Why the left is right to be cross with Obama

[n2doc]

By Eric Zorn-

President Barack Obama last week snappishly accused liberal critics of being "sanctimonious," which doesn't mean what I think he thinks it means.

The adjective connotes hypocrisy along with self-righteousness. And, if I may presume here to speak for the aggrieved left, the frustration with the president is quite sincere.

What Obama actually seemed to want to say when he sneered at the "purist position" on tax legislation was that the liberal base is excessively idealistic, even naive, in its expectations of him.

Could be. But — hmmm — where did progressives get the idea that Obama was a transformative political figure whose intellect, rhetorical gifts and commitment to principle would usher in a new era? Can we remember? Yes, we can.

It was this very idealism that in 2008 persuaded millions of primary voters to take a chance on a first-term U.S. senator with no executive-branch experience rather than settle pragmatically on Sen. Hillary Clinton, a known quantity. And it was a similar set of high expectations that gave Obama a 7 percentage-point victory over Republican Sen. John McCain that fall and put him in a position to negotiate away one of his signature campaign promises two years later.

more

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/12/why-the-left-is-right-to-be-cross-with-obama.html

Nothing we all haven't heard, but said well.

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[golddigger]

2. K&R

[DemocratAholic]

3. who is really being naive?

Who is really being naive when you cut a deal with Republicans, which they are going to use to attack Obama and Democrats in the next election? I can see the advertisements now...Republicans will say that Obama and Democrats increased the deficit. They won't mention it was increased because of the huge tax cuts for the super-rich. They won't say that it was the Republican aspects of this bill were what caused the deficit to grow. They'll just put up ads with graphs showing how the deficit got bigger under Obama. And all the dummies in this country who get their political knowledge from campaign commercials will believe it because Republicans will spend hundreds of millions (or billions) to saturate the airways with that message. And we Democrats will be scratching our heads saying, what the hell was Obama thinking? Make no mistake, this agreement is going to be disastrous for the Democratic Party in 2012. If you believe otherwise, you have WAY too much faith in the intelligence of the American voter. Republicans did exactly the same thing this year! That's why this election was a disaster for Democrats! The Republicans sat there and feigned outrage over the economy which they destroyed, the bank bailouts proposed by a Republican president, and the deficit which they created. And voters believed it!

[Skittles]

16. YOU KNOW IT DemocratAholic

yes INDEED

[TheKentuckian]

18. How this is not apparent to the folks that are zealous Obama partisans, I don't get.

If you care about the guy then you can't let him get killed for doing the wrong things.

[PhillySane]

29. Obama's Last Chance

With the House losing their majority and many Dems on the way out, this was Obama's last chance to stand with them (one time!) and not give any ground to the very same people who created the wave of participation in 2008 that put him in office. It truly was his defining moment, and as far as everyone on this side is concerned, he blew it.

Bush is smiling. Read-

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/13/zelizer.george.w.bush/index.html?hpt=T1

[calimary]

39. No kidding!

"...because republi-CONS will spend hundreds of millions (or billions) to saturate the airwaves with that message."

There's the heart of the matter, brought to you by those who have no heart.

[laundry_queen]

53. exactly. nt

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

4. Sanctimony, Arrogance, Secrets....

... and "Bush-lite" policies have been the earmarks of this "progressive" Presidency and its feckless, impotent political strategies in pursuit and fulfillment of those oh-so many hopeful campaign promises of Mr. Obama. Disgusting; just disgusting.

[RandomThoughts]

5. The easist way to see that is an old story.

Paraphrase.

Some were more righteous, and they were criticized, those that were hanging out with sinners, they also were criticized.

Because the criticism is a rational for something else they don't even know they think.


However I don't criticize President Obama, nor even the rich or poor, I am trying to explain something I think is important, maybe I am wrong. :shrug:


That the tax cuts for the rich do not make sense, and that secrecy is not going to make things better for the people, and that if people 'can not govern themselves' then making them dumber and hiding from them is not the answer, you have to help them learn why things are important, if you think they are wrong, and learn yourself.



