..the president routinely combines progressive rhetoric with contrary actions.

[KoKo]

....the president routinely combines progressive rhetoric with contrary actions.
by Norman Solomon


For more than 15 months, evidence has mounted that President Obama routinely combines progressive rhetoric with contrary actions. As one bad decision after another has emanated from the Oval Office, some progressives have favored denial -- even though, if the name "Bush" or "McCain" had been attached to the same presidential policies, the same progressives would have been screaming bloody murder.

But enabling bad policies, with silent acquiescence or anemic dissent, encourages more of them. At this point, progressive groups and individuals who pretend that Obama's policies merely need a few tweaks, or just suffer from a few anomalous deficiencies, are whistling past a political graveyard.

At the same time, with less than six months to go before Election Day, there are very real prospects of a big Republican victory that could shift majority control of Congress. Progressives have a huge stake in averting a GOP takeover on Capitol Hill.

The corporate-military centrism of the Obama administration has demoralized and demobilized the Democratic Party’s largely progressive base -- the same base that swept Nancy Pelosi into the House Speaker's office and then Barack Obama into the White House. National polls now show Democrats to be much less enthusiastic about voting in November than their Republican counterparts.

The conventional political wisdom (about as accurate as the claim that "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills") is that when a Democratic president moves rightward, his party gains strength against Republicans. But Democrats reaped the whirlwind of that pseudo-logic in 1994 -- after President Clinton shafted much of the Democratic base by pushing through the corporate NAFTA trade pact against the wishes of labor, environmental and human-rights constituencies. That's how Newt Gingrich and other right-wing zealots got to run Congress starting in January 1995.


For progressives, giving the Obama administration one benefit of the doubt after another has not prevented matters from getting worse.

At the moment, U.S. troop levels are nearing 100,000 in Afghanistan.

Massive quantities of oil are belching into the Gulf of Mexico.

The White House has signaled de facto acceptance of a high unemployment rate for several more years, while offering weak GOP-lite countermeasures like tax breaks for businesses.

Nuclear power subsidies are getting powerful support from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, while meaningful action against global warming is nowhere in sight.

The Justice Department continues to backtrack on civil liberties.

And now, if the president's nomination of Elena Kagan is successful, the result will move the Supreme Court to the right.

More at.......

http://www.alternet.org/rights/146801/progressives_must_fight_the_kagan_nomination?page=entire

[NJmaverick]

1. Wow talk about an article that is 100% rant and zero percent fact or reason

Kako,

Please try and look for more than just attacks on the President. At least have some quality control in the articles you post. Look for something more than just meaningless rants and ramblings with no facts, specific examples or at least a tiny bit of explanation to support an assertion.

[izquierdista]

5. Facts?

Maybe you need your eyes checked -- it appears that italics are invisible to you.

[Lasher]

7. Hee hee, good one!

Thanks, I needed the laugh.

[NJmaverick]

14. Well my eyes show me the first two can be consider facts, although they don't

support the hyperbole filled rant that preceded it. but hey it's anti-Obama so it's all good. right?

[jaxx]

13. Yep.

I scrolled down to see if it was from common dreams or alternet.
There it was.

[golddigger]

2. But, he's so dreamy.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

3. Is Norman allegic to facts?

Because he's certainly avoiding them here.

[Autumn]

4. Every thing just needs a few tweaks here and there,

don't worry the tweaks are on the way.:woohoo: The tweaks are coming.

[salguine]

57. I'd like to tweak Obama back to Chicago and put Robert Reich or someone else in his place.

[saltpoint]

6. You're certainly welcome to overthrow the government if you want to.

But it might be more than just a weekend project.

Some several million folks voted for now-President Obama.

His support remains persuasively strong and fairly steady.

Many of us would prefer a more left-leaning government in our country but none is at hand, whether you're checking in the Colonial era or the administrations leading up to Lincoln, or during Dwight & Mamie's sojourn in Washington, or with Reagan or Bush Sr or Bush Jr, etc.

There is the occasional Paul Wellstone and the occasional Bernie Sanders here and there, but those folks, as much as I may personally admire them, are few and far between.

If you have a magic lightswitch to make us a unswervingly reliable socialist leftist state, I'd urge you to make that happen at the soonest possible moment. In the meanwhile, we have to navigate the landscape we're given.

Within that, I would say Barack Obama has been a decidedly impressive president and if he wants a second term is very likely to have one.

I will be casting a ballot for his re-election.

[mkultra]

8. lol. look out auntie em. Its a twister.

[uponit7771]

9. FDR had a 83% dem congress, LBJ had what 65%?! ang dem congress? I'm willing to fight for more...

...progressives to get Obama to the left

[impik]

10. Primary him in 2012. Get someone "progressive" and win the election. Let's see you

[ima_sinnic]

44. why bother? let him destroy the planet and get full credit (nt)

[Solomon]

54. What do you mean, "why bother". LOL

Let's see who you guys come up with and how effective he/she can be. Or maybe you meant that even your candidate would destroy the planet, might as well llet Obama get the credit.

