I am one of those torn on the job the President is doing.

[kentuck]

I voted for him. I supported him. And I want him to succeed.

If I had not, I may have already given up.

I think we all agree that the President came into office with a huge truckload of problems. We understand that. But, I am not certain that the President understands the size of the truck?

Times are bad but they could be much, much worse. Pundits and partisans, and I am guilty also, tend to dramatize and exaggerate the seriousness of situations. There is little doubt about that.

However, every decision that the President makes is about the direction this country is headed. He is leading this country at a time of great division and partisanship. We understand that he must be the President for all the people. He seeks compromise.

But compromise is two-edged sword. It can kill you.

Many Democrats do not want the President to compromise on Social Security and taxcuts for the wealthy. Both are necessary to maintain a social fabric in this country. When he appears ready to compromise on these issues, he is not helping the country. He is doing great harm to our country and to our Party.

Others may disagree with that. But we see it as we see it. It doesn't matter how much we like this President, we cannot sit idly by and watch him destroy our Party and our country by making deals with the Republicans, the corporatists, the bankers, etc.

We have a duty to speak up and we have a duty to oppose him.

We do not discount the good things he has gotten passed. But, truthfully, they have little impact on the direction the nation is going as a whole. The President has not done enough to stop this runaway train. The big problems still persist.

Yes, many of us are torn about the job the President is doing. He is governing against all our principles. They can throw us a bone and hope we go away. But it isn't going to happen.

[Uben]

1. I don't see him destroying the country

I don't know what country your living in, but he is not governing against our principles.

I think he's done a damn fine job, considering.

[TBF]

5. Not governing "against our principles" -

With my socialist tendencies I don't see voting as very helpful, but I usually go and do it on the premise that maybe it helps a little until we are rid of this horrible capitalistic system. It seems that I may be aligning with the wrong party however. My choice is to support a very conservative Barack Obama - who is out to gut social security, or the repubs. When you look at history (yes, facts) the president who was behind the single greatest expansion of social security happened to be a republican. Mr. Obama could learn from his example -

In 1953 republican president Dwight Eisenhower said: “A strict application, let us say, of economic theory, at least as taught by Adam Smith, would be, ‘Let these people take care of themselves; during their active life they are supposed to save enough to take care of themselves.’ In this modern industry, dependent as we are on mass production, and so on, we create conditions where that is no longer possible for everybody. So the active part of the population has to take care of all the population, and if they haven’t been able during the course of their active life to save up enough money, we have these systems.”

On August 28, 1954 Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Act which brought 3.6 million farm operators and 2.1 million farm workers Social Security coverage. Four days later he signed the Social Security Amendments Act which brought almost another 5 million people (doctors, lawyers, dentists, architects, accountants and other professionals as well as clergymen, and state and local retirement systems) into Social Security coverage.

site: http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/social-security.htm

[mmonk]

2. I'm not torn.

That feeling left awhile back. The question for me personally is where do I go from here.

[kentuck]

3. Where do you go?

Where can you go?

[mmonk]

4. I don't know. I think I'll concentrate on society around me.

I'm thinking action will be required from the bottom up and it must be socio-economic. Alternative structures in our society is probably it in the short term.

[90-percent]

6. One Unforgivable thing

That a Constitutional Law Professor would allow Bush White House Crimes against Humanity to stand without question is a major disappointment for me.

This "looking forward" to ignore such blatant crimes against peace insures that, in the future, an even more sociopathic President will use these codified powers to really wreak havoc on some part of humanity, be it a foreign country or more probably, American Citizens.

It's a question of "when", not "if".

My only comfort is that I'm old and have no kids. Which is awfully selfish. I wish nothing but incredible happiness and prosperity for all future generations. Don't look like that's going to be happening, though. Young people have been consigned by my generation to a horrible future.

-90% Jimmy

[NNN0LHI]

7. Count me as very disappointed in my fellow citizens

Mostly the +90% of idiots who approved of Bush at one time.

And very damn proud of President Obama trying to deal with that population made up mostly of imbeciles.

I would have gave up a year ago if I were him.

Maybe he has given up? I wouldn't blame him if he has. He knows stupid can't be fixed.

Don

[geckosfeet]

8. I know what you mean. But I personally came to terms with being let down

by political leaders a long time ago. None of them, ever, will be able to govern in a way that I would be in complete agreement with.

