Right-wing obstruction could have been fought: An ineffective and gutless presidency’s legacy

[XemaSab]

Predicting the future course of American politics is a lively and flourishing vocation. Guessing how future generations will commemorate present-day political events, however, is not nearly as remunerative. In the interest of restoring some balance to this tragic situation, allow me to kick off the speculation about the Obama legacy. How will we assess it? How will the Barack Obama Presidential Library, a much-anticipated museum of the future, cast the great events of our time?

In approaching this subject, let us first address the historical situation of the Obama administration. The task of museums, like that of history generally, is to document periods of great change. The task facing the makers of the Obama museum, however, will be pretty much exactly the opposite: How to document a time when America should have changed but didn’t. Its project will be to explain an age when every aspect of societal breakdown was out in the open and the old platitudes could no longer paper it over—when the meritocracy was clearly corrupt, when the financial system had devolved into organized thievery, when everyone knew that the politicians were bought and the worst criminals went unprosecuted and the middle class was in a state of collapse and the newspaper pundits were like street performers miming “seriousness” for an audience that had lost its taste for mime and seriousness both. It was a time when every thinking person could see that the reigning ideology had failed, that an epoch had ended, that the shitty consensus ideas of the 1980s had finally caved in—and when an unlikely champion arose from the mean streets of Chicago to keep the whole thing propped up nevertheless.

The Obama team, as the president once announced to a delegation of investment bankers, was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks,” and in retrospect these words seem not only to have been a correct assessment of the situation at the moment but a credo for his entire term in office. For my money, they should be carved in stone over the entrance to his monument: Barack Obama as the one-man rescue squad for an economic order that had aroused the fury of the world. Better: Obama as the awesomely talented doctor who kept the corpse of a dead philosophy lumbering along despite it all.

The Age of the Zombie Consensus, however poetic it sounds, will probably not recommend itself as a catchphrase to the shapers of the Obama legacy. They will probably be looking for a label that is slightly more heroic: the Triumph of Faith over Cynicism, or something like that. Maybe they will borrow a phrase from one of the 2012 campaign books, “The Center Holds,” and describe the Obama presidency as a time when cool, corporate reason prevailed over inflamed public opinion. Barack Obama will be presented as a kind of second FDR: the man who saved the system from itself. That perhaps the system didn’t deserve saving will be left to some less-well-funded museum.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/20/right_wing_obstruction_could_have_been_fought_an_ineffective_and_gutless_presidencys_legacy_is_failure/

[craigmatic]

1. It's true he did quote FDR to the bankers about the pitchforks. His job was different from FDR's.

FDR had the luxury to come to office after the system failed completely and the previous administration's ideology was totally discredited. FDR had more leeway and could improvise. Obama came to office with two choices- either let the system fail and let it hurt millions of people while probably guaranteeing that he'd be a one termer or do what he did and prop the rickety system up. Short term he probably made the right choice the problem is that he didn't punish the people responsible for the crisis and I think the reason he didn't is because it goes deeper than the bankers. If he had indicted them he would've had to bring charges against his own economic advisers and Clinton too who repealed Glass-Stegal.

[zeemike]

12. Obama did come in after the system had failed completely.

The financial system took over a trillion dollars to save...we had two disastrous wars and people were ready for a change and elected Obama for that change...much like FDR.
The difference it that FDR DID help the people not the financial industry...and Obama helped the banks.

Obama had the mandate to do it...but instead just gave in to the people who caused the problem...IMO

[Octafish]

23. +1

How Tim Geithner put it: "We sacrificed the homeowners to foam the runway for the banks."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017136420

[zeemike]

65. That's what I'm talking about.

There concern was for the banks not the people.

I don't know if you know anything about the CCC that FDR had in his first year in office...he just acted and gave the job of organizing and running it to the Army. did not ask congress for permission because he was CIC.
And the work they did is still with us today and it probably paid for itself and then some...And helped millions of young men who had no hope of a job, and their familes...And to think what we could have done with that trillion dollars.

[Octafish]

187. Civilian Conservation Corps did a world of good.

Jobs for the unemployed, certainly, but jobs that made a difference in our quality of life.

As for why Obama hasn't even TRIED that approach, my guess is he's not interested in a New New Deal, seeing how he broached rolling back Social Security.

Did you see what we could have bought with the money wasted on the Iraq War II?

[zeemike]

260. And the irony is that if we would have spent that on new energy

It would have solved a lot more than one problem...and would have payed for itself with long lasting benifits...just as the CCC did.

Money spent on war has only negative long term benifits...as we see in the world now.

[DeSwiss]

300. Yep.

- They could have installed solar panels all over the U.S. Kill two birds with one stone, I always say.....

[secondvariety]

107. I never knew

he said that. That's beyond sick and twisted.

[Octafish]

189. The special inspector general for TARP said it and a whole lot more worth hearing.

Neil Barofsky (also) Gave Us The Best Explanation For Washington's Dysfunction We've Ever Heard

Linette Lopez
Business Insider, Aug. 1, 2012, 2:57 PM

Neil Barofsky was the Inspector General for TARP, and just wrote a book about his time in D.C. called Bailout: An Insider Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.

SNIP...

Bottom line: Barofsky said the incentive structure in our nation's capitol is all wrong. There's a revolving door between bureaucrats in Washington and Wall Street banks, and politicians just want to keep their jobs.

For regulators it's something like this:

[font color="purple"]"You can play ball and good things can happen to you get a big pot of gold at the end of the Wall Street rainbow or you can do your job be aggressive and face personal ruin...We really need to rethink how we govern and how regulate," Barofsky said.[/font color]

CONTINUED... http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-barofsky-2012-8

[merrily]

204. Not only did he say it, but actions speak louder than words.

TARP was an imperceptible drop in the bucket compared with the bailout of banksters by the Fed via very low interest rates, a massive bailout that continues as I type. Meanwhile, laws were written to ensure that banksters suffered no losses and no liability for their misdeeds, including the ability to foreclose, even if they had lost the mortgage notes signed by the borrowers.

What he said is, yes, jaw-dropping, and, yet, of little importance in comparison to what was done.

[2banon]

146. Geithner said THAT?! Out Loud???!!!

I sure the fuck missed that one!

[Octafish]

191. Don't feel bad. The hits just keep-a comin'!

The Shocking Redistribution of Wealth in the Past Five Years

by Paul Buchheit
Published on Monday, December 30, 2013 by Common Dreams

Anyone reviewing the data is likely to conclude that there must be some mistake. It doesn't seem possible that one out of twenty American families could each have made a million dollars since Obama became President, while the average American family's net worth has barely recovered. But the evidence comes from numerous reputable sources.

Some conservatives continue to claim that President Obama is unfriendly to business, but the facts show that the richest Americans and the biggest businesses have been the main - perhaps only - beneficiaries of the massive wealth gain over the past five years.

1. $5 Million to Each of the 1%, and $1 Million to Each of the Next 4%

From the end of 2008 to the middle of 2013 total U.S. wealth increased from $47 trillion to $72 trillion. About $16 trillion of that is financial gain (stocks and other financial instruments).

The richest 1% own about 38 percent of stocks, and half of non-stock financial assets. So they've gained at least $6.1 trillion (38 percent of $16 trillion). That's over $5 million for each of 1.2 million households.

The next richest 4%, based on similar calculations, gained about $5.1 trillion. That's over a million dollars for each of their 4.8 million households.

The least wealthy 90% in our country own only 11 percent of all stocks excluding pensions (which are fast disappearing). The frantic recent surge in the stock market has largely bypassed these families.

2. Evidence of Our Growing Wealth Inequality

This first fact is nearly ungraspable: In 2009 the average wealth for almost half of American families was ZERO (their debt exceeded their assets).

In 1983 the families in America's poorer half owned an average of about $15,000. But from 1983 to 1989 median wealth fell from over $70,000 to about $60,000. From 1998 to 2009, fully 80% of American families LOST wealth. They had to borrow to stay afloat.

