart people hold appalling points of view. Ever hear of William F. Buckley?

I don't think President Obama is as fragile as you seem to believe him.

Oh, and people who actually do think critically? They don't speak in the stream of cliches you're spewing.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

25. Exactly what war is being won if the Keystone battle is lost?

Who wins? Who loses?

People who support it are likely those who carried "kick their ass and steal their gas" signs in support of the illegal invasion of Iraq. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. Why in the world would you care about their support?

[tazkcmo]

27. I'd like to see

poll after poll reflecting this support for the pipeline. Didn't know that was the case.

[G_j]

6. I just wish

people could get their heads clear enough to STOP comparing the left to the Tea Party. Many are simply old time New Deal Democrats.

[MuseRider]

15. We have always been here

always. Nobody is starting this, nobody is organizing it we are just old time Democrats who have witnessed the Neo Dems destroy everything that made the first part of our lives easier and kinder and better for a good deal of us. We hoped we could make that happen for everyone as people advanced in their thinking and prejudice after prejudice was knocked down. Instead we got side swiped by our own side and called "fucking retards" by one of the presidents people and now they want people to think we just appeared out of thin air bankrolled by some closeted rich folks to harsh on Poor Ole Obama who only means to care for us?

Yup, we sound just like the Tea Baggers. I swear had I known I would have wiped my own brain and become a Neo Dem so I could be one of the cool kids writing about "OUR" president so every morning we could be swamped with crap like this.

[G_j]

28. exactly

it's an unbroken line of Democratic values.
I suppose the TP might have something in common with the traditional 'values' of the KKK.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. They do it because the fact is the Third Way centrists are the Democratic verison of

the Tea Party Republicans, both groups seek to move their Parties to the right, both groups use extremist rhetoric to define the rest of their Party, and both are quickly fading into irrelevance.

[markpkessinger]

76. Thank you!

That needed to be said!

[BeyondGeography]

7. The Clintons get kicked around pretty good here

which you acknowledge at the end. But up top you say they are glorified.

I don't know about your motives, but you haven't ordered your thoughts.

[2ndAmForComputers]

8. Hurry up, MIRT, before this one makes 17 more posts.

[PowerToThePeople]

29. this.

[Nay]

33. ^^This^^ plus.

[Capt. Obvious]

9. Jury Results

At Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:52 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

We are no better than them
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023689028

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Right-wing concern troll.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:58 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Incorrect assessment by alerter. Sounds just like every other bog person. Hide because of that.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's unclear to me if this person is trolling or simply making a point that a lot of DUers would actually agree with. I think it's better to let a thread like this play out and let this person reveal himself/herself in more posts and threads.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I believe that this poster is stating his/her own opinion, and I do not see a "concern troll" here. Let it stand.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[think_critically]

14. don't mean to be insulting to du members at all

I posted this out of frustration and by no means am I a right wing troll. I truly despise the right in this country and it bothers me when some of us act like they do. My point is that being progressive means that you take a logical and rational view of things. It means that you care about your common man and believe in the good of people and not the bad. It means that you can be frustrated with our government but realize that the government is not the true enemy here, it's our greater system controlled by those with money and power. It means not just shutting up and towing the line, as some folks undoubtedly do, but recognizing that our values are universal and that as long as we keep them in mind and spirit then change will come. I didn't mean to be inflammatory in this post and if it came off that way then I apologize. I just get frustrated sometimes. I'm a progressive b/c I believe in reason, fairness, and hope and it bothers me when I don't see this around here anymore.

[treestar]

55. OH look at Number 1

Hiding a post due to disagreement; nothing to do with disruptiveness, etc. Just using the system to suppress what they don't like. Great, just great.

[LiberalLoner]

11. Is there any way you could insert a paragraph break or two in there?

I have some eyesight problems due to MS and such a long unbroken block of type is hard for me to read. Maybe there are others with my problem.

[Paladin]

13. You're not missing a thing. (nt)

[Downwinder]

17. Likewise. I need to have thoughts broken up

and not all run together. For the same reasons.

[LiberalLoner]

39. Thank you, now I can read it, thanks for the paragraph breaks!

[dionysus]

12. pro tip: paragraphs. use them

[leftstreet]

16. Verily your vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose

TL R

[cali]

18. ack. paragraph breaks are important.

not that your op would be improved by it.

It's chock-a-block full of misinformation and bullshit.