[WeDidIt]

11. Looks like Solomon is going after the "Lord High Douchenozzle" title.

Greenwald has been weakened by his utter defeat at the hands of Lessig, so Solomon is looking to become the Liberaller than Thou Proclaimer from on high as to all that is good and liberal.

[dionysus]

26. another day, another diaper fill, right? they really crack me up.

[ProSense]

12. "Massive quantities of oil are belching into the Gulf of Mexico."

What an idiotic rant.

[Autumn]

15. I don't know where that crap

comes from. Not like this Administration or any other has any say so over off shore drilling.:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

16. "Not like this Administration or any other has any say so over off shore drilling."

Yeah, Obama is responsible for the BP oil spill.

[polichick]

18. His Interior Dept. has been in charge for a long time...

...they've been waiving environmental impact studies - you bet they're guilty alongside BP and Halliburton.

[ProSense]

25. That makes the spill his fault?

How RW ridiculous.

[polichick]

28. The spill could have been prevented with diligent oversight...

...and that oversight is supposed to be done by the Dept. of Interior.

Your endless spinning is what's ridiculous.

[ProSense]

32. "A common spin in the right wing coverage of BP's oil spill...

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

A common spin in the right wing coverage of BP's oil spill is a gleeful suggestion that the gulf blowout is Obama's Katrina.

In truth, culpability for the disaster can more accurately be laid at the Bush Administration's doorstep. For eight years, George Bush's presidency infected the oil industry's oversight agency, the Minerals Management Service, with a septic culture of corruption from which it has yet to recover. Oil patch alumnae in the White House encouraged agency personnel to engineer weakened safeguards that directly contributed to the gulf catastrophe.

The absence of an acoustical regulator -- a remotely triggered dead man's switch that might have closed off BP's gushing pipe at its sea floor wellhead when the manual switch failed (the fire and explosion on the drilling platform may have prevented the dying workers from pushing the button) -- was directly attributable to industry pandering by the Bush team. Acoustic switches are required by law for all offshore rigs off Brazil and in Norway's North Sea operations. BP uses the device voluntarily in Britain's North Sea and elsewhere in the world as do other big players like Holland's Shell and France's Total. In 2000, the Minerals Management Service while weighing a comprehensive rulemaking for drilling safety, deemed the acoustic mechanism "essential" and proposed to mandate the mechanism on all gulf rigs.

Then, between January and March of 2001, incoming Vice President Dick Cheney conducted secret meetings with over 100 oil industry officials allowing them to draft a wish list of industry demands to be implemented by the oil friendly administration. Cheney also used that time to re-staff the Minerals Management Service with oil industry toadies including a cabal of his Wyoming carbon cronies. In 2003, newly reconstituted Minerals Management Service genuflected to the oil cartel by recommending the removal of the proposed requirement for acoustic switches. The Minerals Management Service's 2003 study concluded that "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

The acoustic trigger costs about $500,000. Estimated costs of the oil spill to Gulf Coast residents are now upward of $14 billion to gulf state communities. Bush's 2005 energy bill officially dropped the requirement for the acoustic switch off devices explaining that the industry's existing practices are "failsafe."

<...>

[polichick]

33. DUH! And Obama's team continued signing off without proper oversight...

You might be able to think for yourself if you'd stop spinning for three seconds.

[ProSense]

35. "Obama's team" Ludicrous.

"There are a lot of layers in the NEPA review process," one administration official said, pointing out that it's a five year process that began for BP in 2004.

In 2004 and 2007 most of the decisions were made regarding the federal government granting the "categorical exclusion."

Then, the official said, "somebody buried deep in MMS made a determination in 2009 that this particular well could qualify for what was already an established routine action."

Officials from the president's Council on Environmental Quality believe that these categorical exclusions may be granted too readily, so in February 2010 they informed agencies "that they need to review how we're issuing categorical exclusions. That guidance is currently out for comment."

link

The convenient bullshit of being able to just say it's "Obama's team" fault. It's BP fault. They are a private company and they own their operations and its failure.

[polichick]

36. You do understand that the MMS is part of the Dept. of the Interior...

...which is run by Salazar, Obama's man, don't you?

It was Salazar's job to fire Bush appointees, and Obama's job to see that he did it - both dropped the ball on oversight of offshore rigs. That's fact - cry all you want to.

[ProSense]

39. "It was Salazar's job to fire Bush appointees" What?

These agencies are mostly staffed with career people.

[polichick]

41. Good grief, do your homework. The MMS was staffed with Cheney's oil cronies...

...most of whom remain there. It was an enormous mistake to leave them in place.