It seems the disparity couldn't get much worse, but after the recession it did. According to a Pew Research Center study, in the first two years of recovery the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%. And then, from 2011 to 2013, the stock market grew by almost 50 percent, with again the great majority of that gain going to the richest 5%.

Today our wealth gap is worse than that of the third world. Out of all developed and undeveloped countries with at least a quarter-million adults, the U.S. has the 4th-highest degree of wealth inequality in the world, trailing only Russia, Ukraine, and Lebanon.

3. Congress' Solution: Take from the Poor

Congress has responded by cutting unemployment benefits and food stamps, along with other 'sequester' targets like Meals on Wheels for seniors and Head Start for preschoolers. The more the super-rich make, the more they seem to believe in the cruel fantasy that the poor are to blame for their own struggles.

President Obama recently proclaimed that inequality "drives everything I do in this office." Indeed it may, but in the wrong direction.

FORUM HOSTS, PLEASE NOTE: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at [e-mail].

Original Article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/30-0

[2banon]

222. thanks Octofish.. you're so right, it just keeps a comin'.. sheesh.

don't know how much more I can digest.. it's the outrage factor, i'm referring too.

[L0oniX]

254. Re-posting that video. Thanks.

[merrily]

91. He sure did. Apparently, it was okay in 1930 to call a Depression what it was.

In 2008, however, Paulson was on TV, claiming people could not and should not use "certain words" because merely using them would create adverse economic consequences. And both the media and Democrats let him get away with that bs. As a result, we had silly synonyms, such as "the worst recession since WWII."

Quick, geniuses--what was the big news in the US right before WWII? Yep, the oxymoronical "Great Depression."

[zeemike]

101. He actually said that?

Perhaps it is voodoo econimics...you can conger up the devil by saying the wrong words.

[merrily]

112. Paulson? Yes, he did. I watched him on three talking heads shows that Sunday.

As I sit here typing, I cannot say which show or shows he said it on, but my guess would be MTP.

It was a response to the host of the show asking if Paulson was saying that we were on the verge of another depression, or whether Paulson was saying Congress had to act or we would be in a Depression, or something to that effect.

But, even if he had not said it, it was clearly orchestrated that everyone used terms like "the worst economic situation since World War II," and never suggested that we were in a depression, or at least damned close to a depression. It would have been hard to show, anyway, since the ways in which we calculate things like unemployment changed so many times since the Great Depression, precisely to disguise things like how bad an economy was at any given time.

Maybe Carville was the first to make "It's the economy, Stupid," a catch phrase, but he sure was not the first political advisor to grok that concept.

[Enthusiast]

94. PLUS ONE! Thank you, zeemike.

Obama had an enormous mandate, one that he completely ignored.

[woo me with science]

163. Excellent post.

The difference it that FDR DID help the people not the financial industry...and Obama helped the banks.

The faux populist campaign was a scam all along. Always follow the money, and our electoral system is restructured to be a deep, deep well of systemic corruption now.

[leftstreet]

181. +1

[DeSwiss]

299. +1000!

[BumRushDaShow]

18. This is a reasonable argument of what happened

I think the other thing that might contrast Obama with FDR is that although too many on DU dismiss this, FDR was part of the 1% and he had the personal financial back-up system to boldly do what he wanted. What is interesting about those who cite FDR is how they neglect to mention the lack of "jailing the banksters", to the point where even Al Capone, before his sentencing, exclaimed to reporters -

"...why don't they go after all those bankers who took the savings of thousands of poor people and lost them in bank failures?"

What FDR did was to try to halt the immediate crises (in his case, imposing a bank holiday, something that might have killed the global economy today) and then shepherd through measures to stabilize the existing system. The JP Morgans and Howard Stanleys got away scott free and in the case of Morgan, Jr., he tried to do everything in his power to torpedo the New Deal.

[merrily]

88. Bring charges against a President for signing a bill? Good luck with that.

Where on earth did you get the idea that someone could bring criminal charges against a President for signing a bill passed by Congress without being laughed out of court? Or that you cannot charge anyone with anything unless you trump up charges against a former President? For Clinton to have urged passage of Gramm, Leach, Blilely was disgraceful, but not criminal.

It's also laughable that you claim FDR had the "luxury" of taking over during the Dust Bowl and after the crash of 1929, with no blueprint in U.S. history for dealing with anything like that---and with Hitler gathering strength. See also, Reply 91.

[craigmatic]

285. Clinton set the environment and the results happened years later.

He did it because the bankers paid or bribed the politicians to do it in the 90's. PBS did a documentary on this called the woman who predicted the crash. I think her name was Brooksley Borne. Hell even when Clinton signed the law there was a bailout Larry Summers had to arrange because of the all the bad investing going on but it was kept quiet at the time so Clinton knew this would happen again because it had happened on his watch.
By the time FDR took office in March of 1933 people had had 4 years of Hoover to blame for the mess but with Obama the crisis was in Sept/October of 2008 and Obama took office in January of 2009 that's just 5 months. That's a quick turnover with alot of overlap of policy. Plus FDR didn't to deal with the 24 hour news cycle and back then people were smart enough to put the blame where it actually belonged

[merrily]

341. I challenged your claims about criminal charges against Clinton, though.

Nothing in your reply says that Clinton can be criminally prosecuted, let alone that he must be criminally prosecuted or no one can be. Your claim about that was wrong on both counts and nothing in your reply changes that..

As far as your claim that FDR had some alleged "luxury" while Obama's job was tougher, I already responded to that and your reply neither supports your claim nor addresses what I said in my post. It was and remains a laughable claim.

[HooptieWagon]

154. FDR adopted many of Hoover's policies.

He did increase them, which proved effective to a degree. Then in the later 30s, FDR tried to rein in govt spending and the US economy went into a recession.
So, the previous administration's ideology wasn't "totally discredited". It was improved on. And FDR cut govt spending too soon, before the economy had fully recovered. So he repeated some of the mistakes made by previous administration.

[MannyGoldstein]

230. Which policies were those?

I know in the case of stoping the bank run, he did use policies from Hoover's advisors - but they were recommendations that Hoover had totally ignored.

IIRC, Hoover was all about austerity, the importance of lowering spending to fix the disastrous economy (sound familiar?) FDR tried that in 1937 and it went badly.

[HooptieWagon]

249. Partial list.

Federal Emergency Relief Administration
Reconstruction Finance Corporation
Federal Farm Board, which FDR incorporated as the Agriculture Adjustment Act.
Revenue Act, which raised individual top tax rates from 25-63%, doubled Corporate Rates, and closed loopholes.
Glass-Steagall Act.
Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Bill, which didn't work but FDR hung on to it for a bit.
Troop withdrawals from Nicaragua and Haiti were the genesis of FDR's Good Neighbor Policy.
Public works spending, including the Federal Buildings Program, Division of Public Construction, and Hoover Dam.

Lets have a quote from Rexford Tugwell, an economist from Colombia University and one of FDR's chief economic advisors: "Practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs Hoover started".

My own thoughts... Probably inaccurrate to say Hoover favored austerity. His own beliefs were Leissez Faire, but as the depressioned deepened he set his own beliefs aside and stepped up spending and increased taxes. He was unpopular at the time... perhaps partly due to the depression occuring during his watch (although only 8 months in, so he was hardly to blame), partly due to lack of immediate improvement (it took FDR another couple years for improvement, which he put back into recession by budget trimming too early), and last but probably not least, Hoover rather strictly enforced Prohibition, which might have been where much of his unpopularity stemmed from. Note, Truman brought Hoover into his administration as an advisor, and to head the Hoover Commission.

In short, Hoover doesn't belong among the nation's best presidents, but he doesn't belong among the worst where he's sometimes included.