First of all, most people here who criticize Obama's policies, criticize Clinton. period.

DU does NOT glorify Hillary. Not even close.


The defense of Summers is particularly stinking: We know plenty about Summers. And the idiotic suggestion that we cede our opinions on everything because the President, "knows more" or is smarter or whatthefuckever, is the OPPOSITE OF CRITICAL THINKING
.

But continue on with your Zombie Apologetics, dear. You are good at that.

[blue neen]

41. You are entitled to your opinions, the OP is entitled to his/hers.

What I really don't understand is why you have to be so insulting about it. Your mockery of the OP (and anyone else on this board who doesn't agree with you) only ruins your own credibility. Do you really think you're advancing the cause of progressives this way?

JMHO. Mock, insult, deride away.

[think_critically]

51. proving my point

I've been on right wing boards, hannity for example, and this is the same type of talk that they use all the time. I didn't even defend Summer's, you didn't read my post. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[cali]

57. it certainly did not prove whatever point you may have had.

and the comparison to right wing boards is utterly spurious. but you're in little petulant snit and you're going to play passive aggressive.

Your claim that you didn't defend Summers is bullshit. You said clearly the President knows better when it comes to Summers then his critics. This is indeed a defense of his choice:

We criticize him for picking Larry Summers to head the fed while completely ignoring the fact that he knows far more about Summers than any body on this board or any body in congress and that he honestly thought he was the best person for the job.

I read it. every less than enlightening word, dear.

I have nothing but contempt for disingenuous denials.

[LostOne4Ever]

21. We are INFINITELY better than them.

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

They are a bunch of racist, misogynist, homophobic, selfish, theocratic assholes who only care about themselves and forcing their religious beliefs down all our throats.

We are INFINITELY better than them.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]We have this sense of idealism that completely falls apart when applied to the real world.

Do tell.

How is making sure everyone has a right to vote or marry the person they love fall apart in reality? How did making sure women and minorities have rights fall apart in the real world? How about medicare and social security?

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]We criticize him but glorify Hilary Clinton and her husband when they are in some ways responsible for a lot of the mess we are in now.


Are we reading the same DU? They are not too popular here to my knowledge.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]
We criticize him for picking Larry Summers to head the fed while completely ignoring the fact that he knows far more about Summers than any body on this board or any body in congress and that he honestly thought he was the best person for the job.

To start with I give Obama HUGE amount of credit for what he has done. He made me a faithful supporter of his by getting PPACA passed. I never thought I would see us get this far.

That said, supporting him does not mean accepting everything he says blindly. It does not mean surrendering our ability to think for ourselves. I will give the fact he endorses someone some consideration but I won't go by that solely. Obama is not infallible and I am not going to sign my name to something just because he says "trust me."

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]How in the hell can you celebrate a person who cares so little about his "principles" that he left this country and went to countries like Russia and China for asylum.

I don't give a shit about Snowden himself. I do care about how the NSA is spying on us and I am glad someone exposed it. Worrying about snowden is like saying you can't see the forest because of all the trees.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]In short, Obama is a good man that does not have the ability to forcefully advocate for progressive values. That does not mean that he doesn't agree with them, just look at the majority of his policies, but it's just not in his nature to be a fighter.

Agree with you on everything but the part about him not being a fighter. If he was not a fighter he would not have gotten the PPACA passed. What he is, though, is a politician who knows he can't win every battle and picks and chooses his fights.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Alan Grayson will NEVER be president of the united states and Hilary Clinton is the type of democrat that people on here despise so the reality is is that we need to push Obama but support him at the same time. He pisses me off a lot but I honestly think that he is a better president than any of the other politician out there right now would be.

Oh, can I borrow your crystal ball that told you about Warren et al so I can see the next set of winning lotto numbers?

Seriously though, America's demographics are changing and changing fast. My generation is far far more liberal than many generations have been in a long long time. It's hard for anyone to know if those people will be president or not. As I said before I support Obama, just not blindly. When he does something I disagree with I am going to let everyone know.

If Hillary or Warren, or anyone else you listed becomes the candidate Im going to support, while criticizing them when they do wrong, just as well.