Don't forget, less than a month before the disaster Obama was telling us offshore drilling is safe. Total bullshit.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

45. Speaking of not doing your homework....

Remember the Clinton Administration's "Travelgate" controversy? When the Clinton Administration came in and tried to fire everybody in thw White House Travel Office and replace them with political appointees?

Turned out that the Travel Office staff were Civil Service employees and not subject to being replaced with every new administration. Guess who's running the MSS on the day-to-day basis? Civil Service employees. Neither Obama nor Salazaar has the legal authority to fire these people.

What they CAN do, however, is to tighten the regulations with regard to offshore drilling, which they were in the process of doing several months ago.

[polichick]

46. Not the same - the MMS has had a very cozy relationship with those...

...it's supposed to regulate since Cheney's "energy plan" days - a thorough cleaning is in order (though I agree that you won't be able to get rid of everyone).

Most important, this admin. has continued the policies of the last when it comes to poor oversight of big oil.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. ...

Cleaning up the MMS is what the splitting up of the agency is going to do. Part of the response to the spill (just yesterday) is that MMS will have a permitting division and a safety and inspection division. The permitting division can keep all the Bush/Cheney holdovers and the safety and inspection division can be staffed with new blood. And permits don't get issued until the safety and inspection guys do their work.

And as I said in my first post, the Obama Administration started the process of reviewing the oversight of offshore drilling several months before the blow-out. This blow-out was a damned expensive way of speeding up the process.

[polichick]

49. I'd feel better about this administration's part if Obama hadn't just...

...come out for more offshore drilling, making false claims about the safety.

This is such an enormous disaster that I hope it'll wake up both the administration and voters - and keep everyone awake long enough to get a real energy/climate bill passed, rather than the fake progressive bill announced today.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

51. I don't think the expanded drilling is going to happen

For starters, the days of a wink and a nod with regard to health and safety are pretty much over.

[ima_sinnic]

19. so who is?

"the buck stops here" except when he doesn't want it to?

[TheKentuckian]

21. Obama doesn't accept cash only credit

The buck doesn't even pause near his desk much less stop there.

[ima_sinnic]

43. he looks the other way as it lands in his "round file"

he's got his bases covered, he couldn't care less if the planet dies, I guess.
I wonder how his daughters will feel in, oh, 20 or 30 years?

[ProSense]

27. "the buck stops here" Are you saying that President Obama is the CEO of BP

Ludicrous.

[ima_sinnic]

42. and whose Minerals Management Service gave a special exemption to BP's Deepwater Horizon rig from

a detailed environmental impact study on the possible effects of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico on April 6, 2009?

oh, you haven't seen the numerous threads about this? sorry, you can't pin this on bush.

and OBAMA's MMS has granted 27 more exemptions with permits SINCE the disaster. OBAMA is the ultimate head of MMS, and that makes him ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE.

but everything's fine in lala land, where no lying, corrupt, easily bought-out politician exists spouting fake marketing slogans like "Yes We Can" and "Change We Can Believe In."

they'll just stop reporting on this and wait till everybody's "forgotten" about it, then go merrily on their way, drilling wherever they want.

enjoy the planet while you can, because under this administration, which will do ANYthing to curry favor with the megacorps, including looking the other way while they destroy the planet in their greed for obscene profits, there isn't much time left. but that's ok with you, I guess, because it has a D after its name. as if that meant shit nowadays.

D, R--what's the difference, anyway? it's like heads or tails, you lose.

[Jakes Progress]

29. Please try being reasonable.

You disagree with anyone who ever disagrees with the president. That's cool Blind faith is still faith and it's kept religion alive for centuries. So that's okay.

But snarking is just snarking. In your original snark regarding this comment, were you trying to say that oil is not flowing into the gulf? If that is not what you were saying, then you lack clarity and credence. When called on such a pointless post, you fall into your patented sarcasm routine, again without making any point. My guess is that you believe you are so well known that everyone will know your pov and applaud your wit. But the point the poster made "Not like this Administration...." is not not addressed by your post. Where, please where, did the poster say that Obama was responsible for the oil spill?

Of course I'm assuming your post was sarcastic and that you don't believe Obama is responsible for the oil spill. Because he isn't. His policies do enable oil companies to bypass safety regulations that can lead to future oil spills, but Obama didn't blow the rig, nor did he preside over the conditions that set up this particular station for disaster. The problem is that he has not closed the giant loop holes the bushco set in place and soon, since it is now his watch, he will be as culpable as those thieves for any future disasters. He is the one in charge. This isn't something he has to wait on congress for. It is his enforcement agencies that are responsible for safety. You can only point the blame back for so long. He's in charge now. Some of us believe that we need to point out that he needs to step up and start enforcing regulations and stop rubber stamping drilling. Do you believe that he should continue with the bush program of drilling and oversight?