[MannyGoldstein]

258. Thanks, very interesting

You might be interested in the following:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/05/hoover-on-austerity-to-balance-the-budget-and-defend-the-dollar-in-1932.html

[cali]

2. Excellent analysis by Frank- as usual. Thanks for posting it.

[woo me with science]

3. K&R Except that "ineffective" and "gutless" are the wrong characterization of this presidency.

Better words would be "manipulative" and "corporate-backed."

[elehhhhna]

30. and "full of it"

he's doing what he's supposed to do and we'll se him and his entire family rewarded richly, when he leaves office.

[woo me with science]

108. [phone]

[merrily]

175. Bingo. Calling someone ineffective requires an assumption about what that person

(or that political party) was attempting to effect.

Apparently, many Democratic voters would rather believe that Democratic politicians are continually being outsmarted, "outbraved" and out-maneuvered by Republicans, while at the same time insisting that Republicans are stupid chickenshits, than believe that Democratic politicians are doing pretty much what they really want to do.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

184. That's why I couldn't rec this.

It implies one thing with the title, and then refutes it with the rest of the article.

The President is neither gutless nor ineffective. He and his financial team were incredibly effective at stabilizing a system that keeps the wealth flowing ever upwards, at the pivotal moment in time where, had we not had a team of Goldman Sachs alumni put at the helm of charting our economic course, there was a window for drastic reform due to the nigh catastrophic failure of the system. Congress needed to do something drastic to keep the rich from being as devastated as the rest of us, and it was at that time that choices could have been made that would have helped Main Street as much or even more than Wall Street. But once again, another administration turned to the very people who helped create the bubbles that drove the system to the edge of disaster, and allowed them to craft a path that instead merely backed away from the cliff, but held true to the same general principles of 'trickle down'.

[merrily]

213. IMO, the choices were evident before Obama took office.

With the two most important issues facing him on election day being the economy and wars, he nominated Geithner, head of the New York Fed, and Gates, plus some of the same economic advisors Clinton had when Clinton urged Democrats to pass Gramm, Leach, Bliley. Talk about dies having been cast.

And later, he nominated Bernanke for another term.

As far as reccing, I never know what to do. I tend to recommend if I think the thread deserved visibility, not necessarily because I agree with the OP. Yet, reccing is one of the things used against posters. So, it's confusing to me.

[Maedhros]

319. He's been very, very effective in making sure that Corporate America recovered

quickly from the 2008 crash.

Ordinary Americans? Not so much.

[progressoid]

343. Yup. n/t

[Maedhros]

365. This chart explains a lot:

[trumad]

4. Considering the shit pile he was left with...

and the shit bird republicans in Congress... Obama has done well.

Some live in this fantasy world and think Obama could have done more. Perhaps---

but God Damn, give the man some credit.

[cantbeserious]

6. I Could Not Disagree More With This Prevailing DU Sentiment - O Is An Appeaser For The 1%

Same as HRC and many other leaders in the Democratic Party.

All proven by their actions that favor and perpetuate the 1%.

[tymorial]

96. I always found Obama's support of the OWS movement a tad intellectually dishonest

He received at least 28 million for his 2008 campaign. During his re-election, he didn't come near that number but I recall reading a figure cited on multiple sources that he received 14 million by 2011. For me it is kind of like his comments about the NSA after Snowden started releasing his information through The Guardian. Obama clearly knew what was going on at the NSA but when the news was leaked he stated that he always had a problem and that now we can have a national dialogue. The simple fact is he could have created that dialogue. He had a united house between 2008 and 20010. Something could have been done.

[merrily]

178. What support? Homeland Security was part of his administration.

For the most part, it was Democratic mayors who were landing peaceful demonstrators in the hospital and causing police to rouse them in the middle of the night and to seize and dispose of their personal property.

[merrily]

115. I am not at all sure that it is the prevailing DU sentiment.

I think many would disagree with the Obama apologists. And, of those who do agree, I suspect at least some don't believe even their own posts.

[randys1]

132. Let's say you are right, just for the sake of argument

voting for all Dems this November to prevent a republican takeover?

are you?

[cantbeserious]

137. I Vote For Least Of The Offered Evils

Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)

eom

[merrily]

159. "Least." More than two options are offered. So, the correct word is

"least" of the offered evils, not "lesser." And, of course, whether one is indeed voting for the least of the evils or, in reality, for the worst of the offered evils is a very subjective assessment. Most people want to pretend there is nothing debatable about their opinion, but it is debatable. Not necessarily at DU, though, where the TOS prohibit that debate. But, it is debatable.

[randys1]

161. cool...it is like Dave Marsh said:

"I work tirelessly all day everyday in one way or another to effect real change starting at the local level, and once a year or two years I take 5 mins out of my day to vote AGAINST all republicans so there is a country to still fight for"

something like that...not word for word



(Dave Marsh is a famous Rolling Stone critic, activist)

[PatrickforO]

326. Yep.

Because think of the alternative. Yeah, the Dems are corrupt and nearly worthless, but the Republicans seem to be either fanatical religious nuts or people who sing, 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!"

Seriously. Keep the whack jobs OUT of office.

[cali]

7. please tell me what the TPP- and it is absoluteiy his, his fracking policies and

opening the eastern seaboard to gas and oil exploration have to do with the shit pile he was left or Congress.

[trumad]

37. Cali---

You live in a Utopian world.

I sincerely appreciate you aiming for that world. I do.

But it ain't gonna happen...

Question to you.

How do we get to perfection?

[cali]

42. c'mon, tru. Even assuming I "live in a Utopian world", my questions

were about things the President does have great control over. You didn't answer.

And I have no illusions about getting to perfection. Candide I ain't.

[trumad]

92. ah the give and take of the Presidential world.

Give a little here. ..get a little there.

I would love to see a President Cali for two terms. I'd love to see what you would do if sitting in that Oval office.

I think you would be here posting Ops blasting President Cali for compromising with the devil.

[cui bono]

268. You are still avoiding cali's question about the TPP...

No excuses for that is there? And that's just one issue/policy.

[trumad]

283. TPP?

Did not know it was enacted. Let's talk when it is.

[sabrina 1]

313. You mean let's talk when it's too late. THIS is the time to stop it, 'when it is' enacted is way

too late. We didn't challenge Clinton on some of his policies, we waited until it was done, too late. And once it's done it can't be undone. Welfare Reform, as they called, was supposed to be 'fixed' when Dems became outraged. All these years later that fairy tale hasn't happened, no one even dares to bring it up in Congress.

No thanks, as soon as we see the warning signs, on the TPP on SS on War, THAT is the time to let them know 'don't even think about it'. See, they ARE thinking about it, and they, Dems should not even be doing that. It's already late, but not TOO late, yet.

[delrem]

314. I don't think you'll be open to an honest conversation about it, when it is.

I think you're hitting cali with marshmallows.

[cui bono]

334. Avoiding again... Why is Obama trying to get it, and get it secretly? The GOP isn't making him do it

And by your logic there's no reason to ever work against anything to stop it. But thanks for giving me a post that makes my point in another discussion I was having, it's a perfect example that he wanted me to find for him.

[mopinko]

51. perhaps the lesson is for a president not to aim for a utopian world.

most people get that it is just a point out in the ether we will never get to.
some will think that they have bought a first class ticket.

right there with you, tru. i do not see a way for the man to have done more.
and srsly, i think he may have even done ENOUGH for one man.

[trumad]

100. I am stunned at what has happened over the last two terms of Obama.

The list is long...very long with his accomplishments. And again with the biggest do nothing Congress in the history of the Republic.

I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.

That's just me.

[mopinko]

190. you, me, and

most of the rest of the reality based universe.

you think this is fun, try telling people about the things that rahm has accomplished in chicago, also shoveling up a huge mess. but he has found a WHOLE bunch of ways to make the city better, greener, healthier, most with little or no money.
yeah, it got me voted off the board of my local dem party. srsly.
well, ok, it was about charters schools, about which i have a lot to say.

derangement. fud.