So I take pleasure in the incremental victories and the fact that the current administration is a bit more progressive than the previous. Not much. Just a bit.

One of the real core issues is that it is really the corporate interests that guide policy decisions. They have even infiltrated the supreme court.

It seems that corporate control so complete that any administration can only apply a political veneer to the face of the corporate machine that is pulling the strings. At this point, it seems that core corporate issues and concerns will always drive policy.

So I do not despair so much at what Obama is doing. I despair at what corporate entities and business culture are doing.

[KharmaTrain]

9. It's All Perspective...

We all come from different worlds. While there are many issues in common, the priorities aren't...and thus it's easy to see how people can and have become disillusioned with the modus operandi of this administration. I'll admit I am.

As you point out, this administration came in facing the worst economic messes atop of two wars and a government that had gotten corrupt and dysfunctional. It's easy to forget in the here and now world that our corporate loves to play with it to forget how bad things were and that the problems are deep and lasting. I was posting back in '06 that I expected whomever was going to follow the boooosh regime would be hamstrung with cleaning up and that's been the case.

The real problem is the void between campaigning and governing. A candidate can promise all day long but when faced with the realities of the job those promises can fade or even take a 180 degree turn. The boooosh regime was in constant campaign mode. They didn't govern...every stunt they pulled was strictly for political and economic advantage. This took a defecit and zoomed it into the stratosphere that this administration now has to tackle and no matter what it decides, it loses.

The list of problems in this country is long and fixing them all at once won't happen. Call this administration pragmatic...taking what it can get even if it means pissing off "the base". One can't deny the list of accomplishments of the past two years. We can debate how effective some or all will be but at least some of the long list of problems are being dealt with.

From a political standpoint, as we saw last November, this administration has done poorly, but in actual governing, they've exceeded most expectations. It's the matter of how it's been done and the priorites that tend to creat the biggest rub...if it's an issue you're passionate about and it's not being handled the way you want then this administration is awful and sell-outs. All perspective.

Cheers...

[somone]

10. He's guided by Reagan's principles and vision

The only thing left to master is Reagan's communication skills

[WingDinger]

20. It's up to US, to kill Reagan's ghost. We must force the debate.

[BlueIris]

11. I'm not conflicted anymore: he's done an awful job.

Can't say I believe he even wanted to do any better originally or is capable of trying to do any better from now on.

The voters will "reward" him accordingly.

[ProSense]

12. "He is governing against all our principles." Really?

Seriously, really?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Tax cuts for the wealthiest, shared sacrifice for the rest

Coming soon, slashing Social Security for no reason other than appeasement.

Those are Democratic principles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt">Really?

[ProSense]

15. "Those are Democratic principles?"

No, these are Democratic principles.

Obama: Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Won’t Create ‘One Single Job’

Payroll tax holiday

<...>

Six. Propose a six month tax holiday for payroll taxes. Ask for the Republicans' support. This would provide direct tax relief to working people and lower the cost of creating jobs. It would provide more of a tonic to the economy and more practical help to American families than any of the Republicans' proposed tax cuts. Make up the loss to the Social Security trust funds with a temporary surtax on people making over $10 million a year.

<...>

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Even better - he appeased when he knew it was wrong

It's like he's out of control, can't help himself. "I know this is wrong... but I must..."

He hasn't admitted yet that Social Security cuts are wrong - do you think he'll do that after he signs them into law, or before?

[Statistical]

22. He didn't appease. He BOUGHT UI & taxcuts for poor/middle class with tax cuts for the rich.

That isn't appeasement that is negotiating.

If Congress was slightly more competent than a wet paper bag he would have had to.

Obama didn't want UI to end and see massive tax increase on the poor & middle class.
It would have destroyed his presidency and likely sunk the economy.

The "cost" was 2 year extension on tax cuts for the rich. He never favored them, Congress backed him into that corner.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Disagree. Congress was setting us up for victory.

The Retugs would have had to cave to pressure and reinstate tax cuts. Very similar to when Clinton called their bluff in 1995, and won.

This is why the Rethugs are so giddy about a deal that adds $1 Trillion to the debt: because it totally saves their sorry asses.

[Statistical]

25. LOL. Ok think whatever you want. Obviously it can never be disproven.

The Republicans were also going to cut DOD spending by 20%, and double minimum wage too. :rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Name one battle where the GOP did not capitulate

Where public opinion was against them by more than 2:1.