[think_critically]

24. Good post

This is a good post and you are not the type of person I'm talking about and to be honest this thread was really about us as progressives in general and not just on du and if you look at my post you'll see that I'm a far cry from a blind Obama supporter
Your comments about social security and medicare are duly noted but can we not take a step back and acknowledge that perhaps it's ok to change them. These programs were implemented at a time when people were not living as long as they do now and when they were not spending anywhere near what they are now on health care. This is the type of idealism that I was talking about. In addition, we can't really call ourselves fair minded when our solution to every problem is just to tax the rich. Yes they do need to pay more but as people who believe in cooperation and people coming together for the greater good we do need to understand that everybody will have to sacrifice something.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

31. Educate yourself on life expectancies.

Krugman is a good starting point, you can go from there.

Healthcare costs are out of control. What's being done to actually rein in costs?

"Sacrifice"? Screw that. The lower- and middle classes have sacrificed enough.

"We" can't really call "ourselves" "fair minded" when falsely suggesting that "we" believe that solutions "to every problem is just to tax the rich."

My goodness, such manipulative bullshit you have shared with us today...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. But even Krugman, who has criticized Obama--sometimes unfairly in my view--has come around

to understanding and being more empathetic to Obama's plight with the Republicans. And again, Paul Krugman has been no friend to Barack Obama. From the very beginning, he has been a harsh critic, even an early supporter of Hillary Clinton, which was puzzling because her husband's economic policies were just as conservative as Obama's. Krugman continued his very harsh, unrelenting criticisms of Obama throughout much of his first term up until the Republican primaries. Then, it seemed as though Krugman began to have a change of heart when he saw how the Republicans were playing Russian roulette with the debt ceiling and deliberately blocking Jobs bills, playing games with the budget, sequestration, then the media blaming Obama for that.

You mention Krugman here, but I think he is a great example of someone who was once very unfair towards Obama but then opened his eyes and came around to be a bit more sympathetic. The OP seems to be suggesting something similar here. Is Obama the best negotiator when it comes to policy debates and explaining shit? No. Is he the best fighter when it comes to political battles? No. Is he forceful? Sometimes yes. I've seen him be when necessary. Sometimes no when he needs to be more forceful. However, has he been effective at the end of the day when it's all been said and done? Well, obviously. The man won two terms--by electoral mandate--overwhelming margins, all despite economic uncertainty and a bad economy, unrest in the world. He has done something right.

I can't speak for the OP, but like Krugman, I believe that all he's saying is that we be a bit more empathetic to what the president has faced and what he faces. I'm not suggesting that we agree with everything the president does and not debate on things on which we don't agree. I'm not suggesting that we stop fighting and just sit it out. I'm suggesting that we stop the knee-jerk reactions every time there is speculation regarding what this president is "planning" to do without any real information or concrete knowledge of what will happen. I'm suggesting that we go after Republicans more; hold them accountable for their obstruction. For the last five years, I've personally witnessed a lot less bashing of Republicans and much more bashing and hatred of this president than anything else.

Just my pov.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

72. My reference to Krugman had to do with Chained CPI and life expectancy.

Life, Death and Deficits
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opinion/life-death-and-deficits.html

I'll respect your POV and state that mine differs in that I don't subscribe to this "wait and see" attitude, especially when the words come from Obama's mouth.

We know Republicans suck. I live in North Carolina, Lord do I know. Occupy sounded the alarm in 2010, but many didn't listen, and many others poo-pooed. The alarm has been sounded again thanks to Moral Mondays. People finally seem to be listening.

After decades of Reagan and Reagan Democrats, many of us consider said Democrats fair game. The system is JUST NOT WORKING for far too many. Again, DECADES. I'm more empathetic to those people, rather than a grown man who knew perfectly well what he was getting in to. That's not to say I don't appreciate the tremendous pressure Obama is under, I just don't subscribe to the constant coddling of him by some on this board. Nor do I subscribe to some of the over-the-top attacks...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. I agree with you to a certain extent, but I'm just not that pessimistic. I think Obama has been a

great president.

[think_critically]

60. wow

Instead of attacking the comment you call me manipulative. Really? This is the shit I'm talking about. Somebody disagrees and they are personally attacked? SMH

[WorseBeforeBetter]

65. "I honestly believe that a lot of us are no better than right wing tea party republicans"

Attack or no?

Like clockwork, the next phase of the game: victimhood.

Seriously, if you're going to dish it out, learn to take it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

90. Holy crap!

In addition, we can't really call ourselves fair minded when our solution to every problem is just to tax the rich.

[Autumn]

42. That should be a stand alone OP.

Great post.

