Robert Reich: Obama "legitimizes everything the right has been saying"

[kpete]

The Big Economic Story, and Why Obama Isn’t Telling It
Obama Tells Economic Story
Only Republicans Could Love

Wednesday, December 1, 2010
by Robert Reich

............................

If Obama and the Democrats were serious about story B they’d at least mention it. They’d tell the nation that income and wealth haven’t been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash. They’d be indignant about the secret money funneled into midterm campaigns. They’d demand Congress pass the Disclose Act so the public would know where the money comes from.

They’d introduce legislation to curb Wall Street bonuses – exactly what European leaders are doing with their financial firms. They’d demand that the big banks, now profitable after taxpayer bailouts, reorganize the mortgage debt of distressed homeowners. They’d call for a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work, and pay for it with a tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

They’d insist on extended unemployment benefits for long-term jobless who are now exhausting their benefits. And they’d hang tough on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy – daring Republicans to vote against extending the cuts for everyone else.

But Obama is doing none of this. Instead, he’s telling story A.

By telling story A and burying story B, the President legitimizes everything the right has been saying. He doesn’t preempt them; he fuels them. He gives them more grounds for voting against raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. He strengthens their argument against additional spending for extended unemployment benefits. He legitimizes their argument against additional stimulus spending.

...............

MORE: http://robertreich.org/post/2060506381

[somone]

1. He's God's gift to the GOP

He rescued them from oblivion and made them stronger.

[loudsue]

2. The last two democratic presidents have been on the GOP side of things

The problem is, the actual GOP has moved so far to the right that they fall off the grid.

[rhett o rick]

76. It's a class war. nm

[rufus dog]

80. which makes my tin foil hat tighter on my head

It does make you wonder!

[ladjf]

6. You've just about summed it up in one simple but sad sentence. nt

[QC]

8. Well said. Obama took a party that was teetering on the edge of oblivion

and put it back in power.

Unfortunately, that party was the GOP.

[indepat]

15. And the seeds of final destruction of our standard of living, economy, society, rule of law,

constitutional protections, the Republic itself have thereby been sown. :shrug:

[QC]

16. So true. And so sad. n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raster]

71. Oh, My. God. Just about nails it.

[area51]

18. +1

I wish he'd officially join the republican party and stop pretending to be a democrat.

[AnArmyVeteran]

29. Should I say Amen? Obama couldn't have played into republicans' hands any better!

[Capn Sunshine]

47. followed closely by DU at this juncture

The anti-Obama posts here in an average day exceed those on many RW sites.

The narrative I see here often now is the same anti-Al Gore "they are all the same" argument in a different color. Which of course works to defeat turnout, a longstanding Republickaner trick

Exhibit A: the mid terms.

[MissDeeds]

55. If, as you say

"The anti-Obama posts here in an average day exceed those on many RW sites," perhaps it is because the RW is more pleased with him than we are.

[Capn Sunshine]

90. or, perhaps it is just one stop shopping.

:nuke:

[roguevalley]

58. actually, I am afraid some people can see with their own two

eyes that he really is doing the GOP's work for them. And some won't ever see it. When Obama is wrong, he is wrong.

[NorthCarolina]

51. Why is the implication generally that Obama is weak and too eager to compromise?

Isn't it far more likely that, rather than caving to the opposition, in reality he quite simply just agrees with them, and seeks the same desired outcome as the GOP?

This is far from a stretch considering he is on record as having publicly declared himself to be a "New Dem" (read DLC), and most recently referring to himself as a "Blue Dog". NO group of Democrats votes more frequently with the GOP than DLC New Dems and Blue Dogs.

Who on this blog seriously thinks that Obama doesn't personally favor cuts to Social Security or Medicare? If so, not sure why because as soon as the appointments HE made to the Debt. Commission were announced, it was pretty obvious. What group has been wanting to cut/eliminate Social Security since it's inception? The GOP of course. Once upon a time, the Dems were to a large degree actual advocates for the people. These Dems purposely made Social Security the third rail in politics, and for good reason because they KNEW that conservatives would forever attack it. Today's Dems. would never support the creation of a program such as Social Security. So, what the heck ever happened to those Dems? The DLC.