[Statistical]

27. Public Option.

:)

[MannyGoldstein]

28. They weren't forced to.

This was all Obama and the Democrats deal.

[Hydra]

34. Public option was sold away before the debate began

Next.

[90-percent]

30. Tax Cuts for the wealthy

Some times I get the feeling that many of the wealthy are kind of embarrassed by all the unnecessary tax breaks they are getting.

It's like it's being done because Republican Politicians just THINK it's what their wealthy constituents want. I think many wealthy would be more comfortable contributing their fair share to our society, especially in these desperate times.

Tax cuts for the rich is grotesque and unnecessary and I think happened by Republicans tripping over themselves to grovel at the feet of the wealthy.

-90% jimmy

[Hydra]

35. Depends on which wealthy you are talking to

If you're talking to the ones who would like things to get better, they'd agree.

If you're talking to the ones who are making or inherited blood money(That would be most of the real wealthy), they don't see why they need to kick in anything- after all, if they didn't make all of this wealth, what would people do? Live in caves?

[MannyGoldstein]

13. 18 years of compromise have gained much

- Our economy is strong
- Our middle class is vibrant
- We are at peace with our neighbors in the world

What more do you purists want from this brilliant man? From this best. president. ever?

Compromise is how we win. The more compromise, the better.

[NHDemProg]

17. He got handed a pile of crap...

from 12 years of GOP rule in the House/Senate and 8 years of that asshole bending over for any business that strolled into the White House with their hands out. Who the hell would fix it in two years? Who could?

When the economy improves next year after the rich got paid off (again!) and people start getting back to work, the mushy middle will be more in tune with NASCAR and their other distractions and forget all about 2009-10, and we can work on getting Obama reelected.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. He fixed banker bonuses right quick

Matter of priorities, I reckon.

[somone]

31. Let him earn his nomination

I've defended him against bigots, critics, skeptics long enough. Time and time again he's shown he's working for the rich and elite - and AGAINST the average working American. He's not getting another dime from me.

[tularetom]

19. Overall I'd give him a B minus

And that's because I get the feeling that neither the President nor anybody else in Washington really understands what people are pissed off about.

Personally I'm less concerned about how much the government is spending than what they are spending it on. Useless wars, bloated military budgets, handouts to banks and tax cuts for billionaires instead of infrastructure, education and unemployment compensation.

Maybe I'm traveling in the wrong circles but I never hear anybody advocating the allocation of more resources to Afghanistan or Wall Street.

[GoCubsGo]

21. "Watching him destroy our country"????

Where have you been the last 30 years? It was destroyed decades ago. What you are seeing now is the last throes. Ain't nobody going to fix this mess.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. Is it too much to ask that we give this president a full term?

Believe it or not, he still hasn't been in office for 2 years yet.

Is it any way possible that he is given more time? We gave other presidents at least a full term to get more things done. Why not Obama?

No, he hasn't done everything that he has promised. Why? Because he hasn't had enough time. More important, he has faced a recalcitrant Congress (Senate) and a hate machine bigger than I have ever witnessed.

Again, is it too much to ask that we give him a chance? At least a full term?

[Hydra]

37. Yes, it IS too much to ask, and thank you for bringing it up

The word was, give him 2 years.

He has so far:

Handed out Trillions to Wall St.

Expanded the War on Terror

Expanded Domestic Spying and Illegal powers

Passed a Stimulus that was too small, and will block new stimulus options

Made the Republican party viable again

Let BP Destroy the Gulf

Destroyed our best chance to get Single Payer or a Public option

Almost set us back to 10 years on LBGT rights

Set plans in motion to Destroy SSI

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. His track record is extremely good, if the objective was to continue Bush Era policies and strengthen them. On that, I'd give him an A+.

It's not that President Obama isn't making gains, it's that the ship continues to sail to the far right, and the rudder isn't changing. I don't want to go that way, and he didn't campaign on it, so I'm not sure why he thinks we should want that too.

Do you really want 2 more years in this direction? With a Republican House helping him along?

[treestar]

29. The President is not supposed to "lead the country"

BTW, do you spend as much time rating the job of your Senators, Representative, Governor, State Senator, State Representative, County Council, the closer to which have more effects on you?

The President is one third of the federal power. He leads the federal executive branch. The judiciary is just as powerful and so is Congress. That power is also divided into federal and state - some powers the states have and not the feds and vice versa.