[Aristus]

22. First: congratulations on your ability to use spell check.

Next: learn how to format for reader ease-of-use.

Last: Stop equating us with those crazed, dumb-fuck tea-baggers. Yes, we are better than they. Yes, it is a burden. But one I shoulder gladly in my attempt to raise the lowest common denominator in this country, instead of simply pandering to it. If this post doesn't make sense to you, go establish a user account with Equivocators Underground.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

23. Ah, bitter grapes... Obama v. the Clintons.

One doesn't make it to the White House without being a fighter. He's just not always fighting for the right things. And he knows when to turn on his inner asshole, directing it mostly against those in his own party.

Damn, you're making him out to be O'bambi, just like the wingnuts do. Why is that?

Thanks for the lecture.

[think_critically]

26. not trying to lecture

Sometimes the truth hurts. He risked everything to pass health care but does not risk everything to defend it. Every story needs a hero and an antagonist and he has not effectively made the republicans look like the villains that they are. At some point as a leader you need to drop the professorial tone and call people out for what they are. Why is it so hard for him to say that the right wants to shut down the government so that they can deny care to those who are sick and can't pay. Why can't he in plain english convey the pros and the cons of Obamacare so that people will realize what it truly is. I say these things b/c I have been emotionally invested in him every since he ran. I got to shake his hand one time and will never forget it. I care deeply about his presidency and it bother me so much to see a good man with good intentions not be as successful as he deserves to be b/c he can't frame the debate in ways that people can understand.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

32. Don't you think it's a bit silly to be emotionally invested in a politician?

Seriously.

A conservative neighbor is always quick to point out how "professorial" Obama is. He, like any president, CAN frame the debate.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. I always thought that Obama fights behind closed doors not in public. Just because we don't see him

getting angry in public or using fighting words in public doesn't mean he doesn't do it.

[diwali 1103]

34. The Tea Party got co-opted by the Republican Party...

Believe it or not, some issues are very much in line with progressives (please don't ask me which ones). This is why I believe OWS deliberately refused to align themselves with one party.

[grantcart]

35. This is pretty funny on a lot levels, even though I like your spirit.

Let's start with this

We criticize him for picking Larry Summers to head the fed while completely ignoring the fact that he knows far more about Summers than any body on this board

Of course he didn't pick Summers.

Which leads to one of three possibilities

1) He definitely was going to but backed down when he received strong advice from liberal bloggers (who now take credit) that it was a bad move.

2) He never intended to but found it useful to stage it so that progressives could ramp up get organized and achieve a victory.

3) He didn't intend to pick Summers but wanted some space to get Yellen chosen.

I pick number three. Progressives are all in favor of Yellen despite the fact that she is in more or less the same page with Bernanke on fed policy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. I agree with #3 as well. I don't think he ever intended on picking Summers, either.

I think Yellen was always his first choice.

[grantcart]

43. and now she looks a whole lot more 'progressive' than she actually would if not

standing next to Summers.

I think there is something of a misconception about the Fed and how a progressive policy would make much difference, that is for Treasury, etc. Detailed reports state that Yellen is in the same school as Bernanke and now the progressive side is relieved that it isn't Summers and will fall in line for Yellen.

I would normally tend to think that the President wouldn't use this tactic but I cannot believe that he ever wanted Summers abrasive personality anywhere near the FED (it uses a consensus based leadership model).

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. I have several friends who work at the Fed and they, too, like Yellen. They think she's much more

progressive than Summers. She is well liked it seems.

[grantcart]

46. Interesting. What did they think of Bernanke?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

77. He's a part of the Wall Street Establishment. He does what he needs to be done, but he's not a game

changer. He goes along to get along.

[cthulu2016]

50. Bernanke is MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN SUMMERS

within the range of views relevant to the job of Fed chairman.

You say Yellen is in the Bernanke school as if that means something bad.

Within the range of what the Fed does Bernanke has been exceptionally progressive because he has followed the theory and the numbers rather then interposing his hunches. (aka Summersism)

The perception is that the Bernanke school is MORE DOVEISH ON ON INFLATION than Summers might be. That is the progressive position on monetary policy, all day long. To be relatively more concerned with unemployment and relatively less concerned with inflation.

In terms of what the Fed does, Summers was feared to be more hawksh than Yellen.

In terms of what the Fed does.

[grantcart]

61. apparently you didn't understand my post

because there is nothing in my post that contradicts anything you posted.

