Why doesn't Obama stand up to Republicans instead of being so weak and bipartisan?

[Radical Activist]

An excerpt from Obama's speech at a factory providing green energy jobs as a result of the stimulus bill.

Now I’ll be honest with you, there’s going to be a big debate about where we go. There are folks in Washington right now who think we should abandon our efforts to support clean energy. They’ve made the political calculation that it’s better to stand on the sidelines than work as a team to help American businesses and American workers.

So they said no to the small business tax cuts I talked about. They said no to rebuilding infrastructure. And they said no to clean energy projects. They even voted against getting rid of tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas so we could give those tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Wisconsin.

And my answer to people who have playing politics the past year and a half is, they should come to this plant. They should go to any of the dozen new battery factories, or the new electrical vehicle manufacturers, or the new wind turbine makers, or the solar plants that are popping up all over this country, and they should have to explain why they think these clean energy jobs are better off being made in Germany or China or Spain, instead of right here in the United States.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/16/new-battery-technology-and-new-jobs-wisconsin

We've all heard the talking point that Obama needs to stop being so bipartisan and really stick it to Republicans. He did that yesterday. But I couldn't find the above quote in any of the articles I read about the speech.

The fact is that Obama frequently attacks Republicans. He does it very convincingly. These comments are typical of other speeches. We shouldn't be asking why Obama doesn't criticize Republicans more.

We should be asking why the corporate media censors Obama when he does. And why do so many left pundits and bloggers keep playing along?

[CBR]

1. Why the left ever believes the media is beyond me but

it seems their narrative still rules even amongst those who should know better.

[Radical Activist]

3. It keeps happening.

In his big BP oil speech, Obama made a strong statement against the Reagan/Bush philosophy of government and argued for passing a climate change bill. The corporate media completely ignored those parts of this speech.

Then liberal pundits joined the act by asking why he didn't make a more ideological statement and/or call for action on climate change. Well, he did. Why didn't they read the speech and make up their own mind instead of believing whatever someone on GE-NBC said?

[EFerrari]

13. You've yet to show that happened.

:)

[Radical Activist]

22. What do you believe didn't happen?

1) That Obama was attacked for not including those things in his speech?
2) Or that they were actually in his speech?

It takes very little googling to prove both.

[Whisp]

20. funny how that works. During the Bush regime the media was attacked

here relentless. Pretty well everyone was on board that the media supported Bush and his lies, supported big corporations and their lies.

Then, all of a sudden, when Obama is in office, the same lieing media becomes trustworthy? so much so that articles that condemn Obama (and usually end up big fat juicy lies) end up here to cheers and woots of 'truth to power'?

[Radical Activist]

24. I've noticed that too.

It's amazing how gullible some people become when the un-sourced inflammatory headline with no direct quote from anybody is attacking Obama. That kind of reporting got us into the Iraq War and destroyed Al Gore's campaign. Why is it suddenly OK now?

[JuniperLea]

2. I'm convinced we aren't hearing everything...

And I've been saying for years that we cannot have an effective POTUS or government until we take back the media!

"I fear the newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets."
— Napoleon Bonaparte

"True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!"
--Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839 for his play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy


We need to take it back... seriously.

[Radical Activist]

5. Yes.

Time to break up the conglomerates. In the mean time, we create our own online media and ignore the corporate BS.

[JuniperLea]

10. We need to be ever vigilent...

Some of what was purported to be "our" online media is sucking hard at the GOP teat these days.

I don't think we should necessarily ignore the corporate BS either... I think we need to keep an eye on the lies so we can counter them... as sickening as that sounds.

[Karenina]

7. HALLO!

:hi:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. Yes my first would be Fox News

[EFerrari]

4. If the left believed the corporate media, there would be no left leaning outlets.

And punting at Republicans in public is not sticking it to Republicans.

[vi5]

6. The issue is not the speeches....

..or the interviews. Yes, he calls out republicans in those.