[stevenleser]

216. Given the opposition, I am surprised he has accomplished what he has.

I think the OP is 100% wrong. I think future generations will look at this period and wonder what was wrong with Republicans that they responded to one of the worst economic crises in American history by spending the entire time attacking the President.

That is going to be history's judgement.

[cui bono]

269. It doesn't have to be either/or. Both party leaders failed us in these difficult times

for different reasons. Or rather by different methods, I believe the reasons are the same, that they are beholden to the 1%.

[stevenleser]

273. It's either or. Country had a massive crisis, only one side tried to fix it. That's either or. nt

[cui bono]

335. Would that it were so black and white. But I see now why you don't think Obama should ever

be criticized. When one sees the world in black and white terms it's difficult to believe that one party is not all good. But thinking like that is a danger to democracy. Democracy depends on the people to speak out when the government is not working for them. It depends on principle over party line. Sadly politics in this country has turned into a simple team sport and the people are worse off because of it.

[merrily]

124. Except that the choice was never between perfection (or a pony) and what Obama delivered.

The continual implication that people who expected more of Obama are unrealistic is as insulting and condescending as it is utterly false and ineffective.

I just watched an episode of House of Cards in which the criminal Vice President's wife explains to a victim of military rape that she (the VP's wife) was backing away from a strong bill on rape by members of the military. The explanation was that current politics did not permit a strong bill, after all. (The reality was that the villainous V had in motion a plot to become President and needed the support of the majority whip, who opposed the bill.)

The rape victim replied, "The reason so many hate Washington, D.C. is people like you, saying things like that."

So-called "pragmatic progressives" may want to think about that reply the next time they accuse the rest of us of expecting perfection.

[trumad]

131. Oh horse fucking shit.

So pragmatism is not good....is that what you are telling me.

Pragmatism gets things done...

[merrily]

147. "Horse fucking shit" is a good comment on your total mischaracterization

of my post.

[trumad]

192. "So-called "pragmatic progressives"

So-called?

I'm pragmatic and a Progressive. What---you saying I'm not?

[merrily]

196. I said you mischaracterized my post. Did again, too.

[trumad]

200. OK...

Not sure what so-called means? Can you explain.

[merrily]

218. That seems to me like an authentic invitation to discuss.

I hope I am correct.

I say so called, because when "pragmatic progressive" is invoked it is usually used in an attempt to accomplish at least two things. One is to imply that Obama did all he could possibly have done, under the circumstances. That, realistically speaking, no one could possibly have done better. The other is to imply that the critic of Obama is an unrealistic dreamer and therefore to dismiss what they have to say. I have already posted some of what I think of the latter implication. And I disagree with the first. And that is why I don't have a lot of respect for the "pragmatic progressive" label, the flip side of which is usually that I live in La La Land and Obama is the berries, without really wanting discussion of either premise.

I am more aligned with the view of the cartoonist that pokes fun at the pragmatic progressive label.

[trumad]

221. Well then your version of pragmatic is different that mine

Ya see---I think pragmatism is a strength, not a weakness.

I think Obama is a pragmatist.

BUT---hey--- we pragmatists live in La La land so what do we know.

[merrily]

224. No, you did not ask me if pragmatism were a good thing.

So, I never addressed that issue, pro or con.

You asked me why I had used "so-called" as a modifier for the term "pragmatic progressive." So, that was the question I answered.

That is a very different issue from whether pragmatism in the abstract is a good thing.

[delrem]

315. merrily, these people didn't say *anything* substantive.

It was by-the-numbers spin, in an attempt to exonerate "the status quo".

As if the President of the USA was impotent.

It's just fucking unbelievable. ...

[merrily]

342. I don't necessarily disagree, but shouldn't you be telling them?

[2banon]

153. Excellent points..

[merrily]

155. Thank you.

[woo me with science]

166. Hear, hear!

[Armstead]

244. The goal isn't perfection -- It's more a matter of not undermining goals

We already have one conservative political party that relentlessly defends and advances the rights and power of the wealthy and powerful.

In order to at least have a balance in the give-and-take it is necessary for the otehr party the Democrats, to be fighting just as relentlessly for the larger public benefit and policies that do not undermine the interests of the majority.

[pa28]

252. The TPP is a policy objective. Not an incidental flaw in an imperfect world.

No Republican forced him into the deal and it wasn't necessary as part of a larger compromise. It's a top priority for his second term.

90% of American workers will see a pay cut as a result and it's all a matter of choice by a Democratic president.

Opposing bad policy does not make you a dreamy utopian.


http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

[delrem]

316. The TPP is entirely Obama, and it will be entirely HRC if she's elected.

Anyone who says differently is lying.

[JEB]

290. By taking the first obvious steps in that direction.

Capitulation to corporate power is not some sad reality that must be accepted.

[Maedhros]

322. Cali is not asking for "perfection."

She's asking for a Democratic President to stop supporting horrible trade agreements and energy policies that destroy the environment.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. There is no TPP that has been enacted.

Just like NO chained-CPI has ever gone into effect nor is Larry Summers heading up the Fed nor are bombs flying in Syria nor did the Bush tax cuts remain in place. Continually ignoring reality by painting a picture of a fantasy dystopian U.S. that is claimed to be "real", is tiresome.

Unfortunately in the U.S., as long as people drive cars, ride buses, and use electricity or heat, there is still a need for oil and gas. There is currently no wholesale alternate-for-fossil fuels system in place to maintain the power or transportation infrastructure as it stands now. There cannot be enough solar, wind, or water-driven assets put into place in the immediate future (let alone creation of the rest of the infrastructure to distribute that) to suddenly dismiss any effort to bridge the gap to non-fossil fuel energy independence. It will take decades and is do-able, but in the meantime, the current demands must still be met.

[trumad]

103. Bingo.

I guess the Utopian world requires predicting a future of bad things and imagining they didn't exist.

Confusing.

[BumRushDaShow]

114. In one respect, such a worldview

is aimed at shocking people out of complacency in order to move a juggernaut forward to a more utopian goal. However when one continues to paint a picture of what they think might happen, and do that so many times that they start to believe that this imagery is actually "reality", then that is when it is time for them to step away. We saw enough of that bubble-world nonsense with Fox, the GOP, Rove, and Dick Morris... to the point that they really believed the bullshit that they spewed.

[trumad]

123. I think it's easy to preach from the keyboard.

Happens here everyday. Hell I do it.

I've been around a long time and seen all kinds of crazy shit. Hence my pragmatic view on things.

I get activism and I get people expressing activism on the net.

What I don't get is the lack of pragmatism from some here who blast Obama on a daily basis.

[BumRushDaShow]

133. Exactly

Activism is always needed but the activists need a strategist to have practical plans "ready" if suddenly they are handed the opportunity, and sadly, so few do have such. You see this in other countries where you almost have folks who are "professional protesters" hurling epithets along the side of the road, but then when suddenly given the reigns of power, they stumble because they never put together any phased plans to execute their vision.

As a case in point, I think about what Jerry Brown did in California to bring the state out of the nightmare of inequality and massive debt that was left in the wake of Arnie's GOPization of the state. Brown (with the fortunate assistance of a super-majority legislature) was able to systematically re-engineer the state back to solvency and a better quality of life - all in support of people and not corporations. But that took alot of planning, alot of pain, alot of hurt feelings, and time.... but it was done.

[hfojvt]

135. "nor did the Bush tax cuts remain in place"

What a load of nonsense.

In fact, 85% of the Bush tax cuts are permanent now.

In fact, most of the benefits of those permanent tax cuts goto the rich. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

Oh, sure, as you said elsewhere "nothing is permanent" but the fact that Democratic politicians lacked the guts or the integrity to kill those fucking tax cuts for the rich when they were SET TO AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE, and they did it TWICE. That means that yeah, these tax cuts are gonna be about as hard to move as the Rock of Gibraltar.