I like Bernanke and like Yellen as well. I think that there are real limits what the FED can and should do.

There are many progressives who objected to Bernanke's confirmation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/ben-bernanke-confirmation_n_375139.html

Ben Bernanke Confirmation Targeted By Progressives With 'Stop Bailout Ben'

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is up for confirmation this Thursday for a second four-year term. Despite rising public anger at the Fed over the secretive bailouts, the Senate Banking Committee is widely expected to approve President Obama's choice.

But Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) says it's "not necessarily" a foregone conclusion. Now, a group of progressives are trying to make it a real fight.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has launched a petition at StopBailoutBen.com, urging senators to vote against Bernanke. In an email to supporters, they highlight a conversation between the Fed chairman and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) in which Bernanke said "I don't know" which foreign banks got half-a-trillion U.S. dollars in exchange for foreign currency.

So by floating Summers name the President got the most rabid critics to bite on Summers so that when Yellen came up they all fall in line for her, thereby eliminating a split on the left for confirmation of Yellen.

At the time I couldn't understand why Summers name came up because the FED operates with a consensus/collegiality that would have been a terrible fit for Summers personality (leaving aside for a moment ideological questions).

For that reason I found it quite puzzling.

It seems quite clear now. Put out a rumor on Summers so that people fall in line with Yellen.

[cthulu2016]

86. That's a lot of conspiracy theory to explain something that

requires no special explanation. Since Summers was Obama's most trusted adviser during the financial crisis it is far from obvious that Obama did not want Summers for Fed.

I was obvious to you that Summers would be an odd choice, but it does not follow that it was obvious to Barrack Obama.

[grantcart]

89. I understand that you have difficulty following more complex points

and anything that doesn't fit your preconceived position so let me put it point by point.

What we know to be facts are:

The President didn't in fact appoint Summers.

Summers was "an" adviser, not "his most trusted" unless you now claim to have special access to his inner thought processes.

The President has appointed a number of people to handle various positions in the finance field. Among others the President appointed Elizabeth Warren as a special assistant to develop the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, something that the President made a major priority but I don't think was a particular priority for Summers. Your hyper anti-Obama cognitive dissonance causes you to exaggerate the importance of Summers who you dislike and amnesia about the appointments that you favor.

Beyond the questions of policy the FED operates from a very unique consensus deliberative body. It would make little sense to appoint any confrontational personality to the FED because it would be counterproductive in the long term. All you have to do is see the President's appointments to the Supreme Court to understand that the President understands the need certain institutions have for consensus rather than confrontational personalities.

Given the fact that any appointment to the FED is going to get a certain knee jerk reaction (see for example the reaction to Bernanke http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/ben-bernanke-confirmation_n_375139.html ) the Summers nomination moved the liberal community to strongly endorse Yellen even though there are no significant philosophical difference between her and Bernanke.

For the record there isn't any element of "conspiracy theory" in anything I have suggested. The practice of putting out a 'trial balloon' as a preliminary step to frame another action down the road is rather common place and requires no conspiracy.

Of course no one knows the exact reason a trial balloon is floated. If, however, the long rumored appointment of Summers (which was inaccurately reported here as a 'done deal') was intended as trial balloon to better frame a Yellen nomination, then it will have succeeded.

[NCTraveler]

47. Are you any better than the right wing tea party republicans?

Are you just saying that holds true for other duers, but not yourself?

If you "hate to say this", does that mean your whole op is some form of self-loathing?

When you say "I honestly believe that", can I assume all of your other posts without that phrase are bullshit?

I feel these questions are appropriate considering you just said a lot of us are no different than the right wing tea party republicans.

[think_critically]

53. did you read the post

I explicitly used the phrase myself included. I have been very pissed at Obama and have sometimes called him every name in the book at times b/c I'm so frustrated. My main point is that as progressives we shouldn't be so idealistic that we lose site of reality. It's ok to disagree with the president for wanting to appoint Larry Summers or believing that we need some entitlement reform but acting like he is a complete sell out is not fair imo and is the same mode of thinking that those loud voices on the right have.

[NCTraveler]

62. I read the whole post...

and one of us has critical thinking skills. The other has an op comparing themselves to the tea party republicans. At least you are willing to admit it up front. I am just assuming you meant it considering you didn't tell me you were being "honest" when you said it.