But when it comes time to actually advocating, and pushing policy, and "whipping" or whatever you want to call it that his role is in working with Congress to get stuff done, then that is where he places the priority on "bipartisanship" and/or splitting the difference with republicans or "centrist dems".

Yes, I know he doesn't draft legislation. And yes, I know he can't control Ben Nelson or any of his ilk. But he can be more aggressive in what he demands of them, he can direct or strongly advise Dem leadership to issue rebukes or provide ramifications accordingly.

For an example, see how strong of an advocate he was for pushing Reid to allow Leiberman to keep his key positions despite what he did.

I don't know of many people (of the 'professional left" or whatever you want to call everyone who has issues with this presidency)who are upset because he doesn't call out republicans in his speeches. I do however know plenty of people who take issue with the degree to which on major, major important legislation, that he's content to split the difference and encourage caving to the worst republican instincts. I know a lot of people who have issue to the degree to which his economic policy and his economic advisers rely on the concept of "trickle down" or supply side which is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Nobody disputes that when he puts words to something he does a good job, and can be witty and scathing in his attacks on republicans. But when it comes time to act and he chooses to advocate bipartisanship over tough action which would really call them to task in a tangible way that will have impact, that is where the dissapointment comes from.

I dont' expect this to convince anyone and I'm sure I'll just be attacked as "wanting everything and wanting it now" which no matter what I say to the contrary, is not the case at all.

So...yeah, that's my take. Whatever. Nobody on DU is going to convince anyone of anything anyway so why do I bother. Sorry to have interrupted your thread.

[EFerrari]

8. It's not really bi-partisanship if you don't stand up for your own position.n/t

[patrice]

19. GOOD point! But the problem is that he has no backing on "the Left". They're all show and no go,

except for the LGBT and the old-timers in the Peace communities that is.

Get on Facebook and see who's out there working for local candidates.

How's the President supposed to stand up for something when those who want it are busy saying they're sitting this one out?

They quit too soon. They're not behind him; he can't count on them, so he's only supporting in very specific situations where he KNOWS the Democrats can produce the votes.

[Radical Activist]

18. I was expecting this dodge.

There are many examples of Obama personally calling members of Congress and using the bully pulpit. But that's a separate issue for another thread.

The fact is that many people complain, on DU and elsewhere, that Obama reaches out to Republicans too often and should attack them more in speeches. For example, all the claims after Gibb's comment that he attacks the left but not Republicans. Or the posts of Barney Frank's remark that Obama isn't partisan enough. I'm glad you agree that this is a false narrative. But, it is most certainly is a narrative that's often argued.

[vi5]

53. O.K. I'd like some of those examples....

Can you give me some of these many examples of him calling a Senator and using the Bully Pulpit to get a bill to be more liberal? More progressive? Let me know when that thread is started because all I've seen is being told to take it on faith that really behind the scenes he's fighting to make these bills more progressive and more liberal and really I mean he wants the things we all want but he just has no control over congress. So that's some crow I'd really be happy to eat. I'll gladly get my plate, fork, and knife ready to eat that crow and bask in all these many examples. Be happy to be wrong and not have noticed these in previous discussions on here.

The fact is that he used the Bully Pulpit for the example I gave and advocated strongly and put pressure on Reid to let Leiberman keep his positions of power despite betraying the party. And he used the bully pulpit to stop the more liberal house members from blocking the bill to make it more progressive, in the same way the blue dogs were doing to make it more conservative. So you're not telling me he couldn't have done the same and had Reid put pressure on Lincoln or Nelson to make the bills more to his liking. Either he has the power of influence over congress or he doesn't. If he does, then he has not chosen to use it to make things more progressive or more liberal. If he doesn't have any power or influence over Congress then he doesn't deserve the credit for these supposedly great.

[Radical Activist]

86. This is another example of how progressives are being manipulated by the press.

And even most of our own pundits are playing along.

The examples of Obama pushing Congress left are not widely reported or acknowledged. And it's usually quickly forgotten when it is. The outrages and disappointments get far more attention.