[BumRushDaShow]

152. Here we go again

The "tax cuts" that were finalized in 2012 were [font size="4"] targeted to people who were NOT the "1%"[/font]. I.e., anyone making under $450K which, is 99% of the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/senate-tax-deal-fiscal-cliff.html?_r=0

From the article -

Under the agreement, tax rates would jump to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for individual incomes over $400,000 and couples over $450,000, while tax deductions and credits would start phasing out on incomes as low as $250,000, a clear victory for President Obama, who ran for re-election vowing to impose taxes on the wealthy.

What needs to happen NOW is to close the tax loopholes for the wealthy, get rid of subsidizing the wealthy corporations like ExxonMobil, and get rid of rewarding companies for jumping overseas and taking jobs with them. THAT is what is going to take some real effort and a Congress willing to do it.

[hfojvt]

177. sure they were

and yet, somehow, the richest 1% got 18% of the tax cuts.

Whereas the poorest 40% - got just 10% of the tax cuts.

But hey, the top 5%, they aren't rich at all either are they? Thank God for OWS and their moronically stupid "1%" meme. It allows the top 4% to get another 18% of the tax cuts.

36% tax cuts for the top 5%
19% tax cuts for the bottom 60%.

Smells like Reaganomics to me.

And that does not even take into account the fact that when tax cuts for the rich were made permanent, the accursed payroll tax was allowed to expire. (also included in the link). http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

And when taxes are cut for "income under $450,000" guess who gets most of the benefits?

Hint: it's not people making $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 or less (the majority of the United States).

[BumRushDaShow]

180. So you cite a report by a lobbying group that enabled Raygun's tax policy

for corporate and domestic tax rates to make your argument?

Really? And then you don't see that group as actually being the ones that Stockman and Regan used to create the DEPTH and BREADTH of "Reagonomics"?

How about this - take a look at the tax tables and see what income level starts actually paying federal income taxes. And then see what deductions are permitted for those folks in addition. Then add on the fact that Congress needs to close some major loopholes, and then get back to me.

[hfojvt]

185. you wanna talk about loopholes

while you sit there and defend the loophole that Obama made permanent? - the favorable treatment of dividend income?

I've already spent tons of time looking at tax statistics. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/169

And impugning the ancient history of a "lobbying group" is not much of an answer to their statistics. You mean they only complained about the Bush tax cuts being made permanent because they support Reaganomics?

Based on the logic and rhetoric and data of both groups, I trust CTJ far more than I trust the Obama administration.

Obama administration says this "permanent tax cuts for the rich (that is, making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent) are a tax increase compared to making 100% of the Bush tax cuts permanent".

Which is pure spin, because making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent is a TAX cut compared to making 0% of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Simple question - WHO gets most of the benefits from making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent?

Obama won't tell you. CTJ will.

[BumRushDaShow]

209. I am not defending ANY loophole

you continue to go down a road of insisting that something didn't happen that did happen. And then you try to wriggle out of the fact that CTJ is a lobbying group that operates in its own interest. This from a group whose leader used to work for Nader.

And then you start talking about "ancient history" yet they were the architects of the mess we are trying to get out of right now.

And then you continue to obfuscate with the statement "making 85% of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent" by associating this with cuts only for the wealthy and this is why you lose all credibility.

If you are getting this out of CTJ, then CTJ is has sold you a bill of goods or you are blinded by data that you are unable to comprehend.

What people need to do is support the Senate's attempt at getting to the loopholes and expanding credits for the working poor -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/us-usa-fiscal-tax-idUSBREA2P1LZ20140326

Closing loopholes will further increase the taxes on those who can proportionally pay more - the top income brackets. Are you for that or are you just for tossing grenades?

[creeksneakers2]

264. Obama sought a better deal

He continues to try to close corporate loopholes. The GOP won't let him. That's not Obama's fault.

[Armstead]

246. TPP will be in place. As for Energy Alternatives...

People first realized the need for that in the 1970's.

It's not like we suddenly decided two years ago that our dependence on oil has some disadvantages. On the contrary, there was a national consensus on that -- which only really eroded after Bushco took over.

The fact tat we are not much farther along has a lo of culprits, including the piggy GOP and their corporate masters. But the Democrats also have to share in the blame for not pursuing and supporting that national goal more aggressively and consistently over the past three decades.

[BumRushDaShow]

250. "TPP will be in place"

"Chained CPI WILL happen".
"Larry Summers WILL be Chairman of the Federal Reserve"
"The U.S. WILL bomb Syria"
"Obama WILL cave and keep the government open"

How many more of these faulty prognostications must we see before folks just give it up?

Some sort of trade agreement with the Pacific Rim may (and probably should) happen in the future, but to continue to insist that it's already been approved in its current form by the Senate, was signed by the President, and is already in place, begs for folks to come out of the alternate universe.

Continuing to point to "corporate masters" as the nefarious boogieman works only so much. Is there too much corporate control of the agenda in this country? HELL yes. But oddly enough, there is a hierarchy among that group where the tippy top of the top want to keep what they have and not have something or someone (like the Kochs) torpedo it by idiotic ideological crusades.

As an FYI - You do know that the Senate must ratify any trade agreement or treaty and Harry Reid is not about to do it, right?

[Armstead]

333. One reason those didn't happen is because people complained

Political pressure made bad things Obama has proposed too toxic to proceed.

If people had not "whined" and complained and warned about worst case scenerios, Sunners would be in that position, Obama may well have bombed Syria, etc.

Did you put dismiss the people who complained about those things too?

You are applying a double standard. If we all just shut up and did a perpetual empty headed happy dance things would be worse, not better.

[BumRushDaShow]

338. Um, okay

You miss that there is a problem with the strategy - where there are prolific DU arguments that instead of protesting a policy, make it personal against the President.

So rather than petition the President with well-reasoned dissent or approval, with justifications for or against a policy position, it becomes "Obama is nothing but a corporatist warmonger beholden to Wall Street and the MIC!!!1!!!11!!". And when this is brought up, the reflexive response is "I'm being told to 'shut up'!!!!11!1!".

IMHO, the overuse of hyperbolic language as dissent and insistence that this purportedly "changed policy", is just silly and loses all credibility. The non-stop drumbeat by folks insisting that a particular disliked policy was already in place, illustrated the disconnect with reality.

Around my spot, we call that being "loud and wrong".

[Armstead]

355. It works bith ways. Over the years....

...I have written many reasonable, non-inflammatory posts abut issues, that may be critical of a policy, but do not get personal about politicians at all.

They tend to sink like stones.

In the otehr hand, when I write posts tat are more, er, angry about politicians and what they're doing, they get many responses. Often the criticisms are not about defending specifics of those issues or policies, but "How can you attack our President like that?" or being accused of "Obama Derangement Syndrome" or something, without any reasoned defense of those policies.

[BumRushDaShow]

360. I have no problem with reasoned critique

Many of us feel the same way about some policy positions that have been offered - loss of 4th amendment rights, outsourcing, bankster loopholes not closed (including crap where a hedge fund manager was able to accept no salary but collected a "fee" (e.g, 10% of the value) for managing multi-billion dollar funds, and then only needed to pay 15% on that as a "capital gains" tax vs as wage income, etc).

But when you have someone report a "successful" policy that has been enacted (e.g., the demise of DADT and the soon-to-be demise of DOMA) that is part of the liberal agenda - in comes the brigade to not only refuse to acknowledge that breakthrough, but to denigrate the OP, hurl epithets, and proceede to blindly argue from a frame of reference that I refuse to accept - that all of the things they rail against that are bad policy, are "already approved and in place".... because they said so.

I don't have time for that type of other-worldly nonsense.

[Armstead]

368. That's a fair point

I'll agree that what you described isn't good. Just as in any group, some critics can behave like jackasses.