[ProSense]

40. "....the president routinely combines progressive rhetoric with contrary actions."

Massive quantities of oil are belching into the Gulf of Mexico.

The White House has signaled de facto acceptance of a high unemployment rate for several more years...

"Please try being reasonable."

You can't possibly be serious.

[Jakes Progress]

47. Okay, Okay I get it. You never address the point or answer questions.

Interesting rhetorical choice. At least it leaves you room to take whatever side the wind and administration blows without the constraint of having taken a strong position on anything at all.

[IndianaGreen]

50. Yes, he is responsible for the oil gusher!

Since January 2009, more than 80 percent of the 670 Gulf of Mexico plans submitted by industry received so-called categorical exclusions from the Minerals Management Service, according to agency records. Between 2004 and 2008, under the Bush administration, MMS approved 66 percent of the 5,576 plans submitted.

The Obama administration has promoted offshore oil drilling and in March proposed expanding drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico as well as along the Arctic and Atlantic coasts.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15066165

Obama beat Bush 80 to 66 percent when it came to waiving safety and environmental requirements.

[polichick]

17. As I just posted on another thread, it's smoke and mirrors...

In writing Obama's agenda looks liberal, but every step of the way the president panders and caves to corporations and Republicans so that the resulting legislation fails to upset the status quo in meaningful ways. Healthcare rewards big pharma and the insurance companies rather than offering the public option that's essential for real change. Cap and trade creates a new market for corporate criminals to manipulate - and on and on and on.

Makes me wonder who Obama really is.

[ima_sinnic]

20. and it was bait and switch to get to that (nt)

[polichick]

24. Sad but true. nt

[mochajava666]

22. My heart says he is a good man surrounded by corruption

The facts show that he is a corporatist lap dog, along with many other Dems and all Repukes.

Without real campaign finance reform, the best the left will get are posers like him.

I'm still hoping that he will look back at his campaign and his book and remember the kind of good person he could be. I'm afraid that any changes to his policies won't be in the liberal direction, it will be further toward the RNC crazies.

[polichick]

23. You're so right about campaign finance reform - but how do you get...

...corporate tools to vote for it?

Maybe a new party will have to be formed - a coalition of progressives, Ron Paul types and others - who are sick and tired of the corporate parties. Candidates would have to take an oath to vote for campaign finance reform asap.

[mochajava666]

31. The problem (or benefit) with a new party is once it gains

significant power, one of the big 2 will co-opt it's message enough to draw down their support and therefore their significance.

When it comes to change, campaign finance reform is like the electoral college; it's hard for the people that benefited from the status quo to change it.

It can't come through congress - being elected every 2 years in the House means that they (and their staffs) have to be in permanent campaign mode. I suppose if we elect all billionaires that can finance their own campaigns, we may then get a legislative body that could vote for campaign finance reform since it would be in their best interests to have their opponents not as well funded.

If not starting from Congress, then can reform come from strong presidential leadership in order to coerce the congress into creating reform laws? Not this president. No way.

If not the legislative or executive branches, what about reform coming from the courts? Corporations are people now, so the Judicial branch just wants less reform.

The expense of campaigns comes from the cost of TV spots. That's where the problem lies, and that's where the solution must come from, IMO. Free or heavily discounted air time for candidates that qualify for public financing? I don't know, but I guess I would start there.

[polichick]

37. I can imagine the crying if networks were asked to give up air time...

...and the lobbying - but I'd love to see it happen!

[newspeak]

52. thanks KoKo for the article

And, I remember Clinton and the passing of NAFTA--was against it and still against it.

We need equal access for candidates from the MSM. If anything is going to change, we need a balanced and responsible media--not a media who feeds us corporate shite and calls it cake. I'd say when Faux won the lawsuit-basically stating that they can LIE to the public with no repercussions-the public was screwed. That's why some of the most fact challenged, illogical, hate spewers are ALLOWED on MSM. They're given their own slots to carry corporate water and push those politicians that are more advantageous to them.

[SpartanDem]

30. "The White House has signaled de facto acceptance of a high unemployment rate

for several more years, while offering weak GOP-lite countermeasures like tax breaks for businesses."

Really? So the stimulus and cash for clunkers where GOP lite?

[Tutankhamun]

34. Good Piece. K&R

[cliffordu]

38. blah de blah deblah...

We got it.

On to the next.

[earth mom]

53. Bait and switch all the way. Hope & Change was nothing more than a slick advertising campaign.

:grr:

[joe black]

55. I hope you're wrong.

Wish he'd pull an FDR and wake the fuck up.

[Dinger]

56. See if People Will Fall For that Shit A Second Time

I think not.

[pecwae]

58. Yep.

Sometimes people buy things without opening the box for a peek first.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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