There are many examples but I'll bring up the Murkowski resolution because it's something I'm familiar with. Senator Murkowski tried to strip EPA of its authority to regulate CO2. This would have been a crushing defeat in the effort to stop climate change. Obama issued a veto threat. The effort died. Six Democrats had already signed on but Obama's formal veto threat stopped any more from adding their names. I only saw that covered on a few environmental blogs like Grist.

That would have been a good time to celebrate that Obama is fighting for progressives issues. It might have built more support for fighting climate change if people saw how important it is to the President. But that's not how the media works. Even liberal pundits ignore Obama when he does something progressive. Why is that?

And I would add that getting any kind of health care reform or serious financial regulation through the Senate was not easy. The fact that Obama got anything passed at all is an act of pushing the Senate left. That's significantly different than what Clinton did when he undercut Congressional Democrats by proposing something closer to what Republicans wanted. Obama is starting out by proposing things to the left of what Democratic moderates would like. I believe it's important to recognize the difference.

[vi5]

93. I appreciate the response.

I do. I'm not trying to be some contrarian dick. But honestly that's 1 example and the rest you're asking me to take it on faith that he did this, even though nobody anywhere reported it, just because I don't trust the press (which I don't).

And while 1 example with Climate Change is not to be dismissed, that still leaves a lot on the table and it also shows that he CAN apply pressure when he wants. It shows that when he wants, he can threaten a veto if a legislation isn't progressive enough for him. Which then means that when it came to other monumental issues such as healthcare reform and finance reform he could have done the same thing. And he chose not to. And that's telling.

The issue I (and presumably many others) have is not that he doesn't do any progressive things ever. But the fact is that everything, every issue stems from the prominence and power of corporate culture in this country. It is responsible for all the problems we face today (including climate change). And on every issue (including climate change) Obama (and Congress, lest anyone think I'm letting them off the hook) starts from a point of "O.K. we need to do this thing, but we have to start from a point of the notion that supply side economics has to be at the root of all legislation. And we can't be too hard on corporations or provide them with too much (or any) competition or legislation." and playing into the whole "government never created a job" bullshit.

I'm not going to sit here and say "Oh he's just as bad as Bush." Some good things have gotten done and I'd be fine if he fought hard, pressed the conservadems as hard as he did the progressives, and ended up with something of a compromise. But he squandered some big opportunities by starting from a point of compromise, bipartisanship, and an adherence to trickle down economics as a base point for all actions. And I'm sorry I just can't fully applaud such a wasted opportunity, even if I can acknowledge some accomplishments.

[snot]

9. Interesting observation. However:

1) The complaint that he doesn't stand up to/stick it to the right isn't just that he doesn't excoriate in public, but rather that, behind the scenes, he gives too much away before negotiations even begin (e.g., assuring the industry behind the scenes from the get-go that the public option would not be on the table).

2) There's also the complaint that surely, Obama and other intelligent Dems must realize the media are propagandists for the right -- and this has been the case for years or even decades -- yet they've done virtually nothing about it. This suggests they don't care -- possibly bec. they basically serve the same masters.

[EFerrari]

15. Obama did something about it. He went on Fox and told them

he was fighting off all kinds of demands from the left.

Obama is a placater. I guess nobody's perfect but it doesn't really help us gain any ground when the most attractive politician in living memory does things like that.

[Steely_Dan]

91. I Agree...

At a time in our history when we need the strongest possible leadership (based on principles), we are witnessing someone that apparently doesn't understand some of the most basics of politics.

For example...
You always negotiate from a position of strength.
You take control of the message, you frame the arguments and stand by them.
You consider unintended consequences in what you say and do.
You have a damage control team that is effective.
You do not abandon the base, the people that helped get you into office.
You use the power of your position to its best advantage.

All of these above points would have been much easier had President Obama taken advantage of the overwhelming amount of support he had upon taking office. Why he didn't cash in this historic mandate to push forward with confidence and boldness is somewhat beyond me.

Having said that, there are things that Obama does that are commendable.

The issues that face our country are so critical, perhaps it is too much to expect the kind of leadership that can boldly address them.