I do think cynicsm about bad policies that are proposed (or being undertaken in secret) is justified however. I ionly wish that there had been more criticism when some of the sins of the past were committed.

[Cosmocat]

62. I would add, completely worthless democrats in congress

I swear Christ, the man gets beaten up to hell everywhere else, hard to stand this kind of fantastical he could have done more shit here.

We can count on ONE hand, literally ONE hand, the number of democrats in congress who fight courageously for good, progressive policy. EVERY stinking republican in congress, every single one of them to a man and woman, in fear of their elected positions, have to have absolutely 100 percent hatred of the man and 95% of democrats cower in a corner scared of their shadows.

WTF is he supposed to do?

[trumad]

109. Here's what I think about Obama..

I think he wishes he could have a Utopian world. I thinks he's that kind of human being.

But he's a smart pragmatic man.

He simply can't have that world with what has been handed to him. A do nothing Congress and 50 percent of the country that doesn't give a shit.

So...He works with what he can work with.

[Cosmocat]

195. SPOT ON

If he had a party that handed him solid progressive legislation he would happily sign it.

He knew all along how the health care law was going to break ... But, somehow, people want to gin themselves up to think that if he just FOUGHT FOR IT, we would have universal coverage of a public option today ... Like republicans would have voted for it or democrats would have grown a spine ...

[freshwest]

275. +1

[certainot]

323. but the idea that he wishes for a utopian world is a rw meme and it's playing out

well here.

from the week he took office it was limbaugh and sons who repeatedly claimed obama claimed to be the messiah. he claimed to be the messiah and he can't get ANYTHING passed. they still call him that every day. and so many on the left here repeat the same BS.

[Cosmocat]

340. That is what gets my hackles up here

Your post is one, the other is how republicans run around screaming every time someone acts like a jackass somewhere else in the world, it is because OBAMA IS WEAK! He does not talk tough enough!

Which is what you get a lot here with this thing where "We would have had a public option if only he fought for it!"

[certainot]

318. vote, blog, whine- that's the policy for too many on the left

i wouldn't be so hard on the dem reps- they're getting attacked all day from 1000 radio stations and the left has little sense of what those radio stations are doing to their candidates- dems are not getting their reps back.

[redqueen]

119. Have you forgotten where you are? nt

[steve2470]

259. agreed

For some perspective, let me share this, that I ran into last night:

At neither end of the ideological spectrum did respect for civility of discourse restrain the Roosevelt-haters. The Communist leader Earl Browder said that FDR was "carrying out more thoroughly and brutally than even Hoover the capitalist attack against the masses," and the domestic fascist William Dudley Pelley called the President the "lowest form of human worm - according to Gentile standards." One critic accused him of "blathering platitudes like a parson on vacation." and another wrote to him savagely, "If you were a good honest man, Jesus Christ would not have crippled you." It was in a formal address to the Chicago Bar Association, not in a harangue to an extremist rally, that a United States Senator from Minnesota did not hesitate to liken Roosevelt to the beast of the Apocalypse," "who set his slimy mark on everything."[4]

Roosevelt, his critics maintained, had shown himself to be a man without principles. Herbert Hoover called him a "chameleon on plaid," while H. L. Mencken said, "If he became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he so sorely needs, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House backyard come Wednesday." The Sage of Baltimore declared, "I am advocating making him king in order that we may behead him in case he goes too far beyond the limits of the endurable."[5]

A good number of historians as well have found fault with FDR. New Left writers have chided him for offering a "profoundly conservative" response to a situation that had the potential for revolutionary change, while commentators of no particular persuasion have criticized him for failing to bring the country out of the Depression short of war, for maneuvering America into World War II (or for not taking the nation to war soon enough, for refusing to advocate civil rights legislation, for permitting Jews to perish in Hitler's death camps, and for sanctioning the internment of Japanese-Americans. Even a historian who thought well of him, Allan Nevins, wrote that "his mind, compared with that of Woodrow Wilson, sometimes appears superficial, and...he possessed no such intellectual versatility as Thomas Jefferson - to say nothing of Winston Churchill." Nevins added: "In respect to character, similarly, he had traits of an admirable kind; but...even in combination they fell short of a truly Roman weight of virtue."[6]

Roosevelt has been castigated especially for his inability to develop any grand design. Most great leaders have had an idea they wanted to impose, noted a contemporary critic, "whereas Roosevelt, if he has one, has successfully concealed it." Similarly, the political scientist C. Herman Pritchett later concluded that the New Deal never produced "any consistent social and economic philosophy to give meaning and purpose to its various action programs." He added,

more at this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fdryears.htm

[cantbeserious]

5. Seems Fitting - "fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again" - GWB

All too true given that O has fooled the left twice in a row.

[Teamster Jeff]

8. Kick & Rec

[randome]

9. An ineffective and gutless OP.

Unimaginative. Short-sighted. Narrow-minded. Whiny.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[cantbeserious]

10. Your Opinion Only - Others Would Disagree

eom

[cali]

14. elaborate. Use of language is certainly not poor or unimaginative.

How is it short sighted? What specifically do you disagree with. Your post comes off on as the whiny one as you don't specify.... anything. It appears you simply object to the criticism of the President.

[randome]

19. 'Ineffective and gutless' is overarching hyperbole, not nuanced analysis.

So I offered more of the same.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

26. you may believe you offered more of the same but you forgot to actually

do any analysis or exposition- Franks did. Yes, he used strong, maybe over the top language but that's a tiny bit of what he did in that article. Comparing your posts in this thread to his article is just silly, silly, silly.

[woo me with science]

111. Sure, if you conveniently ignore

the content of the article...

...and reality.

[randome]

136. There's no content there.

He talks about Democrats needing to do more and somehow it's Obama's fault. He compliments himself on his 'poetry' and ascribes motives to a Presidential Library that doesn't even exist. He doesn't suggest a damned thing except that he's unhappy.

Where's the content?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

149. The saddest Third Way tactic of all: feigned inability to process a clearly written argument

in the context of history we all know, because we have been here the whole time. It's a sad, sad strategy to keep demanding "content," when the "content" is part of our everyday lives *and* when it has nevertheless been put in front of you repeatedly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5266049

[randome]

203. You were the one who said there was content in the OP.

But are seemingly unable to identify it or refute my point. Take your childish name-calling and go for a walk or something.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalLovinLug]

308. Maybe its hard to identify a point that hasn't been made.

Your misguided coles note of Franks article reduced to that he's an unhappy arrogant poet? What does your personal opinion of how Franks feels about himself have to do with any of the content he writes about?

[randome]

348. There. Is. No. Content.

It's an opinion piece without substance. Franks is just whining.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalLovinLug]

353. You.Just.Refuse.To.See.Any

Yes its an opinion piece

No it is not without substance. At least to a good many DUers.

[LiberalLovinLug]

307. +++

spot on

[MohRokTah]

20. +1,000,000,000,000

:thumbs up:

[cantbeserious]

25. Your Opinion Only - Others Would Disagree

eom

[MohRokTah]

28. Others would be wrong. eom

[cantbeserious]

31. Your Opinion Only - Others Would Disagree

eom

[MohRokTah]

36. I know I am but what are you? eom

[cantbeserious]

41. NonSensical Post

eom

[MohRokTah]

45. How does one become a NonSensical Post? eom

[cantbeserious]

48. By Asking Questions That Make No Sense

eom

[MohRokTah]

49. Give me some examples

I'm really interested in discovering how you became a NonSensical Post.

[cantbeserious]

53. Yours Is The NonSensical Post - See Link Below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5265718

[MohRokTah]

66. I know I am, but what are you?

You said "NonSensical Post"

[cantbeserious]

67. You Are What?

eom

[MohRokTah]

72. Asking what you are. eom

[cantbeserious]

74. What I Am Is Irrelevant To The OP

eom

[MohRokTah]

78. I could see how being a NonSensical Post would be irrelevant to the OP. eom

[cantbeserious]

99. Yours Was The NonSensical Post And Irrelevant To The OP

eom

[MohRokTah]

104. You are the NonSensical Post And Irrelevant To The OP

You said so yourself.