The Constitution starts out "We the People." We have no leaders. We are self governing.

People who want one single leader because they want to dodge this responsibility center on the President in the hopes they can make him into the one who is responsible for them. They need to try a place like North Korea if they want that.

[uppityperson]

36. Indeed. And this one is "governing against all our principles"? Not quite.

Thank you for what you write and I agree with you. If you want a dictator, a King, a Big Daddy, there are other countries to try.

I disagree with some of what has been done but do not see it in dichotomous terms like "He is governing against all our principles" as he is not.

[Angry Dragon]

39. If the President is not suppose to lead the country

then pray tell what is his job??

He is the leader of this country and the leader of the party.

[LWolf]

32. My problem with the president is not about compromise.

It's about his neoliberal appointments/administration, his neoliberal policies, and his disrespect of the left in America, and the left-wing of his own party.

I grew up watching my mother deal with abusive SOs. I learned my lesson. I don't take anybody back after abuse. In the case of Obama, I recognized it early on in the primaries. He never got a foot in my door.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Those who view compromise as inherently virtuous have a rudderless narcissism

Funny how individuals who need near-universal approval view compromise not as a valid tactic and often necessary step but as a virtue itself. It's the act of being acceptable to as many as possible, and this belies the need for the acceptability, NOT for the success of an endeavor.

One CAN ram through policy and accept being hated, but that takes some CHARACTER. I see a fine, glad-handing social animal in Bill Clinton and in a "cool" way with Barack Obama, and that is not the kind of personality one needs in the trenches at a time of strife. One needs a Lyndon Johnson or a Harry Truman: willful guys who don't give a tinker's cuss about being hated by certain people, and who are willing to lean WAAAAY forward and take a risk.

Clinton started out honorably, sticking his neck out on Gay rights and Health Care, but he got his ass handed to him, and that was that; the rest of the administration was "safe" and reactive to the onslaught from the reactionary jackals who were after his hide. The Obama Administration has been tepid grandstanding, and the need for being some transcendent other-worldly political genius far outweighed any particular policy desires; the "successes" were to pass something, seemingly anything, that could be labeled as "health care" or "financial reform". Along the way, the serial cowering has signaled to the routed right that McClellan's not coming, and maybe it's time to attack.

I may not be as brittle as you with my door-slamming in the face of one who's crossed the line, but I have my soft spots too, and he hit my number one bugaboo big time and early on: religion. The overt sucking up to organized religion in late '06 was a real screech-to-a-halt and sound the alarm moment, but the 40 Days of Faith and Family ugliness in South Carolina in October of '07--especially the ducking of responsibility for its worst moments--was a jaw-dropper.

There's far too much cult of personality to this little episode in our history, and it's naked in its very appeal: we were not sold on ANY specific policy goals, just a lot of vague emotional harmonizing and the "hope" and "faith" in one, single, transcendent INDIVIDUAL who would be all things to all people and make it all right. I don't owe him anything, and he's in arrears to us. The idea that it's "okay" for him to maneuver however necessary to guarantee his second term and "success" is galling.

I do not see this man as strong; I see him as weak in the same way as Clinton: needy for personal reaffirmation and focused so much on survival and continued permission to stay in the game that virtually any particular bit of policy is fair game with nary a blink. That there's some kind of personal decency there I do not doubt, but I question the true sense of the worldview they hold; they either feel that corporatist hegemony is necessary or unbeatable, so whether they like it or merely accept it doesn't much matter.

We deserve better, and I don't like being appealed to with a subservient peasant's appeal akin to religion: bear under it, it's our lot, and if we "hope" enough and offer our cringing obedience while ceding our personal influence to our betters, everything will be just fine. Social graces just don't impress me much, especially when it comes to leaders. This is not celebrity entertainment, this is a version of social warfare, and I literally get spitting mad to see someone like Ishmael Reed gush adulation because he's "the coolest man in the room". That kind of entity-worship is the stuff of bystanders and victims.

Nice post, though; I truly hear the through-line of your spirit on this, and it rings true.

Dammit.

[LWolf]

47. You put it so eloquently.

I couldn't agree more with your take on the cult of personality. We do deserve better. I don't submit to anyone with grace, and I don't automatically assume that others are my "betters." While I can put on social graces like make-up or a dress, they aren't really a part of who I am. I guess if I'd been raised within a social community, some would have stuck. I wasn't, though, and I'm truly a Lone Wolf in just about every way.