The conservatives win every time, and will continue to win because of fear. How can they lose? If true advocate for the people tries to mount a campaign for high office; what happens? The media mill is switched on to immediately belittle and marginalize that candidate. Little media exposure is given to that candidate, and when there is coverage, it will be limited to the pundits and talking heads poking some joke or other about this far lefty fringe candidate that's "not really a serious contender". Folks may even think to themselves 'hey, I kind of like that candidates ideas. But then again they DID make fun of him on the 'teevee'. They said he wasn't a serious contender, and even snickered some....hell, they LAUGHED. Guess it's better to forget about that loon right? It's frightening to think what HE might do if elected. Now lets see...who did the teevee say were the likely contenders? Bottom line is...we (the people) can't win, and they (the oligarchy, or whatever you want to call it) can't lose.

Sad state of affairs really.

[kath]

84. Great post - so much truth in 3+ paragraphs!

[ctwayne]

101. Obama Is Not Weak. Obama is Extremely Strong!

Let's say you are a resident of a Pakistani village that has just been pounded by one of Obama's Predator drone attacks. You would have many words for Obama, but "weak" would not be one of them. Obama's foreign policy involves war, drone attacks, and assassinations. These are not the actions of a weak or kindly man.

Obama is a moderately conservative 1970's Nixon-Ford Republican. He is not surrendering to the Republicans; he agrees with the Republicans. Obama would rather negotiate with conservative Republicans than with liberal Democrats. Any other explanation is simply fantasy.

[rhett o rick]

77. I think that philosopher Georg WF Hegel would agree with you. nm

[breadandwine]

92. Hey. Stop criticizing our Republican president.

Sheesh. Some people just don't know how to stick their finger in the wind.

[librechik]

3. exactly!

thanks for putting my feelings into words, Dr. Reich

:mad:

[Little Star]

13. Ditto.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. I'm curious about this regarding Robert Reich. He served in Clinton's cabinet

and I never remembered him taking Clinton to task on his economic policies. I never recall him going after his boss to stop welfare reform, NAFTA/CAFTA, the derailing of Glass-Steagall, weakening Davis-Bacon, deregulating communications/media, or derivatives.

I love Robert Reich. I think he's a pure genius and I have friends who have had him teach their classes. However, I find it astonishing that he worked for a president whose economic policies are probably to the right of Obama's and totally gave legitimacy to the right wing's attack on the poor and the value of deregulation.

To me it's baffling...

[snagglepuss]

5. I've been baffled about that too. nt

[kentuck]

10. I thought he was fired?

At least, he was pushed out of the Clinton Cabinet.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. But he at least needs to make that connection or he loses credibility in my book. n/t

[ProudDad]

89. He makes ALL of those connections in HIS book

You should read it...

[ProudDad]

85. It's my understanding that he got sick and tired

of dealing with the obstructions placed in his way by the last best republican money could buy, Bill Clinton...

And resigned after the first term 'cause he saw that NOTHING Progressive would be done...

He was vindicated when Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall...and made the current collapse inevitable...

Now Obama and the huge Dem majorities haven't done shit about one of Obama's campaign promises, the most important one for the working class, the Employee Free Choice Act...

Nor have they reregulated Wall St...

Best republican money can buy...

[Brickbat]

14. I totally agree. Every time I read or hear him talking like this, I think, where the hell were you

15 years ago?

[glitch]

20. He quit and made very public his reasons why. Wrote a book about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Locked-Cabinet-Robert-B-Reich/dp/0375700617/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Research is the antidote to teh baffle.

[democracy1st]

27. +1

[Lorien]

38. +2. nt

[inna]

96. lol LOL, i *love* it and i have to remember this one!

"Research is the antidote to teh baffle." Brilliant and funny and true.

[BlueCheese]

36. He did.

I think he wrote a book called Locked in the Cabinet or something.

I remember reading parts of it--not necessarily agreeing with all of what I read, but he did speak out, at least afterwards.

[whathehell]

40. Well, he did quit Clinton's administration after the election in '96

when BC refused to take his advice on making "wage stagnation" the central issue of his campaign....I heard him on a talk show shortly after saying he "didn't understand" why BC "didn't fight for his values".

[sabrina 1]

41. He was very frustrated while in Clinton's cabinet.

He has written about it in a book called 'Locked in the Cabinet'. From what I understand, he had high hopes that Clinton would be able to implement some of his ideas of how things ought to be done, but ended up being very frustrated by the whole process.

I think he quit or was pushed out. Everyone who knows him, even those who don't agree with him, respect him.

Clinton brought in people like Rubin and kept Greenspan around and from what I have read, began to buy into the whole Capitalism with no regulations idea, very frustrating for someone like Reich who no doubt foresaw the future disaster of those policies.