[cantbeserious]

106. My Response Was To Your NonSensical Post - Review The Record

eom

[MohRokTah]

120. You responded to my question by claiming to be a NonSensical Post - Review The Record

eom

[cantbeserious]

128. I Responded To Your Question As Being NonSensical - Review The Record

eom

[MohRokTah]

129. My Question, "what are you?"

Your response, "NonSensical Post"

Record reviewed. You claimed to be a NonSensical Post.

[cantbeserious]

233. Your Question NonSensical - Review The Record

eom

[MohRokTah]

238. You claimed to be a NonSensical Post - Review the Record. eom

[cantbeserious]

239. Your Assertion - Claim Made That Your Posts Are NonSensical

eom

[MohRokTah]

240. Me: "what are you?" You: "NonSensical Post"

You answered my question. Review the Record.

[cantbeserious]

247. You - NonSensical Post - Great That You Finally Agree

eom

[NealK]

295. What a childish subthread.

SMH.

[Mojorabbit]

251. Great attempt to disrupt the discussion. nt

[L0oniX]

165. Others have already figured this person out...

and won't bother to respond to em.

[cantbeserious]

234. Thanks For The Confirmation And Insight

eom

[woo me with science]

22. Nonsense, but your empty, defensive, namecalling response is predictable. nt

[L0oniX]

160. The enemy is easier to see these days.

[randome]

205. You will never be my enemy even if you want to believe I'm yours.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[MohRokTah]

242. You're a better person than I am. eom

[Rex]

255. They are more desperate than ever.

And it shows.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Agreed. I'm giving you a thumbs up, then hiding this stupidity

[heaven05]

11. all on here damning Obama

Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

and his lack of response to republican obstructionism, forget that this political system is larger than any man. It's bought off by the banks and corporations, long before Obama, and with the corporations having SCOTUS in their back pocket, it's a done deal. You can damn the man, but you don't/won't acknowledge the real truth that is fact here. The system is broken and totally corrupted by MONEY. Obama is, as any POTUS will be, HRC included, up against forces not acknowledged by you deniers. Some in the Oval office welcome the corruption, some don't. But all cannot beat it. All of you who are piling on, you're hilarious. Please proceed, you provide much comic relief.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Your defense is a damnation. You claim the office is inherently corrupt and obviously so, comically

so. If that is the case, any person who would put great effort into gaining that office would be inherently corrupt themselves. To pursue that end at the cost of millions indicates a desire to hold a corrupted office so intense that the word 'obsession' comes to mind.

[heaven05]

83. it's the top prize

Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)

of a money corrupted system. Any person with basic common sense today acknowledges that FACT. The cost of millions to gain that office is easily offset with the fees, funds, money inherent in this political system. I never hear of an ex-POTUS having to file for bankruptcy to pay off the bills of them running for that high office? I did not say the person striving for the office is initially corrupt. When that person gains that office, it stands to reason that because of the corruption inherent in this political system because of corporate and banking influence money, the person occupying the Oval Office is forced to make decisions based on that influence of money. This systemic corruption has been exhibited by the money corrupted RW for the last 6 years along with the obviously transparent reason(s). The right wing faction(s) is/are not the only money corrupted party of this country either. Obsession is probably an apt description of the desire one must have to want to gain that high office along with a few other descriptive psychological reasons/terms of what is behind the desire needed to want to be a 'leader' of any country.

[L0oniX]

174. There will be laughing at your capitulation to the over lords....

and the over lords will also be laughing at it.

[heaven05]

236. oh no!!!!!

not the overlords!!!!!??????

[Botany]

13. Please!

"An ineffective and gutless presidency’s legacy." We added 288,000 jobs in June
and showed a surplus too.

Obama has done and is still doing a very good job.

[cali]

15. What in the article do you disagree with? Specifically.

[Botany]

208. Only read the headline and the posted part and it struck me as a "hit piece" that isn't based ....

.... in reality.

"The Age of the Zombie Consensus, however poetic it sounds, will probably not recommend
itself as a catchphrase to the shapers of the Obama legacy." =

[randome]

210. He reviews himself and finds that he's written sheer poetry. What a guy!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

16. For the bankers. nt

[Botany]

207. Yes, the banksters did not get hit like they should have been but do you want to go back to ....

.... dropping 800,000 jobs per month with the economy in contraction?

[woo me with science]

212. It was a *restructuring,* not a recovery.

Full-time jobs with benefits are being replaced by shit, part-time work, and that has been the plan of this neoliberal/corporate/Republican agenda all along.

The jobs that have been created in this "recovery" are mostly low-pay service jobs. The truth is that it was not a recovery. It was a restructuring to benefit the One Percent.

April 28, 2014: Most Of The Jobs Added Since The Recession Pay Low Wages
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/28/3431351/recovery-jobs-low-wage/

Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html?_r=0

Low-wage jobs proliferate as middle class ones disappear: job growth patterns since the recession
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/low-wage_jobs_proliferate_as_m.html

Low-Wage Jobs Replace Middle-Income Work, Study Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/low-wage-jobs_n_1846733.html

Careers Are Dead. Welcome To Your Low-Wage, Temp Work Future
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/08/30/careers-are-dead-welcome-to-your-low-wage-temp-work-future/

In addition, the TPP that Obama is hell-bent on supporting will DESTROY jobs and cut wages for over 90 percent of American workers:

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

No, the chocolate ration has not been increased:

*

The Third Way/DLC/neoliberal agenda is the result of a deliberate infiltration of our party by the very same banks and corporations that purchased the Republican Party first. Of course jobs had to come back as they *always* do....but the change in quality of those jobs, and the diversion of the money no longer going in 99 percent pockets to the bank accounts on the One Percent, was the goal all along.

The rise of the Third Way agenda in our party was never a grass roots phenomenon, but rather a deliberately orchestrated and corporate-bankrolled one, ...just like the propaganda supporting it.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[progressoid]

346. ^^^this^^^

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. This excerpt here ...

Represents the B.S., that is Thomas' OP

In point of fact, there were plenty of things Obama’s Democrats could have done that might have put the right out of business once and for all—for example, by responding more aggressively to the Great Recession or by pounding relentlessly on the theme of middle-class economic distress.

It, at once, says exactly nothing AND expresses the wonderous magical thinking reserved for professional critics.

One would expect that a sentence that begins with, "In point of fact, there were plenty of things" and includes, "for example", would provide a specific remedy.

Further, let's all ignore the author's rhetorical, "blame and switch" ... Thomas leads with dismissing the effect of the completely dysfunctional congress, then casts President Obama as feckless, then (in saying what could have been done), he points not to what President Obama could have done; but, what " Obama’s Democrats" ... you know, that group that he dismissed in the first place ... could have done.

[cantbeserious]

29. Has One Ever Heard Of The Power Of No - Very Effective Tool And Technique

Something that O has used all to rarely in his efforts to appease and cooperate with the 1%.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Yes ...

that simplistic prescription works in individual relationships, but not so much in governance.

[cantbeserious]

44. Your Experience And Opinion - Standing Ones Ground Is Very Effective

eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Maybe ...

but it's not an effective strategy for governing ... or, maintaining relationships with those you cannot just walk away from.

[cantbeserious]

61. Sometimes You Have To Walk Away From Those Unwilling To Participate

Eventually, those that refuse to participate will have to come around.

Works every time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. So explain how a President "walks away" eom.

[cantbeserious]

77. By Saying No - Very Simple In Practice And Reality

eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Okay.

[woo me with science]

127. Indeed. nt

[Rex]

256. Exactly. Why is that so hard for some to understand? nt

nt

[randome]

63. Excellent point!

Franiks can be summed up thusly: "I don't know what he could have done better but he should have done better!"

