General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If it's not racism, then what is it? [View all]intaglio
(8,170 posts)Not racism. There are some few amongst those I have called "kneejerk revolutionaries" who would be against any US politicians efforts. There are also agents provocateurs and some die hard rabid socialists who desire any left of centre politician to fail in the futile hope that there would be a socialist revolution as the country's politicians moved to the right.
I warned at the time that Obama was elected that he was a politician and as such he could not accomplish the things that the left hoped he would accomplish. They expected him to govern by executive order and make appointments during recess if Congress proved intractable but that was never going to happen. Obama was never going to do that because he has a far deeper understanding of the Constitution than his haters and in all cases he wants his actions to be underwritten by Congress, both by statute and by funding
If the President's record is examined he has done more for reform than almost any President since Johnson but it is not enough, especially for the rabid (and noisy) socialists. There is the complaint about gay rights and women's rights, except that has always been a matter for the States, not Federal government. Lacking Congressional support for a positive repeal of DOMA (a bill that was signed into law by Pres. Clinton) Pres. Obama did the only thing he could do, which was to stop defending the act in the courts.
Similarly for healthcare reform; he was never, ever going to be able to introduce a free at the point of delivery healthcare system - so he did what he could. The resulting bill is very far from perfect yet compared to what had gone before is pretty damn good.
On legalisation (of marijuana), again he has tried to work within the system, yet (unlike DOMA) it is not possible to stop enforcement actions against one drug but continue them against the suite of other drugs that are illegal. If that happened drug dealers in cocaine or heroine arrested under federal law would go straight to the courts with the valid argument that the law had been inequitably applied.
Leaving Iraq was accomplished, yet US forces are still in Afghanistan, haters ignore the difference between the two. On the one hand Iraq could support a democratic government that would largely maintain control over the country - and stand up to Iranian extremism. On the other is Afghanistan which has no history of democracy as well as a corrupt and venal government that will fold up and run off with as much money as they can muster as soon as the Taliban begins to exert it's authority; yet the haters want the US out ...
Drones; ignoring the wilder flights of paranoia seen on DU about scary drones killing US citizens what would be the alternative in foreign countries? Letting bands of insurgents and terrorists enlarge until they did become a threat? Sending troops in? Only using drones strikes when there is no possible chance of innocents dying? That last seems attractive - but that sort of chance doesn't happen because training and concentration for these groups happens within a community. Send in the SEALs or the SAS? Ignoring the likelihood of losses to these small, elite groups, to ensure they succeeded it is likely civilians would be killed as well as well.
Spying on US emails/Cellphones and whatever. Well, firstly, it happens - just not in the way the haters tell you it happens. There is a mass of data out there and, guess what? interested parties collect it and there is nothing illegal in that. If that data supports it then application can be made for a formal access to the communications. But, I hear the chicken littles cry, the e-mails are being stored! Well ... welcome to the modern world. E-mails, even ones seemingly lost, are stored somewhere; just like when you hit "delete" on your computer it is only the index marker on the hard disc that vanishes.
Now, phone calls are another matter - the British are spying on you - and the Australians - oh, yes and the Japanese - and, probably, the Spanish. Because for many years all calls routed through these countries have been monitored and latterly recorded, Why? because they can and because satellite and telephony cables from the USA come ashore in those countries. Ever since the Cold War the USA has been interested in people who talk to foreign nationals, except they cannot because of the Constitution. The intelligence services of the aforementioned countries are not bound by the Constitution and were listening in to a small proportion of calls anyway. So, in exchange for oversight of the spying the USA part funds the data collection efforts. This oversight is not, primarily, about spying but is about making sure these countries do not use the data for their own advantage - with a side order of being able to use these other governments to track suspicious activity.
Well, the haters say, this is surely Obama's fault because we first remember hearing about it when he was President! Strangely you would have to go back to Roosevelt, Truman and Ike for the origins of this. Enlargement happened under Kennedy and Johnson and such activities have been in the news about once every 5 years since 1988 and Paul Foot's (?) report about Menwith Hill and GCHQ in the UK.
Now I do not doubt that this activity is morally wrong, but legally? No. Should the President have done something about it? Maybe, except you can hear the cries from Congress about the ending of this program if you use your imagination.
So in answer to your question, not racism but a some people with short memories, a few outrage junkies and a few, very effective, s#1t stirrers.