He is a man of the people and he ended up vying for the attention of the president with Corporate shills. Looks like he lost. Clinton began the deregulation of Wall St. and I have no doubt there is no way Reich agreed with those policies.

[Sparkly]

43. That was a different time with a different set of problems and possibilities.

Clinton was not way to the left, that's true. But he did fight, and he had a lot to fight against -- the Republicans and their cabal were crazed with a passion to destroy him, as we know. As he said when he left office, "We did a lot of good." For all that he didn't do, that much is still true.

It was a different political situation -- maybe harder in some ways and easier in others -- but the one thing he didn't do was cave completely before the fight even started.

[davidwparker]

54. Probably because he wasn't in the admin for some of

those things which you have mentioned.

In 1996, between Clinton's re-election and second inauguration, Reich decided to leave the department to spend more time with his sons, then in their teen years.

For the earlier things, like NAFTA, only H. Ross Perot was raising the warning flags ...

[jtuck004]

68. And he SHOULD have, because employment was tanking, deficits were...oh, wait

Employment was increasing, deficits were falling, and the country was quite happy in their lives. More jobs were created during the administration of P. Clinton than any modern president. Perhaps if Clinton had signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act earlier in his term, (which allowed the investment banks to hide over a trillion dollars of debt, the implosion of which is directly responsible for our current financial crisis) R. Reich would have had more to say. (To his credit P. Clinton said later it was a bad decision, and that he got bad advice from the rat Rubin).

Reich should have come out against an economy that was booming?

With 30 million people unemployed, underemployed, or too sick of rejection to continue looking as much, 40 million people at the poverty line, an increase of between 10 and 15 million people now who don't have health insurance (can't buy it when you don't have a job), the remainder of around 14 million homes to be foreclosed on, and a damn good shot of some new loans going belly-up as the housing market continues to fall, Reich is saying what needs to be said for the times we are living in...


What’s responsible for the lousy economy most Americans continue to wallow in?

B. Big business, Wall Street, and the powerful and privileged who represent them.

And that includes the people in government service who are removing regulations such as Bernanke's Fed trying to gut the Truth in Lending Act so mortgagers can go back to misrepresenting loans, in addition to the $2 trillion dollars that are STILL owed by investment banks and others, while...

It would take 250,000 private sector jobs created every month for the next 13 years and 4 months, if we started today, to employ enough people to get the unemployment rate down to 5-6%, something we have never done in the entire history of the United States.

YET THERE IS NO JOBS PROGRAM.

May I suggest this is why R. Reich is taking Obama's administration to task on his policies, or lack of them?

[TBF]

79. Clinton to the right of Obama -

he was pretty conservative but I think we may have someone just as conservative (if not more so) in Obama. Clinton did a lot of damage with NAFTA and welfare "reform", but even he did not try to touch social security.

[Populist_Prole]

81. Reich is a trojan horse

Every time I think he "gets it" I still can't get around his rabid support of "free trade" and globalism. Sorry, but a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. He's an ivory tower jerkoff IMO.

[democracy1st]

93. You have to give him a break,remember Abraham Lincoln supported slavery at first! Then he became a

great man.

[Ken Burch]

82. He left the Clinton Administration, and I believe it was because he was opposed

to their conservative direction on economic policy.

[ProudDad]

88. Uh, Except for NAFTA...

he wasn't there for the rest...

He resigned in '94...

[Octafish]

7. I'd hoped Krugman, Stiglitz and Galbraith would find work in the new Administration.

I hoped wrong.

[Enthusiast]

17. "I hoped wrong."

Me and you both.

[xchrom]

9. recommend

[wiggs]

11. Great points. While reading the article, I kept thinking that I wish PObama

would read it and then give us his thoughts.

[Individualist]

19. Supporting the right is DLC/NDC's purpose. K&R

[Bluebear]

21. Indeed

[democracy1st]

22. Thank You K & R

[Poboy]

23. "Tax cuts and small government are as American as apple pie'. -Ofailure

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. It's the famous, "Give them the checkmate" ploy in Grandmaster Chess.

[defendandprotect]

26. +1 --

[AnArmyVeteran]

28. As bad as Bush years were, maybe we'd be better off had McCain/Palin won & republicans held congress

Yeah, it would mean a lot more carnage, but the country would have been a complete disaster by 2012. If the government was ran by republicans in 2009-now who would the tea baggers have attacked? Since Obama and Reid had no intention of actually leading congress might as well been controlled by republicans to make our country even worse. Maybe by 2012 even the feeble minded right wingers who feed at the trough of right wing radio and faux would have began to see the light about their corrupt masters. But as long as they could blame democrats for everything, regardless of whether it was all caused by republicans or not, it left republicans off the hook.

