Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/magazine/what-the-left-doesnt-understand-about-obama.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09...ama.html</a> Op-ed that raises the issues I've been concerned about surrounding liberal disaffection with Obama. >>And yet the wave of criticism from the left over the stimulus is fundamentally flawed: it ignores the real choices Obama faced (and the progressive decisions he made) and wishes away any constraints upon his power. The most common hallmark of the left’s magical thinking is a failure to recognize that Congress is a separate, coequal branch of government consisting of members whose goals may differ from the president’s. Congressional Republicans pursued a strategy of denying Obama support for any major element of his agenda, on the correct assumption that this would make it less popular and help the party win the 2010 elections. Only for roughly four months during Obama’s term did Democrats have the 60 Senate votes they needed to overcome a filibuster. Moreover, Republican opposition has proved immune even to persistent and successful attempts by Obama to mobilize public opinion. Americans overwhelmingly favor deficit reduction that includes both spending and taxes and favor higher taxes on the rich in particular. Obama even made a series of crusading speeches on this theme. The result? Nada. That kind of analysis, however, just feels wrong to liberals, who remember Bush steamrolling his agenda through Congress with no such complaints about obstructionism.... Yes, Bush passed his tax cuts — by using a method called reconciliation, which can avoid a filibuster but can be used only on budget issues. On No Child Left Behind and Medicare, he cut deals expanding government, which the right-wing equivalents of Greenwald denounced as a massive sellout. Bush did have one episode where he tried to force through a major domestic reform against a Senate filibuster: his crusade to privatize Social Security. Just as liberals urge Obama to do today, Bush barnstormed the country, pounding his message and pressuring Democrats, whom he cast as obstructionists. The result? Nada, beyond the collapse of Bush’s popularity.<< As always, much more at the link.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Bush was also known for 'signing statements' which essentially exempted HIM from much of the legislation passed. No vote, no majority, just "cause I said so". If that wasn't enough, Bush was also known for making 'recess' appointments like John Bolton as ambassabor to the UN - Bolton hated the UN and was cynically put in place to undermine the entire organization. Nowadays, there are no 'recesses' - republicans make sure that someone shows up to pound the gavel every three days or so during congressional recess to avoid just the kind of shenanigans that they gleefully exploited during Bush's term. No honor among thieves.
Originally Posted By mawnck What I expected: Obama would pursue a common-sense but progressive agenda, using his enthusiastic base (myself included) as his way of mashing his programs unscathed through a reluctant Congress. What I got: Corporatist, anti-Capitalism "too-big-to-fail" economic policies, and a convoluted health insurance-based healthcare "solution" that only a fool would get enthusiastically behind. I finally had myself removed from his mailing list about 6 months ago, when it became obvious that he wasn't going to appoint Elizabeth Warren as head of the CFPB. I don't plan to get back on it. I'm not going to support pre-compromised positions that don't solve anything, and that's all I seem to get from this President. What I wanted, first and foremost, was leadership. He doesn't seem to have that. I'll vote for him, if the only alternative is Rick Perry, but I am SO open to an independent candidate right about now that I can't even begin to tell ya. If the Dems want to regain my support, there NEEDS to be a contested primary.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder For me, what I didn't like about Obama during the primaries has become a major part of his problem. His lack of long term exposure to how D.C. operates and by extension a lack of being involved in that network, and his lack of experience as an administrator, knowing when to act, what to do, what to say, in short, lead. Hilary Clinton, in all likelihood, would have eaten John Boehner's lunch, not to mention anyone from the tea party. Still and all, I'd vote for him again, because there is no way in hell I could have supported a Vice President Palin.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "If the Dems want to regain my support, there NEEDS to be a contested primary" You need to put that out of your mind, because that's not going to happen. Not by anyone major, anyway, like Kennedy in 76. MAYBE a quixotic quest by someone like Kucinich, but I doubt even that. Obama's problem is that he's trying to be reasonable with people who don't do reasonable. He needs to stop offering a reasonable compromise position as his opening position. And he needs to call them out without being scared it'll make them mad or something. Bottom line is he nerds to fight.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Bottom line is he nerds to fight." I nominate this for the WE Freudian Slip Hall of Fame.