The calls to compromise my principles, to "get in line," are guaranteed to backfire. They do nothing more than piss me off and make me more likely to push back.

Not that I can't work in collaboration with others; I do it all the time. With those whose eyes are on the goal, and willing to cut a path to get there. That assumes a common goal. I've begun to question whether I have any substantive common goals at all with New Democrats.

[RegieRocker]

33. Oppose, no. Rebuke, yes.

Our job as patriotic duty is to inform our elected officials of what we want done by them. This is the first and foremost patriotic duty. Going to war is a patriotic duty but only comes after informing your elected officials. Going blindly to war without understanding why we are going to war is unpatriotic, and most of the time leads to killing of innocent human beings for greed.

[Angry Dragon]

38. Any tax cuts for the rich are just adding to the deficit

In that way the people on the bottom will pay out more money in the future than they got in tax cuts
Unemployment will run out because there will be no jobs out there
Cutting the payroll tax will only add to the deficit and may well open the door for further tinkering with SS
I have a very bad feeling about what will happen in the next two years

On edit: Less money in the federal coffers means less money going to states. States are hurting right now, less money means cuts to services, further squeezing the bottom. It will cost the bottom so much more than the tax cuts that no one will be laughing at the bottom.

[Radical Activist]

40. Nearly all of your posts appear to be an attempt at framing issues in certain ways.

You make a series of unsupported statements that frame issues in a way that make Obama look bad. If it were a psy-ops game I would be impressed Who are you campaigning for?

[mzmolly]

41. I think he's doing a fantastic job. Unpopular position

here these days, I know.

I always cringe when other progressives tell me that I've been tossed under some mythical bus I didn't see coming. Don't WE get the fact that Obama had/has to deal with needing super majorities and blue dog Democrats to pass legislation? Good grief people. Did we forget this is a democracy and Democrats are not the cultists that Republicans are? :crazy:

[Motown_Johnny]

42. not compromising can kill too

Look at the Clinton failure to compromise on health care. Now we still have people dieing from lack of care.

Compromise can be bad but it can also be not as bad as the alternative.


I think he is doing a good job in a very difficult environment to succeed at anything.

[grahamhgreen]

44. The Clinton health care plan was also a crappy one, opposed by many on the left.

Medicare for all is still the goal.

Compromise and compromised are two very different things.

Taxing the rich is critical at this juncture and the president is moving in the wrong direction, as he did with HCR.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. and how many American lives did that opposition from the left cause?

16 years of not insuring people



roughly 45,000 deaths in 2009 of persons without insurance



Lets round down and say only one out of ten of those lives could have been saved. That leaves about 4,500 preventable deaths in 2009 alone.

Multiply that by the 16 years that we didn't get HCR.



Your idealism is making orphans

[TheKentuckian]

48. Like the plan won't just spread the pain around and overall access will decline

As we feed the "smart consumer of health care" frame and policy types quality and access to care will slide and slide. Over time as subsidies are unable to keep pace, more and more exemptions will be issued or the individual share of premiums will be readjusted up.

The increase in coverage will result in more widespread access limitations, giving the folks were are supposed to be helping that don't qualify for Medicaid a mandatory premium that they won't be able to afford to utilize. The tax on benefits will at the same time place downward pressure on the system stripping down policies and shifting cost to individuals which means the squeeze play will meet somewhere in the middle.

Those who have been blessed with decent coverage will see benefits decline while costs rise. Those with nothing will find themselves with a monthly anchor around the neck that is catastrophic crap with "wellness" visits that may lead to a multiplier effect on their burdensome premiums, and the wealth, rich, and upper classes will see a limit on their liability.

Point is, you aren't going to net save all those lives. Time will tell if there is a reduction and how great, if it is.

[grahamhgreen]

49. It was the opposition from the right and the centrist/corporatists who are to blame

for not getting us Medicare for all, yet.


Not those who support it.

Your idealism - that is your staunch belief that we can not achieve Medicare for All - might be what is killing people.

If other countries have these systems, we can too. And we will.

[Motown_Johnny]

46. did you read the thread about the SCOTUS?

this should be enough to tip the balance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=69999&mesg_id=69999




and if that doesn't do it try this


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#40774380