-P

[patrice]

11. Because the margins are narrow and there's a bunch on the "Left" who, like the Right, are never

going to support him anyway, because they're in this thing for themselves (movement building: Libertarians, Green Party + disaffected Republicans), since if the Republicans achieve ascendancy this November, the so-called "Left" will make hay out of the general chaos that will follow, so they have no real interest in helping Democrats this Fall.

This is the "Professional" Left and if they're not out there WORKING for Democratic candidates, you can be absolutely certain that they don't give a flying shit about what happens to Medicare Reform in the next Congress, and, hence, to our bond rating, in the international bond market that finances our debt, because said bond-rating will fall a result of the U.S. showing its lack of good-faith in addressing its budgets by, amongst other things, failing to deal effectively and longitudinally with Medicare reform.

In short, you think we have it bad now, just wait to see what happens if Democrats don't make gains this Fall and

There are some people around who, no matter what they call themselves, stand to profit PROFESSIONALLY out of that disaster.

It's just too bad others will pay for their ambitions with their lives.

[Radical Activist]

26. You get it.

There are some who benefit professionally or ideologically from the failure of the Democratic Party. Most of the grassroots left supports Obama and that is not who Gibbs was addressing in his comment. People shouldn't be naive about the truth of what you're writing.

[patrice]

28. We are at one HELL of a crossroads here, so it is necessary for all of us to be honest

about what our PRIMARY motivation is.

EVERYONE gets a big buzz off of yelling against this President; that's a good sign that it's time for a timeout and some seriously honest thinking about what's going on.

[babylonsister]

12. Rec'd, thanks. Yes, the info is out there, it's just not being covered,

and that's a calculation by the media.

We accuse the teabaggers of being ignorant and following in lockstep; why do we tend to do it on occasion, and I include myself there, too.

[cilla4progress]

71. But what do you think of the job

Obama's message machine is doing?

[frylock]

14. W0W!!!1 real strong meat there..

And my answer to people who have playing politics the past year and a half is, they should come to this plant.

that one is really really really REALLY going to sting. :yawn:

[katandmoon]

17. Where did he stick it to Republicans in that statement? He used the straw man term "folks."

That's some tough talking against Republicans.

[phleshdef]

23. I don't know which is funnier, the fact that you obviously don't know what "straw man" means...

...or the desperate attempt to pretend that everyone doesn't know exactly who he means.

[patrice]

25. !

:applause:

[Whisp]

37. hahaha! perfect.

the misuse of that term is Hilarious, I'm so glad when people point it out. :) could always use a laugh here. :rofl:

[katandmoon]

44. I know exactly what straw man means. It was a form of argument Bush used a lot too.

[phleshdef]

46. LOL "Yuh huh, I know whut it means, its that, um, thing, that um, Bush did"

[katandmoon]

55. It sounds like YOU are the one who doesn't know what it is.

[phleshdef]

78. I definately know what it means which is why I'm appalled at the horrendous misuse of it.

Here, I'll be nice and educate you. A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone's position in order to attack it. Is the President misrepresenting the position of people who oppose making the changes we need made in regards to energy, global warming, etc? No, he isn't. Therefore, there was no strawman.

Consider yourself educated. Perhaps in the future, you will use the term correctly.

[Gordan Shumway]

49. Well, you did it. You won DU. The website will now shut down.

Expect your prize in 6-8 weeks.

[Smashcut]

50. Actually, she used the term correctly.

The fact that you didn't recognize that he was attacking a strawman, instead of naming names, is not her fault.

And he did do his usual "folks" nonsense instead of calling out Republicans by name.

[phleshdef]

77. No, she didn't and neither are you.

A strawman is when you misrepresent someone else's position in order to attack it. The President isn't misrepresenting anyone's position. There really are people in Washington that don't want to make the changes needed to get energy, global warming, etc, under control.

You don't know what strawman means and neither does she.