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda I second that nomination All in favor, say Aye... All opposed, say Nay...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^ SPP- for those who remember I stated exactly these flaws for Obama coming out of session here in SPringfield Illinois. He has no experience at all running things and can't understand why common sense doesn't win out. In a perfect world it should, but he grew up politically in Illinois- the most one party state in the country and corrupt as the day is long. Obama kept his nose clean from being corrupt- but his mentors- who allowed him to succeed - like Emil Jones and Mike Madigan do not run DC like they run Illinois. In a way I feel sorry for the president because he is an extremely bright man lost in a cesspool of politics and corruption- with people whose goal is #1-- not what's best for the country etc. It's been quite the education- but as I thought going in- this was going to really hurt him as he didn't truly see it coming. He was 'sheltered' somewhat politically. However when I tried to explain this here 3 + years ago I got run over the coals as anything from a closet right wing nut job- to listening to too much talk radio( which I don't listen to at all except sports ) - to just being flat out wrong even if I was a moderate. I truly felt for the man in the budget deficit talks because he kept trying to use common sense to play to both sides of the argument- never once realizing there is NO bridge between the far left and the tea party zealots that will exist. No bridge between the tea party and anyone. I agree that spending needs to be addressed - and soon by both parties which has abused it - but it is not the ONLY part of the answer. He truly misses Rahm Emmanuel ( who by the way is kicking ass and taking names in the City of Chicago - now that Daley is gone..had the best first 100 days I can remember for almost any politician). If I lived in the city I would vote for that man. But Rahm IS a politician-- who gets what he wants even here in the land of - " oh that'll never fly"- because it's been done this other way for 50 years of Daley's and a sprinkling of others. Nope- he's taken on the teachers union over the shortest school days in the country and one of the worst performing school systems.. taken on other heavy weights from 30+ yr alderman to other unions like the streets and sanitation department who refused to address a 33% absentee rate over the past few years. Yes, you read that right- these people were working 2/3 days they were scheduled. He takes on both parties but gets his ducks in a row first .. a Democrat with strong fiscal sense and a no nonsense approach - he has support of many people from both parties here already. This is why I thought Hillary Clinton might have been the best candidate either party had last election-- and why it was not Obama's time. He was inheriting a mess ( but 3 years in - let's take ownership also - this isn't all Bush's fault although he certainly started the ball downhill as well as many of the loudest yelling GOP congress memebrs) - and being smart alone wasn't going to fix it. I don't know what next election is going to bring - but I do know this-- he may not have the makeup to be the SOB politician needed to bring an end to some of the things dividing this country -- he needs either to become that person ( and I see no history of this in his past) - or get that SOB person in the VP seat ASAP. Joe Biden is not that guy - not bright enough/ not mean enough. Hillary likely won't take a #2 seat. It has to be someone also not 'polarizing to the the majority of Americans. Let's face it no one the Dem's put up will be OK with the Tea Party - let's just accept that as fact-- but this person needs to be able to win the majority of Dems ( far left unlikely)- and all the moderates/independents out there. Who is it ? I wish I knew- but I search the news every day hoping someone will emerge - either to help Obama or replace him-- don't care one way or the other. The trouble is I see that person nowhere today..
Originally Posted By gadzuux I believe that Obama can successfully marginalize the tea party types from the independents. It's looking increasingly likely that Perry will be the nominee - republicans have never wanted to vote for Romney (for a variety of reasons, some of them legit), and there aren't enough total whack jobs to give it Bachmann. So it's Perry's nomination to lose at this point, and he's tied to the teaparty hook line and sinker. I don't see him tacking to the middle in the general election. In the meantime, Obama can draw sharp differences between his administration and what the republicans are proposing. In fact, the GOP is making it easier for Obama to defeat them all the time. I predicted before that - almost unbelievably - they're going to oppose extending the payroll tax cuts - something they previously supported whole-heartedly right up until Obama came out in favor of it. I'm not too worried about Obama getting a second term, I'm worried about the house and senate. Right now, the GOP doesn't have enough votes to accomplish anything, just enough to roadblock everything. That might get worse before it gets better.