[Poboy]

30. This is what it will take. Complete collapse of the infected, corrupt, maggot ridden corpse.

It will have to get MUCH worse before it gets better.

[frylock]

49. i couldn't agree more..

i've been saying for some time now that things evidently need to get a lot worse than 8 years of bush for people to wake up.

[alterfurz]

56. yes, evidently more pain is required

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. -- Frederick Douglass

Beyond a certain point there is no return. This point has to be reached. -- Kafka

[alterfurz]

57. accidental duplicate post deleted

[democracy1st]

61. I know where ur coming from this destruction coming from within the party is devastating

[ms liberty]

62. Sad to say that I've thought as much myself recently...

I think it's very possible that in 2012 a true liberal would have been able to win the nomination and the WH - and the extra four years of rape, pillage, plunder and authoritarianism would have completely destroyed the republicans and maybe a lot of the far right.
But that's a what-if scenario that we won't know the answer to, at least not until someone figures out a way to visit the parallel universe where it did happen.

[asdjrocky]

31. The GOP's best friend.

Capulator in Chief.

[Uncle Joe]

32. This is an excellent analysis.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.:thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

33. Yep. He's governed like a supply sider from the get go and has provided credibility for failed RW...

economic policies that should have been thoroughly discredited by now.

[Lorien]

37. The only side he ever fights against is ours

bait and switch. That's what we ended up with.

[glitch]

64. That's where the "bipartisan" comes in.

Triangulate from right to far-right = bipartisan.

Progressives need not be considered in this very particular geometry.

[hulka38]

69. ...failed RW foreign policy

and national security issues as well.

[laughingliberal]

34. K & R nt

[BrklynLiberal]

35. The truth of this makes me feel ill....

I cannot stop this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach..and it gets worse whenever I think about the future...
I keep thinking: "OMIGAWD! What have we done??!!!"

Where are we going..and why are we in this handbasket?

[Mimosa]

39. K&R Robert Reich is one of my heroes. n/t

[fascisthunter]

42. Indeed...

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Reich gets it right . . . again . . . as usual.

[chimpymustgo]

45. A big, sad K&R.

[KoKo]

46. I am starting to believe he sees himself as the NEW RONALD REAGAN!

Everything about him seems to say that he thought Reagan was the best President EVER...and even though folks say he "reads books" ....I don't see any evidence that he reads books. They say he read about Lincoln and his Cabinet of Advisaries who would give him Opposing Opinions....but his Cabinet is made up of Wall Street Folks and Former Clinton Advisors and there's little of "New Blood or even people like Howard Dean" or Robert Reich (who left Clinton early on disgusted with his polcies) and others who might give a voice to the NEW VOTERS who ELECTED OBAMA.

So, I think he feels he can build a "Consensus of Personality" given that Millions showed up to SEE HIM and HUNG ON HIS EVERY WORD at Rallies all over the US.

But, what Obama is too young to see or know and his advisors may not even realize is that Ronald Reagan was ANOTHER TIME...and he was an accomplished ACTOR who did Commercials for years and got a foothold into the Nixon Camp in California and the Nixon (Orange County Folks) were there when CA was GROWING and the NATIONAL LEADER. (Anyone Remember that California LEADS THE COUNTRY Meme?)

So for Obama and his Campaign Managers to think in these VERY CHANGED TIMES that some Dem Candidate was going to EVER BE a SECOND COMING OF REAGAN...was just incredibly NAIVE...and almost Foolhardy and Simplistic in execution.

He was BOUND TO FAIL. There's only One Ronald Reagan and One Bill Clinton. The times were ripe for both...but Obama and his "Handlers" failed to understand the dire situation that their Candidate would confront and either they didn't vet him properly or they were in collusion with folks who felt that it was their business to just ELECT HIM and worry about the rest LATER.

Which is it? :shrug:

[humbled_opinion]

48. but, but , but,

They effectively painted Obama as a far leftwing radical marxist, socialist, even a progressive...... So because the great communicator failed to communicate properly the liberals will suffer for it, the Conservatives are busily moving the center further right and we lose for generations.

[Raksha]

91. The Republicans? Oh, but that's their job; it's their role in the charade.

To scream that Obama is "a far leftwing radical Marxist," a socialist, a terrorist sympathizer, a closet Muslim or whateverthehell even as he moves further and further to the right. It doesn't mean a damn thing, and they did the same thing with Bill Clinton. JUST because he has a "D" after his name.