Side note:
Google spell check put up Obidiah on one of the spell checks, it is a book with some interesting concepts. On a side note, i am not sure if I do not see, or do not discuss what I see if I disagree with it. And sometimes I don't see things the same as others, although I like the way I see things, and they make sense to me. Although it is more likely that I do not see some stuff, even though I know other people do not see what I do. So not sure which side is which on that, nor am I worried about it. Although I know I post things then see many possible meanings in items after posting them.

Interesting thought on those thoughts. And I might have issues with modesty in some things, but also know that I don't think myself more or less then any other person. So shrug don't worry about it.

However I do find it interesting, I won't be a minister, as I said before, never thought that would fit in some way, but the concepts on that topic at that time seemed to be about ego or more about cult, turned down cults. And there were tricks I saw through that tried to get me to be a preacher type, didn't like those tricks.

Going to have a beer and play some pool some day again. And be who I think I always have been without following tricks of sequencing. Although I really like lots of the stuff.

:shrug: and I do hope things work out for the better.

Side side note, A song :D

Belly of the Whale. <- Spell check request :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH5NEDzv-os

The biggest problem with that story is in its context, you still have to figure out what God wants out of most people and yourself :)

:shrug:

Still don't have beer and travel money, going to figure that part out some day.


What I find fascinating is that in songs is stories that are some of the same things I say, and things other people have said, so like to find how much of that stuff is the same in many places.

I also don't think people should make it hard on people to get them to find God, somehow that seems to be putting a limitation on God I don't think he has. And what is worse about that, is to me it seems the love of God is shown in any kind action, so it seems that would make more sense. Maybe I don't understand it :shrug:

And it does not make sense for someone thinking they are righteous, so they should make it hard on someone else, since that means it should be hard on them for thinking they are more righteous when they think making it hard on someone is a good idea. It doesn't make sense to me.



It is possible that some that are bad use that as an excuse against other groups after they make it hard on them. Seen that.

Person makes it hard on you, then says it is your fault for not agreeing with them and not doing what they say is God's plan, that is part of those that think they are like God, they think they are correct all the time.

:shrug:

[vi5]

6. Forget what "lefties" or "bloggers" think.......

The fact that did an end run around his own congress to cut a deal without including them in the negotiations, and the fact that many of them are seriously pissed of about it is what is really telling about this.

His actions here go beyond your basic hippie punching.

[kentuck]

7. That is a very big deal.

Already dealing with the Repubs before they are even in power.

[BzaDem]

20. Perhaps that's because once they get in power, the resulting law will look much worse? n/t

[MNBrewer]

34. It would still have to pass a Democratic Senate AND get the President's signature

Granted, the Presidential signature wouldn't be much of an obstacle.

[me b zola]

35. He doesn't hold the veto pen?

He is powerless?

[Roy Rolling]

45. That's been my point all along

The ultimate strength of any negotiation is to be willing and able to walk away from the table. To say he is afraid to walk away from the table because the "hostages will be hurt" is the absolute WORST negotiating stance someone could take. He should stand his ground---HE HAS THE VETO PEN. All roads lead through him.

[lark]

43. How could it be worse?

I can see Repugs worrying about it because it's possible some Teahaters will vote against it since it increases the deficit. The thing that just irritates me the most is the gratuitous increase in the estate tax exemption and the social security "holiday" - Repugs never asked for that on TV or in the media. These two are just plain crazy, it's decreasing net revenue from what is in place today. I truly believe Obama is a Repug in Dem clothing. Yes, he can talk the talk, but he certainly and always walks like a Repug. People need to be judged based on their actions, and in action, it's hard to see much difference between him and shrub. Both have the exact same tax policy (remember it's the actions that count) both have the same foreign policy, both support rendition, both support indefinite detention with no proof of wrongdoing. Both let the Gulf & the people there be injured (Katrina and BP) and did almost nothing to prevent/repair the damage. I'm just sick at the deception of Obama and will NEVER contribute one dime or work for him again. I will vote for him over Palin, because she's just batshit crazy, but I'll be holding my nose.