[patrice]

27. I think it is a useful strategy to use a more super-ordinate category, sometimes, in order to

broaden the reference to include not only those whom katandmoon et al would include, but also those who fit the criteria for that super-ordinate category, but whom katandmoon et al would exclude by using a specific, less inclusive, reference, e.g. Republicans.

Using a more general reference in some situations also allows those in the more specific, less inclusive, category who don't fit the criteria for the general set to say "Oh, he's not talking about me, because, Republican though I am, I DO support clean energy and green jobs." It is people like this that he would PISS OFF AND HURT HIS GOALS if he just lumps them in with the BAD Republicans.

In short, it's MUCH smarter to get to the issue rather than the labels.

[phleshdef]

29. It also expands the category to include non-Republicans who are opposing progressive legislations...

...ie Blue dogs and sometimes Liebermann.

[patrice]

30. Yep. It is, in short, liberating, for those who have the courage to go there.

[Whisp]

31. in your definition what exactly is: 'sticking it to the Repuglicans?'

I find that complaint here often and I don't know what it is.

can he stick it to them by yelling and screaming and acting stupid like they do? can he stick it to them by some how bypassing what Congress is there for? Can he stick it to them to tell how they are obstructionist assholes that go against what is best for the american people? well he has done that quite often, but I suppose he's not mad enough or maybe he should swear and cuss just to convince some that he 'really means it'.

[Radical Activist]

34. He should scream.

Because that ALWAYS goes over well for public figures.

[Whisp]

35. and the ones here who constantly stick it to Obama more than to the Pugs

aren't exactly helping either.

but these small players aren't going to make a much of a difference (let them bray on and have their fun), it's the big fat lying media that will. They always do.

During a whole day of watching CNN I swear there are about a 100 to 3 negative to positive comments on the whitehouse and the President. and this is done sometimes is such a sly underhanded way some don't even realize it's a mission to denegrate. They put the most incendiary and ridiculous things in the form of questions.... like Is Obama really a Muslim, shit like that. Thats how they get away with not going totally Fox, but they still carry the same dirty water as Fox does.

[patrice]

36. There's a LOT of ignorance about the process, some intentional, some because there's a bunch of

newbies around.

[Hekate]

47. Good point~~~

Possibly some of those newbies are folks returning from "vacation," as it were.

DU has always -- in part -- existed to help educate those who really want to understand how the process works. Maybe this still can happen.

Hekate

[katandmoon]

45. Ask the OP -- that was his phrase, not mine.

[Whisp]

51. you seem to have an idea what 'stick it' means by that post.

what is it, according to you? You seem to know better how to do all this more effectively than Obama as you complain about his performance at every chance you get.

How would you 'stick it' to the Repuglicans?

[katandmoon]

54. For starters I'd get rid of Rahm, Gibbs, Gates, Patreus, issue an EO halting DADT, stop using/

increasing the Bush admin. attacks on privacy, pull my head out of Wall Street's and BP's asses, appoint Elizabeth Warren, shitcan the Cat Food Commission, agitate for a public option, initiate the soonest possible removal of American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq... anything that would indicate I was actually a real Democrat.

[kurtzapril4]

57. Same here.

I got a call from some Democratic Party Support Group asking for money.

I said that when you start supporting the middle class, and stop playing footsie with Republicans, I'll support you. Not until. My money and my vote is going to progressive candidates.

I want democrats who are actually democrats...not Republican Lite.

[Whisp]

58. so Obama firing some of his people is really gonna get those Repugs good!

ok.........

[katandmoon]

59. Check Obama's sinking poll numbers. They sure haven't risen since Gibbs trashed liberals.

[dionysus]

75. oh dear.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[phleshdef]

21. He has been attacking Republicans for awhile now. Some are too busy pretending to be politicians...

...on message boards to pay attention to what the real ones have actually been doing.

[Whisp]

33. agreed. he has not let up, he shows just how unhelpful and crooked those bastard Repugs are

and yet it's not enough.

the media is just not playing along and showing how often Obama does call out these fuckers, surprise surprise.

[impik]

32. He totally kicked their collective ass right now in Seattle

Just like always, people don't listen to him.