Originally Posted By barboy2 /// when I tried to explain this here 3 + years ago I got run over the coals as anything from a closet right wing nut job- to listening to too much talk radio( which I don't listen to at all except sports ) - to just being flat out wrong even if I was a moderate./// Here we go again. I was around 3+ years ago and this 'Deion Sanders' act is old. Your defensive posturing tires us along with your endless stated self reassruance that you're a moderate, as if that makes you better than another. "I will spit out the lukewarm." (or something along those lines)
Originally Posted By barboy2 Oh, and "yes"------ your political forecast/assessment of Obama was on the money with that whole Chicago corruption and Democratic stronghold thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 like Kennedy in 76." D'oh! I meant Kennedy in 80 of course. And needs/nerds... I'd blame the iPhone, but that's too funny.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>SPP- for those who remember I stated exactly these flaws for Obama coming out of session here in SPringfield Illinois.<< You did indeed. We shoulda listened. Hillary 2008 (in retrospect).
Originally Posted By ecdc mawnck, your concern is specifically called out in the article. It uses an example of an issue the American people want, overwhelmingly support, and Congress STILL won't budge (tax increases for the wealthy). So I ask again, what SPECIFICALLY do you want Obama to do given the makeup of Congress? Get tough isn't specific. Pursue commonsense progressive legislation isn't specific. This is the messiness of any Democracy. Obama gave a great Labor Day speech. Liberals lap that stuff up - I did too. It does zilch good in the reality of dealing with the likes of Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell. Tough talk doesn't translate to tough legislation or votes. I'm not an apologist (in retrospect, I think Obama probably should've just let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone last December, despite the potential harm to the economy). Give a fair criticism of how things could've been different, and I'm all ears.
Originally Posted By mawnck It does a great deal of good in terms of keeping your base engaged, your goals clarified, and your opponents defined. In effect, he lost the PR war and, quite probably, the election. Leadership means creating and maintaining a vision, a goal for followers to rally around. What is Obama's goal, and what has he done to articulate it? I don't have the faintest idea, so I have to go on the evidence presented ... and that's TBTF and a screwed-up health plan. I wouldn't expect the legislative results to be any different, but there's more to being a good POTUS than legislation. I want a POTUS who will stake out a position prior to compromising it. That way I have something to support, something to believe in. That hopey-changey thing. It's a little late to be starting that now.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Oh good, barboy's here./// I will always be here feeding on those who flail and make a lot of senseless noise ..... just when you think it's safe to go back in the LP water and make some waves I will be patrolling like the misunderstood and unpredictable but yet very dangerous Zambezi shark. MMMWWWWWWWA A A A A A
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I want a POTUS who will stake out a position prior to compromising it.>> This. Obama's been doing a lot of "let Congress present me with some ideas, and then I'll talk with them". It would be better if he would present his own, fully-formed ideas, and then when he does eventually compromise, we would at least know what he was trying to accomplish. With the current way he has been handling things, it's hard to define what his goals are. I'm not saying I want him to state a position and then never change it, but it would be nice to at least know what his starting position actually is.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm not saying I want him to state a position and then never change it, but it would be nice to at least know what his starting position actually is.<< He did that with debt ceiling crisis and healthcare. He came out in favor of a public option. BTW, I agree with the leadership criticism. But I also think it's easier said than done - how does Obama look when he stakes out a vision and a claim that is unachievable? The irony here is when Obama does what seems to be suggested, then he doesn't get it, he's compromising too much and too early. So if he doesn't stake out a specific claim, then he's not being visionary. Obama could be a stronger leader - I'm on board there. But unless the GOP nominee is Huntsman (and it won't be) there's no one even close to Obama, and he'll happily get my vote. I hope disaffected liberals will at least hold their nose and cast a vote for him in 2012 instead of staying home. No matter how bad the GOP candidate is - Bachmann, Palin, Perry... - do not think Americans aren't foolish enough to elect them.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... how does Obama look when he stakes out a vision and a claim that is unachievable? << EVERYTHING is "unachievable" - at least with this intransigent congress. They won't vote for anything he supports - even if it's for puppies and ice cream. I keep going back to the example of the payroll tax cut, which is set to expire at the end of the year. Republicans 'should' embrace this extension with open arms - after all, it was their idea in the first place. But they don't, and the only conceivable reason is that Obama is in favor of it. So republicans are in favor of continuing tax breaks for oil companies, wall street, the wealthy, jet owners - and of course reducing all corporate tax rates to zero. But the taxes you and I pay? Let `em boost - not because it conforms with their financial view, but only because it conforms with their political view of hamstringing the president at any and every opportunity. And if it impacts the public negatively? Who cares? Those numbskulls will vote republican no matter what they say or do.