[rhett o rick]

47. The fact that things could be a lot worse is no way to live your life. We have to fight for our righ

rights and stop settling for shit just because "it could be worse".

[shaayecanaan]

15. Especially when members of congress had spent months shoring up support

for the Democratic position - that the tax cuts for the rich shouldnt become permanent. As a result of that hard work a majority of the public came to endorse that position.

Usually the president has the luxury of appearing principled while Congress wades knee deep in its own filth. But in this case the president has cut a deal so dirty even the Senate isnt sure it should touch it.

[vi5]

22. I just don't ever want to hear again...

"President doesn't control the congress...."
"He can't MAKE them do anything....."

BS. It was BS during the healthcare debate and it's BS now.

[chimpymustgo]

42. Thank for saying it. Obama makes the deals he WANTS to make.

[pacalo]

8. Well said! I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard "Yes we can!"

Now that the word "sanctimonious" has been engaged, it's no mystery who actually owns it.

Obama has done a lot of good things, but for him to make a bad deal with the thugs that may end Social Security & cause cuts to Medicare, I resent his shoot-from-the-hip crticism of those who believed his "yes we can" campaign slogan.

[oldlib]

9. As I said in an earlier Post

Obama thinks that he is smarter then the rest of us and this enables him to filter all the options and to make the best choice for us all. He developed his compromising skills as a junior Senator in the Illinois Congress as the republicans had total control at that time. Hopefully he will realize that compromise at the national level has a far greater consequence and he will come to his senses on his latest proposal.

[zalinda]

25. Wow, I guess you didn't read the article about him

from a Chicago reporter. You can read it here http://wonkette.com/361542/barack-obamas-dastardly-rage-and-corruption-revealed where it is Cliff Notes, or here where it is 5 pages, http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ After reading this story, I knew what Obama was, and he would be as big a disappointment as Carter (who I actually liked, and voted for).


Here's a little example of Chicago Obama: Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

zalinda

[NashVegas]

36. I Read That Article in 2008

As did many on DU, and a good many spent some time trying to "sink" it.

What you have to ask yourself, really, is why no one - not Hilary Clinton, not the Republican party, used this article and hit Obama's campaign, hard, with it.

No one dared touch it.

[oldlib]

52. The Black Senators

at that time distrusted Obama because of his Harvard education and because he wasn't a street black.

[Goldstein1984]

10. "cross"???

Nothing I'm hearing or reading is as mild as "cross."

"Fuck the President" from Congressional Democrats is a bit more than cross. If fact, it's right up there with, "You lie!"

[snot]

11. yeah, "cross"?!!

[laughingliberal]

13. Yeah, I think Congress has passed 'cross.' I'm way past 'testy' myself. nt

[Poboy]

54. 'out of sorts' and 'beside myself' just doesn't do it either.

[inna]

12. not "cross". backstabbed, betrayed, incredulous.

[nc4bo]

14. Kick and Rec.

Whatever happened to Campaign Obama anyways?

[quinnox]

17. Mr. Obama needs to decide once and for all

Is he a Democrat or a Republican. The playing of both sides is getting really old.

I suspect once the GOP teabag led House comes into power, that question will be answered decisively, one way or the other.

[demwing]

23. He has already decided. We just don't want to accept it.

How many ways does he have to show it?

[urbuddha]

19. Bernie Sanders for President !

I won't vote for Obama again !!!

[NorthCarolina]

28. +1

[tavalon]

21. Yes we can

I think that about covers it. We aren't short attention span Americans.

[JDPriestly]

24. Here we go again with the Hillary pushers.

Hillary would be worse than Obama. That's for sure. The Wikileaks definitely prove that.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roci]

26. "Cross" is an interesting

choice of words.