[Dr Fate]

40. Print out the speech, snap in the air, then cry:

"See, he really is fighting Republicans."

Then forward said fighting text to all of your internet friends.

[grahamhgreen]

38. Let's see 1-3 trillion for the Bush wars and how much for renewables...?

[Dr Fate]

39. The important thing is that centrists percieve his speeches as hurting Republicans.

And the other important thing is that those silly billys on "the left" do not think speeches really do anything to hurt them or stop them.

Stop bringing trivial things like the cost of Bush/Obama war spending into the debate. The important thing is what he said in a speech.

[frylock]

41. he was really mean to those poopyheads..

that'll show em!!1

[grahamhgreen]

48. Sorry - the cash is where the meat hits the mustard, IMHO. This is real money, real choices. nt

[Dr Fate]

68. You sound like a far left.

And we dont take to kindly to no far lefts in these here parts. ;)

[Radical Activist]

42. I'm glad you support Obama's call for even more spending on renewables.

That was the point of his visit and speech, after all. It's good to know we're all pushing for the same thing.

[Dr Fate]

43. Even more spending on renewables than spent on wars that benefit corporations?

Somehow I doubt he said that. Maybe that is not what you meant.

I think it's a good point to raise when it comes to any issue- he seems to be willing to spend more on a war that is supported by no one except Conservative profiteers, tea-baggers and hard-core partisans than on things that are really important to the people who got him elected.

I think he should spend ZERO dollars on these wars, but I'm just a crazy, far left Liberal. Everyone knows that normal Americans support the wars and want to continue spending billions on them. Everyone knows that real Amercians care more about "finishing the job" than taking care of things at home.

Maybe you will tell me that you WANT him to spend more on war than on domestic issues, but I would have to disagree.

So would most Americans.

Still, great speech. I'll be sure to print it out and snap it in the air as proof that Obama is kicking ass and taking names.

[Radical Activist]

73. If you want to minimize every issue other than the war

then I guess that's a good talking point. The investments in renewables and efficiency are significant. It's important that Obama is calling for more. I'm not going to dismiss all of that by making every issue about how much we're spending in two wars.

I don't think the message of "Screw what you did on global warming, I don't give a crap because we're still at war" is a very effective way to motivate Congress to take more action along the lines of what Obama is asking for. In fact, it sounds like a good way to demotivate the left and discourage Congress.

[Dr Fate]

81. I disagree with DEMS who want to spend more on wars for oil than they want to spend on renewables.

If he is spending more on a lie-based war FOR OIL than he is spending on ways to get us off of oil, then maybe he is not sincere.

My guess is that many non-partisan voters could come to a similar conclusion if they stopped and thinked about it.

[Radical Activist]

84. So you dismiss hundreds of billions spent on clean energy as "insincere"

because Obama has only gotten us out of one of the two oil wars being waged when he entered office? Frankly, that's fucked up. I oppose the wars too. Speak against them all day long. But shitting all over something good being done just because he isn't doing something else you want done is fucked up. And I suspect most voters would agree with my conclusion.

Obama has spent billions on renewables and energy efficiency. More than Clinton and Carter did in 12 years combined. Is that good or bad? Yes or no? Obama has called for billions more to be spent on the same thing. Do you support Obama in that effort or not?
Because right now you're dismissing that as "insincere" and basically meaningless. These are investments we have to make if we're going to deal with global warming. It's absolutely essential for the survival of society as we know it. I'm not going to disregard an essential effort just because I'm pissed off about another issue.
It's a witty little cheap shot if you're trying to take Obama down a peg but it doesn't help build support for clean energy or recognize the importance of what's being done. So which is more important to you?

[grahamhgreen]

87. Hundreds of billions?

On "clean" energy - you mean nukes? He's spent that on nukes?

Nukes are filthy dirty for hundreds of thousands of years.

Bad choice.

[Radical Activist]

89. What an ignorant statement.

No, I obviously didn't mean nukes. It's extremely disingenuous to pretend he spent more on nukes than on renewables and efficiency. Either educate yourself or cut the bullshit.