[NaturalHigh]

48. Maybe you should have posted this in the Barack Obama group.

That's the little corner of the web where they talk about how great President Obama is and how he can do no wrong. In the real world, criticism of the president is still allowed.

[cthulu2016]

49. So we need to be Bush-era Republicans rather than teaparty Republicans? Cool.

Worst OP ever.

We are like the Republicans because we criticize our leaders instead of being credulous infants.

Wow!

[think_critically]

54. Did you even read the op

Nobody said anything about not criticizing the president. He has done a lot to deserve it but my whole point is that we have to be more realistic about the world as it is and not be so idealistic to the point where we sabotage our ultimate goals. Progressives in this country, not just here, but in the media and in congress as well need to realize that weakening the president is probably the dumbest move we can make right now.

[cthulu2016]

56. Your whole point was as I described it

and has no value.

Bonus points for the hilarious, delusional, "We criticize him but glorify Hilary Clinton."

[arcane1]

52. Speak for yourself n/t

[Iggo]

58. You and who else?

[bullwinkle428]

59. Let me share what my meager little "walnut brain" knows about Larry Summers:

-during his time in the Clinton administration, earned big reputation as a de-regulator

-urged Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall, which proved to incredibly disastrous

-tore apart Brooksley Born when she tried to warn everyone that derivatives were out of control, and likely to blow up the economy

-ran Harvard at the time that Sen. Elizabeth Warren was actually teaching there, so she knows him rather well, which is why she ended up essentially leading the opposition to him

So perhaps you can understand why some of us have been more than a little concerned once his name began floating around out there with regards to the open Fed chairman position.

[bvar22]

63. Without "ideals",

there is no moral compass with which to measure movement & direction.
This makes it easy to mistake "movement" for "progress",
and has enabled the constant movement of the Democratic Party to the Conservative Right all in the name of "pragmatism".


Thanks for the OP devoid of Issues and Values,
but I'll be sticking with these "ideals".

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established [font size=3]for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens."
--FDR, SOTU,1944

Please note that FDR specified the above ideals as Basic Human Rights, to be protected and administered by our Government of the people,
and NOT as commodities to be sold to Americans by Private Corporations.

When a politician moves TOWARD these ideals, I will support him/her.
When a politician moves AWAY from these "ideals", I will OPPOSE him/her.

Sadly, The "Centrist" Leadership of the Democratic Party has mostly Moved AWAY from these ideals over the last 25 years,
and I find few issues I can enthusiastically SUPPORT from our centrist leadership today.

Thanks, but No Thanks!
I will be keeping my "ideals",
and using them as a Moral Compass to measure Progress and Direction.

[font size=3]CENTRISM!!!...because it is so PRAGMATIC!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!!!



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[blue neen]

64. Too bad those Basic Human Rights did not extend to Japanese Americans.

FDR was one of our greatest Presidents, but he made mistakes, and the internment of Japanese Americans was certainly one of those mistakes.

[bvar22]

66. Your remarks have nothing to do with the substance of my post,

or the debate between Pragmatic Centrism vs Ideals and the Moral Compass.

The Internment was a tragic episode in American History,
but it is incorrect to blame just FDR for the Internment.

Truth is, The USA waged a Racist War against the Japanese,
fueled by racist propaganda
which was embraced by a racist nation.

I STILL embrace the "ideals" specified by FDR in the 2nd Economic Bil or Rights,
and, sadly, your diversionary post FAILED to Poison that Well.

[blue neen]

73. My remarks have everything to do with your post.

Ideals are just that: Ideals. We can try our best to live by them, but they don't always work out the way we want them to.

So, it's incorrect to blame JUST Franklin D. Roosevelt for the Internment, but it's perfectly correct to blame JUST Barack Obama for some of the issues he gets blasted for daily on this forum. Sure.

Truth is, there is still plenty of racist propaganda being embraced by a racist nation. Very sad, but true. Look at what happened to the new Miss America this week.

I would imagine that most posters here on DU embrace the ideals of FDR. We also embrace many of the things that LBJ was able to accomplish. The mistakes they made don't diminish from the good they were able to accomplish. Stating the truth about their terms in office is hardly considered poisoning the well or a diversionary failure.

Have a good evening.

[bvar22]

80. Try reading my post again .

Here, I'll bullet point and bold the important parts to help you remember:


*Please note that FDR specified the above ideals as Basic Human Rights, to be protected and administered by our Government of the people,
and NOT as commodities to be sold to Americans by Private Corporations.