I get cross when a bad driver cuts me off on the freeway.

I get cross when someone with 50 coupons gets into the "cash only" lane at the super market.

When someone who is supposed to be the head of a political party that I have believed in and worked for for better than half a century sells out my own political beliefs for his ease and political expediency, leaveing 6 million people with next to nothing but a kick in the head to go with the crust of bread that they'll get from their local food bank this week, and every next week for the foreseeable future--


"Cross" doesn't begin to cover it.


I GET *ANGRY*, and I REMEMBER who made me angry all the way thru 2012.

[PhillySane]

32. Well Put

...so are we looking for his replacement in 2012? Actually, this could be a really clever strategy by the right to stick a wedge in the dems, forcing the left to seek out a challenger to Obama in 2012 and thus giving them a cool majority of votes. Are they really that clever?

[howmad1]

46. Damn right they are clever!

Who could have guessed they would convince Obama to run as a democrat in 2008.

[PhillySane]

50. What's really sad

is that some of the House Dems we are losing actually are Democrats!

[Roci]

55. I have not the slightest

idea who will be running in 2012. Look at the situation in December of 1967 and early 1968. LBJ was assumed by everyone to be running again. Until his TV speech on the last day of March.
I can tell you this without equivocation. If Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for the Presidency in 2012, I will not vote for him. Period. He could walk on water and re-construct the Sphinx, for all I care. I will not vote for him again. I will not contribute time, money or effort in his behalf, or to any organization which works in his behalf. I've spent every moment of my Political life as a Democrat. A Liberal Democrat, in the mold of Jack Kennedy and his brothers. I will never look upon nor listen to Barack Obama again for the balance of his time in office, however long that might be, with the same eyes and ears that helped elect him in 2008. As for who might "challenge" Obama, I'm beginning to think that a feisty alley cat with a bad case of mange could put the run on him, and that, above all else, typifies what I can no longer stomach about the man, his politics, or what the "Party" he "leads" is being turned into.

If he continues in his present course for the next two years, our current president may end up (electorally) like William Howard Taft did in 1912. Ironic, is it not?

If. on election day 2012 the American people as a whole are so cowed, and so derelict in their citizenship as to hand the Party of NO the White House after the upcoming two years of their sad control of the House and after eight years of what came before Obama, the Nation will, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "get the government they deserve."

[treestar]

27. this whole thing just helps the Republicans

and was most likely started by them.

[54anickel]

31. Certainly promotes Boehner's goal of a 1 term Obama presidency no matter how you slice it. n/t

[Hoyt]

37. I agree. If folks really think Obama is going to scuttle SS, let GOP take control in 2012 and see.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poboy]

51. 'stale empty rhetoric' sounds about right to me.

[DirkGently]

33. It's as though the President is using his considerable gifts not to achieve more, but to excuse more

... rather than moving people to act, and to expect and demand more, he gives the impression of now wanting to move people to settle for less. It's a bizarre use of the power of persuasion, to say the least.

[katty]

38. Cross? so far, I am livid-and why is Obama chastising the people

who swept him into office?! His open contempt for his base, his party is even more sickening. I would rather have him come out and declare, emphatically: that America is broke and the GOP who serve the rich will continue to call the shots-the system is broke...so just suck it up and do the best you can.

[Rex]

40. If they would have kept their mouths shut before November, we would

still have the House. Making fun of your base or mocking them is stupid right before you NEED their vote! Duh.

[Dr.Phool]

41. Captain Obama has run us into an iceberg.

And we're all going down with this ship. The life boats are already filled with rich "reservations only" passengers.

The sooner people realize this, the sooner they'll start preparing.

[Fire1]

44. Not as much sanctimonious as

"righteous indignation," imo. The ones coming from this "vantage" point can afford to perceive it this way. How "democratic."

[defendandprotect]

56. k