[grahamhgreen]

94. Please enlighten me

the most I could find for is $32.80 billion in clean energy, $26.86 billion in energy efficiency, and $18.95 billion in green transportation....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/457/invest-150-billion-to-encourage-green-business-/

And 54 billion for nukes

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/01/obama-nuclear-error-nuclear-loan-guarantee/

[Radical Activist]

95. A loan guarantee is not like direct spending.

Big difference. It means the government is acting as a co-signer. It could cost taxpayers money in the future if the project fails, and I agree that it's a bad idea for nuclear (and clean coal scams). But what you linked doesn't represent $54 billion of actual spending.

In addition to what you mentioned above, he has spent more in the regular budget outside of the stimulus bill. I would add some other stimulus spending, like funding for high speed rail and other mass transit improvements.
http://www.grist.org/article/A-green-tinged-stimulus-bill/

[BrklynLiberal]

52. K&R

[depakid]

56. That was an attack?

:shrug:

[TomCADem]

60. K & R!

[readmoreoften]

61. Talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk

talk talk talk talk talk talk talk, etc.

He talks left, acts right, then bashes the left, then talks left to smooth things over.

[Radical Activist]

64. And he doesn't use the bully pulpit.

Don't forget that one.

[Dr Fate]

69. Using it and making it work are 2 different things.

See the Dead Public Option.

See spending on renewables vs. military spending on trillion dollar wars being fought to secure more non-renewable oil.

I wonder just how much money the military spent on oil and how much of it they burned up overseas while Obama was giving that speech, for instance.

This is your example of an effective Bully pulpit?

[Radical Activist]

72. I'm anti-war but I'm not a single issue voter.

No, I really don't see the point of dismissing everything Obama does because he came into office in the middle of two wars. I guess that's a good way to make the left feel defeated like nothing has been accomplished.

The pattern on this thread is predictable. Posters complain that Obama doesn't complain about Republicans. When it's shown that he does, rather than admitting they were wrong, the complaint becomes that he isn't doing it harshly enough. People claim that he doesn't use the bully pulpit. When it's shown that he does the complaint becomes that talk doesn't count or that he didn't fight hard enough for someone's pet issue.
It's a lot like talk radio. When proven wrong, change the subject to bitch and moan about something else.

[Dr Fate]

79. War= "pet issue?" LOL! The two issues are joined at the hip, unless you are a see no evil partisan,

LOL! So the trillions we spend on wars for non-renewable oil is now my "pet issue"- lol! My "pet issue" is supporting organic farms-for instance. Multiple BILLION dollar war spending is a MAJOR issue on the minds of everyone- not a pet issue. Get a grip.

Sorry- it's not "bitching & moaning" to wonder WTF is going on when a president is spending more on a lie-based War for non-renewable oil than he is spending on non-renewables. To me, it's a sign that he is not sincere about renewables, or at best, more concerned about supporting and continuing wars based on lies.

Sorry, but lie based war spending vs. truth based domestic spending is not a "pet issue"- it's a major concern of our time. Guess what-informed swing voters & independents agree with me, not you on that.

Yes, I want Obama to use the bully pulpit- and make his use of it WORK. Not my fault if he cant do it. As far as the PO or ending war spending (I know, I know- "pet issues" as far as you are concerned), he has failed to use it properly.

If he cant/wont do it, that is his bad, not mine for noting it.

[Radical Activist]

82. No. I didn't write that.

The public option is a pet issue. You raised it in relationship to Obama not using the bully pulpit in the manner you would like.
Obama has used the bully pulpit to get progressive legislation passed like regulating the banking, credit card, insurance and mortgage industry, all while he gets us out of Iraq. Obviously he's pretty good at it.