The whole point of it to keep up the pretense that we still have two parties in this country for as long as possible. And it seems there are plenty of people stupid enough to believe this crap, just because Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin scream about it all day long. Including many Democrats, sadly enough. I guess they figure that where there's smoke, there's fire. Nobody except us DU regulars (okay, DKos regulars too) seems to notice there isn't anything even remotely liberal about Obama, let alone "far leftwing radical Marxist."

[humbled_opinion]

105. The real shame in it all is that he had a chance to be

The 21st Century Huey Long... but thats just because I fell for all the Hope and Change B.S.....

[SusanaMontana41]

50. Reich is right. Demoralizing, isn't it? n/t

[democracy1st]

52. it just keeps building up,from day one it's been a sad situation.

[leftstreet]

53. K&R

[Turbineguy]

59. The GOP will not be satisfied

until they gain total power. If that means millions of Americans will die, so be it. We may study Stalin. We are about to turn the USA into an abattoir.

[Ken Burch]

83. in 2005, they HAD total power, and they STILL weren't satisfied...

They were STILL claiming to be victims.

[BlueDemKev]

60. Heartbreaking...

...that's about the best word I can think of to describe Robert Reich's near-accurate analysis. Obama should NOT compromise with the Republicans on any major issue. The Republicans have proven (again) over the past two years that being partisan, distorting information, and tell Americans their country is about to be lost if we don't stop the opposition cold in its tracks, is good politics which results in winning elections.

I for one, am kind of looking forward to being in the minority in the House so we can relentless pound the Tan Man and his sidekick Eric CRAPtor. But it won't be easy if Obama still tries to reach out to them hoping they will work with him in good faith.

Mr. President, they won't. And if you haven't figured that out by now, it ain't ever gonna happen.

[RufusTFirefly]

63. Another great piece of cogent analysis from the redoubtable Dr. Reich...

... my favorite member of the Clinton cabinet.

[Sky Lar]

65. *ahem* And to think some people had

pizza stuffed down their throats not long ago for talking like this.

How about an amnesty for those who dared to warn?

[ProSense]

66. Reich has a point, but I don't agree

that this will play out the way he believes.

Reich:

<...>

Obama’s advisors explain the President’s moves are designed to “preempt” the resurgent Republicans – just like Bill Clinton preempted the Gingrich crowd by announcing “the era of big government is over” and then tacking right.

They’re wrong. By telling story A and burying story B, the President legitimizes everything the right has been saying. He doesn’t preempt them; he fuels them. He gives them more grounds for voting against raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. He strengthens their argument against additional spending for extended unemployment benefits. He legitimizes their argument against additional stimulus spending.

Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn’t legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn’t have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why.

Unless the President and Democrats explain why the economy still stinks for most Americans and offer a plan to fix it, the Republican explanation and solution – it’s big government’s fault, and all we need do is shrink it – will prevail.

That will mean more hardship for tens of millions of Americans. It will make it harder to remedy the bad economy. And it will set Republicans up for bigger wins in the future.

<...>

Bill Clinton proved he had nothing to lose by "announcing 'the era of big government is over'” and then tacking right."

Still, President Obama doesn't have to be Clinton. This President can mouth bipartisanship and stand his ground. He doesn't have to move with the GOP. Fortunately President Obama, despite Reich's claim, has a wealth of actions he can take that do not require GOP support. Some of these actions were set up by the legislative achievements of the first two years. For example, health care reform will continue to pay dividends. Yesterday, the Fed released thousands of documents as a result of a Wall Street reform mandate.

Yesterday, the President took one of the many unilateral actions available to him by announcing a drilling ban.

It's almost certain that the outrage over the failed deficit commission has undercut the GOP's case.

Republicans will no doubt spend the next two years mucking up the workings of Congress, but the President can go about the business of governing. He can do it without the GOP if they choose not to participate.

During this lame-duck period, the Democrats have the majority and do have an opportunity to get a few more wins (some already achieved) before the GOP takes over the House.

[unkachuck]

67. a big, fat, K&R for Mr. Reich....n/t

[OwnedByFerrets]

70. Thanks for telling the truth!!

[robinlynne]

72. well put. Thanks kpete.

[me b zola]

73. K&R

[OlympicBrian]

74. Is Obama a "tool" of the US corporatocracy?

Not only is Reich correct, but...