*When a politician moves TOWARD these ideals, I will support him/her.
*When a politician moves AWAY from these "ideals", I will OPPOSE him/her.

*Sadly, The "Centrist" Leadership of the Democratic Party has mostly Moved AWAY from these ideals over the last 25 years,
and I find few issues I can enthusiastically SUPPORT from our centrist leadership today.


*Without "ideals",there is no moral compass with which to measure movement & direction. This makes it easy to mistake "movement" for "progress",
and has enabled the constant movement of the Democratic Party to the Conservative Right all in the name of "pragmatism".

Now, if you would like to disagree,
lets disagree about the things I have actually said.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. we are not better than 'them' because we've given up critical thinking

now that we feel our side is in power.

[quinnox]

68. There is a tiny group of like minded duers who do seem to hate most duers, but your OP needs to be

more full of uncritical praise of President Obama to appeal to them, I think. If you had put a lot more of dreamy praise of Obama instead of being somewhat critical of him, then I think your OP would have been more popular with that small faction of duers who always are complaining about DU and other duers of being too progressive and liberal for their liking.

[think_critically]

69. yea and some folks think I did the opposite

Some folks have also accused me of blindly following Obama. Go figure.

[quinnox]

70. Heh, yup, looks like you pissed off most duers

and on different sides too.

Good luck to you with this OP.

[think_critically]

71. proving my point

It's that kind of binary though that gets me. You can either never criticize Obama for anything or feel that he is nothing more than a corporatist sell out.

[cantbeserious]

78. Snowden - Coward - Would You Have Similar Courage - Most Likely Not

eom

[liberal N proud]

79. That is what always hear...

When I get into debates with a right-winger and they know that their argument is built on BULLSHIT!

[Niceguy1]

81. you bring

Up some good points. Dont be afraid to voice them...some of the reactions prove your point.

[elehhhhna]

84. ah, fuck you, you

both of you





freepalicious!

[Niceguy1]

91. hmm

Now that is an intellectual response.

[elehhhhna]

93. yup, thanks!

binks, an hour later, and it's still there...

[Niceguy1]

94. I don't alert

It's childish and I prefer to let people show themselves to all....

[elehhhhna]

95. evidently nobody alerts when it's directed at you

hmmmm.

[Rex]

85. Kewl story bro!

Let me know when you get back to reality.

[SammyWinstonJack]

87. Ugh.

[Douglas Carpenter]

88. I'm going to make a guess that you were born or came of consciousness since or after Reagan, right?

Because, a lot of younger folks today are only familiar with social liberalism And in that way things have progressed a great deal over the last few decades. My goodness when I was a kid major city newspapers still separated their "Help Wanted" classified adds from "Help Wanted Women" and "Help Wanted Men." It was considered liberal to consider homosexuality a treatable illness instead of something psychopathic and criminal. So we have seen miraculous strides in those areas. But in the mean time we have seen enormous steps backwards on the economic front. No matter how one spins it -on economic issues Richard Nixon was well to the left of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or any other prominent mainstream Democrats who were even taken seriously as possible presidential contenders over the last twenty to thirty years. And Nixon was considered a conservative at that time - a conservative who supported a guaranteed annual income and a national healthcare program way to the left of the ACA. But I digress - When was the last time we had a real old fashion New Dealer that even came close to leading the Democratic Party who was actually proposing real changes that would expand the safety net and move boldly toward eradicating poverty in America and hunger in the world and build a more economically equitable society? Well, I would say it has been more than forty years. Since then - although we have leaders taking strong positions on social issues - I remind people that social issues don't generally cost a lot of money. The Chairman of Starbucks strongly supports marriage equality while he wants to slash Social Security. I'm sure lots of hedge fund mangers and Wall Street investment bankers feel the same. Simply wanting to protect the economic advancements that have already been under assault for the last three to four decades is now considered far left. There is no doubt that the only reason that we have been able to hang on to what little remains of the New Deal and the Great Society is because people speak up and won't let it happen. If people stop complaining about the economic policies of these hedge fund Democrats like Obama or Clinton that dominate today's Democratic Party - that would be the end of all that was accomplished from the early 30's through the late 60's.

[senseandsensibility]

92. Poor Obama. He's so powerless.

If only he had the ability to affect change somehow. Anyone who criticizes him just doesn't understand that being President of the United States gives you no more power than the janitor at the local 7-11.