[RetroLounge]

62. Wow, those republicans must be scared!

He called them "folks"

That's some fine "sticking it to 'em"

RL

[amborin]

63. it's not SPEECHES that count! it's actions; and Obama has catered to rethugs repeatedly, through cr

crucial actions

such as the original stimulus, as one example:

he did not get ONE SINGLE rethug vote, yet catered to them and even included useless tax cuts in it

[nightrain]

65. I don't think it's in him... he's very conflict-averse...

[KakistocracyHater]

66. I ignore the infotainment "media", they are bought & paid for by those I

oppose. Where are the Lefty billionaires & millionaires funding a Lefty media empire? Doesn't the Left have a cause worth investing in? Several causes?

[Dr Fate]

67. How much will the military spend on fuel under Obama's military budget...

...vs. the amount proposed for renewables?

Sorry, but as a wacky, crazy Liberal, I have to wonder how Obama cant support a trillion dollar effort to secure oil for corporations via wars based on lies AND say he also supports ending our dependence on such oil.

The two are the opposite of each other, and Obama is giving more money to the lie-based wars.

I know, I know. Obvioulsy I "hate Obama" for daring to even bring it up.

[Radical Activist]

74. Is this the third of fourth time you've posted this in my thread?

Why the desperate need to change the subject?

[Dr Fate]

80. Let 's make it a 5th, until someone can answer the question.

Not a change of subject- just want to know how Obama's military budget for non-renewable fuel spending is in line with his call for funding re-newables.

How much money does Obama's war budget allow for spending on non-renewable fuel, vs. his budget for re-newables?

A legit question that any environmentalist/Gulf Coast loving/anti-war/budget hawk/anti-foreign oil dependence DEM (AKA multiple issue voters) might ask.

In fact, one is asking it now.

[Radical Activist]

83. Since that's a completely different topic than the OP, then yes,

that would be a change of subject. I don't know how to make it any more obvious for you.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. That meme is getting so tired

It's completely ignorant of the attacks he DOES occasionally make on the Republicans (Did ANYBODY see how he handled the Republicans at their own retreat this past winter????), as well the whole premise of his 2004 DNC Keynote Address and his 2008 campaign, which is to attempt to change the way politics works in Washington. Bipartisanship, at one time, seemed possible in Washington and COULD be again but it's not going to happen IMHO until somebody starts leading the country by example- like what I think Obama is TRYING to do. He certainly can't do that if he decides to play the "Washington game" and routinely engage in smear campaigns and the "politics of personal destruction" against the GOP (however much they might actually deserve it). I'm not saying that I don't think that he shouldn't perhaps fight a little harder (actually, this applies to the entire Democratic Party as a whole) but, frankly, I'd rather see the Democratic Party stand for something more noble than partisan political nuclear war.

[Radical Activist]

85. I don't think people appreciate

how many potential voters would be completely turned off if Obama acted as nasty and partisan as the Republicans. Sure, Obama getting ugly will make the most partisan Democrats happy. But it will turn off a majority of the public. That helps Republicans in the long run.

Republicans don't want democracy. They don't want too many people voting. Making politics and elections ugly, nasty, and mean-spirited will ALWAY help Republicans in the long run because it means people tune it out and stop voting. That's why talk radio is filled with nothing but cynicism and venom.

Obama knows that you can't make change if people don't have the hope to believe change is possible. Some people get snide about "hope and change" but they don't understand the lessons Obama learned as a community organizer.

[NJmaverick]

76. K & R!

[besdayz]

88. a

break up the trusts.....all of them....clearchannel, newscorp, gm, cbs, abc/espn/disney...tnt/cnn

lets have 100 news networks...
it will accomplish 2 things
- use some of the hundreds of channels going empty on satellite service
- create more jobs

[Radical Activist]

90. Yes. Awesome all around. n/t

[DemocraticPilgrim]

92. Beacause going off voting history we hand the house to Republicans and they are forced to work ..

together. If he told them to jump he would only make his life harder if midterms are bad.

[Sheepshank]

96. media loves perpetuating the fallacy.

If Obama were more like the Republicans, he'd be more offensive, more aggressive, tell the left to take up arms agains the right, perpetuate political and stautory lies, and work harder for a divide.

Ain't going to happen.