We are all living in an absurd system where few in Congress, Republican or Democrat, will admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with an economy and set of policies that pumps out record corporate profits--in the midst of record extended unemployment, record deficit, and record wealth disparity. We are truly living in a world where all policies serve one goal--that of the US corporatocracy.

Bernie Sanders is a warrior against a huge army...

"US corporatocracy" - the system of government that serves the interests of, and is essentially run by, corporations. The term describes neoliberalism in its US operational context, with all its components. It primarily seeks to further ties between government and business--where corporations, multinational corporations, conglomerates, and private parties including political organizations and highly-paid corporate executives are the primary controls, and are the elite, who reside in "ivory towers." Areas of control rely on direction and governance often tied to contrived (sometimes fearsome) mass-media visages of issues, ideas, and persons within the nation. Within the corporatocracy, objective news reporting is hard to find. The system depends on highly-paid "pundits" for dissemination of major themes--these themes are often repetitive and divisive. Moreover, pundits distract the public from the critical issues, facts, and figures they should be focusing on. Often times these pundits--such as Glenn Beck, with basically a high school education--flat out misrepresent or lie...and millions of Americans are taken in. Thus, the shady activities of the corporatocracy go largely unnoticed.

There is a revolving door between the components of the corporatocracy, including those formally in government and those in business. The system retains the superficial appearance of being a democratic republic, by relying on long-standing faith in the democratic voting, legislative, judicial, and executive processes--but below the surface, it is a system of government without true representation of the people. Make no mistake, it's government serving corporations and money for the elite. Big money.

Not surprisingly, in the corporatocracy, unemployment is high even during boom periods where corporate profits are rich and the stock market is high, because of a reliance on offshoring and offshore investment. The corporations always seek out what's known in economic terms as "absolute advantage," which in lay terms means "utter selfishness and disregard for the rest of the US."

- from past pieces by Dan, Seattle

[Jefferson23]

75. Obama could change course if he wanted to. n/t

[go west young man]

78. Maybe he really is a muslim terrorist who understands

that the easiest way to destroy America is to give the GOP what they want. :P

[kath]

86. Another very sad K&R.

[Hannah Bell]

87. kr. exactly.

[inna]

94. and this, m'dears, is Cinton's guy, a former member of the Clinton Administration.

Kind of shows you how much further to the right the current administration is.

[democracy1st]

95. so true my friend,oh so true!

[elocs]

97. I thought that when Obama took office that we would see a new WPA

instead of lots of money and help for the already wealthy. I guess I thought a lot of things and had hope that I ultimately could not count upon.

Unless there are some dramatic changes for the better, Obama has all the makings of a one term President no matter how his ardent supporters try to spin it.

[olegramps]

99. The way things have gone, Obama looks like a lame duck president.

The situation is truly discouraging. I really can't add much to what has been said. He just doesn't appear to have the determination to fight. His speeches are soaring platitudes full of nobility and virtue. What they lack is the determination to address problems by firmly condemning the abuses of the Republicans.

He in fact appears to be afraid to alienate anyone regardless of how damn hostile they are even when they have told him to face that they are determined to destroy him. Its lets make nice and can't we get along. He is in a pit of vipers and he wants to make friends with them. I really fear that if he doesn't gets some balls we will see the White House and the Congress dominated by some of the most evil bastards who are intent on the complete and utter destruction of the middle class. I really fear what my grandchildren may face. It could be abject poverty for the working class.

Am I totally wrong? The majority of the citizens, I believe it was 70% or more, said that they wanted a national health care program such as medicare. It would appear that getting it would be a cinch. What we got was far from want the people wanted. Now it appears that the majority want the tax cuts for those under 250,000 and the repeal of the cuts for those over that amount. Again what is the administration going to deliver? Another compromise with the enemy. How in the hell do you lose when you start with such a huge advantage? It has become for my a spiral down into deep despair. I don't see any hope for improvement.

[elocs]

100. I think it looks that way as well. The base is demoralized and disappointed

and the Republicans smell blood. They will continue to do what they have been doing because it works.

What hope I have left is evaporating like rain on the sidewalk in a hot summer's sun.

[olegramps]

103. I really is discouraging. I read Krugman's latest analysis. Seems all is lost.

[dotymed]

98. I forwarded this

to the Whitehouse.....Like they don't already know....

[Maineman]

102. I am sorry to say this, but we need a Democratic Primary,

an alternative for 2012.

[Peggy Day]

104. I agree but it will probably never happen

That would be the best, but who? and there are so many hoodwinked that I doubt if it happens.