And then the only thing he suggests is that 'the Democrats', not Obama, should have done some unspecified 'more'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

167. what he should of done was easy

use the doj to prosecute the bankers, and wall street instead of protecting them

then he should of bailed out mainstreet

[randome]

176. I doubt the job of President is 'easy' in any sense of the word.

Franks' column is easy, complaining without offering alternatives. Obama comes across as authentic. He isn't 'out to get us', he's doing what he can.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[cantbeserious]

257. + 1,000

eom

[Number23]

281. That's my problem with the piece too. State how unhinged and insane the opposition is

ignore the president's accomplishments, toss in needless snark about the Nobel and then claim that it was a "lack of imagination" that has lead to the president's predicament and not the unhinged opposition and those who ignore all of the man's accomplishments except the ones they're hating on.

This line:

In point of fact, there were plenty of things Obama’s Democrats could have done that might have put the right out of business once and for all—for example, by responding more aggressively to the Great Recession or by pounding relentlessly on the theme of middle-class economic distress.

sums it up. Somehow, "respond more aggressively" and "pounding relentlessly" are well thought out policy recommendations. He sounds like a bunch of folks in this forum.

[1StrongBlackMan]

284. Which is why ...

Somehow, "respond more aggressively" and "pounding relentlessly" are well thought out policy recommendations. He sounds like a bunch of folks in this forum.

We're at 69 recs and counting.

[steve2470]

293. People like the author like to downplay or ignore the unhinged opposition

How was President Obama going to magically get the numbers he needed to pass all of his agenda ? If the ACA had been "further left", it would have gone down in flames. It barely passed as it was.

[geek tragedy]

21. Another guy who has never won a single election

or gotten a single city ordnance passed nor been responsible for a small school district's petty cash fund acting as if he knows everything there is to know about effective policy-making and campaigning.

All he has is his own imagination and speculation to back him up. The old Green Lantern theory of politics--if you just try hard enough, the opposition will crumble. Just say "middle class" three times, click your heels together and Republican opposition disappears.

When Frank has more governing experience than Sarah Palin I'll consider taking this kind of whiny nonsense seriously.

Trash thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Have you won any elections, passed any ordanances? If not, why do you speak your opinions?

Do you have more than imagination and speculation to back up the reams of crap you post here? Can you show how such accomplishments are required prior to voicing an opinion?

'I don't like the message, so I will attack the messenger for doing what I also do and hope no one notices the stark, raving hypocrisy in that action!!!!'

[geek tragedy]

43. There is a difference between criticizing

policies and engaging in magical thinking.

I don't know how to win elections or get legislation passed. Neither does Frank. If he did, he'd do it instead if whining about those who do more than complain from behind a keyboard.

But he acts as if he knows how to erase every Republican structural and electoral advantage in 5 easy steps.

It's fantasy, not analysis.

He is the mirror image of Erick "conservatives lose only because they are insufficiently conservative" Erickson.

[merrily]

183. Do you take Sarah Palin's pronouncements seriously?

If anyone proves that winning elections and making sense about governing are two different skills, it's Sarah Palin.

[geek tragedy]

193. How seriously do Republicans who want to

win general elections take her advice?

[merrily]

194. I don't know, but I asked about you, not Republicans.

[geek tragedy]

197. If I were interested in getting elected mayor

of Wasilla, I would be very interested in Palin's advice, just as I would be interested in Frank's advice if my goal was to be a published author.

Frank lives in a world where white working class racism and ingrained ideology can be overcome with sound bytes.

[merrily]

201. But that's different.

You said that you would not listen to criticizing the President until that person had won as many elections as Palin. Now, you are saying that you would be interested in Palin's advice if you wanted to be elected Mayor of Wasilla. Those two statements are very different.

You can be a very good movie critic without ever having produced a movie and a very good art critic without being able to draw. I am not saying the particular criticism in the OP is either valid or invalid. I am saying that criticizing governing and winning elections are very two different skills. They may overlap. For example, Pres. Clinton was very good at winning elections and also very good when he on criticized President Bush's governing. However, people who have never run for office and never won an election can also be very good at critiquing an administration.

Whether the author of the OP article is a good critic is a separate issue, an issue that I am not attempting to debate with you. I am just saying I don't agree with you criteria for being a good critic of a politican; and your own example, Palin, was a perfect example of why I don't agree. Her ability to win elections--both Mayor and Governor--is an issue that is separate and apart from her (in)ability to critique the Obama administration intelligently. One really has nothing to do with the other.

[geek tragedy]

206. Disagreement on policy is one thing.

Criticize the TPP. Or his housing policy. On the merits, that's fine.


But Frank is peddling fantasy-that Republican obstruction and opposition
(Not to mention that from Blue Dogs and LIEberDems) could be brushed aside with a few easy steps. He bases this on absolutely nothing. No data, no evidence, no personal experience. Just fantasy.

Elizabeth Warren, the great populist hope, severely underperformed Obama in Massachusetts, with a margin of victory less than half the President's. A significant portion of Massachusetts voters in 2012 voted for Obama and Brown. Virtually none voted for Warren and Romney.

[merrily]

211. Again, I am not debating the OP article or its author with you.

I am taking issue only with your own statement about your criterion for listening to a critic of an administration. I am saying only that winning elections is not a valid criterion for dismissing a critic of an administration. Or, for that matter, for heeding one. By your own example, Palin was good at winning elections. As an incisive, intelligent critic of Obama's administration, though, she sucks.

[geek tragedy]

215. My criteria for listening to people who make

broad, sweeping claims about how to address enormously difficult and complicated tasks is to see if they have any support-be it data, documentation, case studies, or personal experience.

This goes beyond criticism of the President. It's a very basic "does this person know what they're talking about?"

Frank does not know what he is talking about when it comes to getting things done.

[merrily]

217. Again, my comment has nothing to do with Frank, but never mind.

[freshwest]

276. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Good God, the hate streaming off you. 'Stick your head in an oven' is how you respond to political

disagreements? That's foul. It's pernicious. It's toxic. Suicide is not funny.

[cali]

38. Thomas Franks should go "stick his head in an oven". doesn't get SICKER than that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. And ...

Note that author pivots from "Obama" to "Obama's Democrats" here ...

Let's not forget that in his first line, he mockingly dismisses the notion that congress is completely dysfunctional.

P.S. If you want a better President, there's an election in November. Get the Neanderthals out of Congress and maybe even replace the middle-of-the-road Democrats with some real progressives and you'll get a better White House.

Nope ... There's far more column inches and DU recs, in complaining.

[freshwest]

278. His post was hidden so he can't respond...

[1StrongBlackMan]

282. I'm talking about Thomas ...

and why his OP is facile.

[freshwest]

289. Well, so was Jeff talking about Thomas, not the DU thread writer. If he had, the hide would be good.

As it is, unless I'm missing something here, someone just didn't want to hear about civics or any criticism of Thomas.

We owe nothing to the pundits at Salon As some others have said, we didn't elect them and they do nothing for us.

They're paid to knock down any Democrats. Just like the GOP want...

[1StrongBlackMan]

292. Yep ...

Someone didn't like that Jeff was calling B.S. on what Thomas was writing because they believe the same B.S. as Thomas.

[Cha]

327. It was a stupid HIDE... DU jury protecting Thomas Frank at Salon.. how touching.

[Ferretherder]

56. Fuckin' A, Bro! Preach it!

You are THE ONLY PERSON on this whole goddamn thread that said exactly what I would have, could I have been intelligent enough to put all those 'word-thingys' together like that!

Actually, you and a few others, up-thread, get it. The rest of you guys, well, I've got one thing to say to you...

...GEORGE. DUBYA. BUSH.

Yeah. Let that sink in for awhile. Yeah, the decider! The man would not have used your dismembered hand to WIPE SHIT OFF OF HIS SHOES! Neither would any of his cronies in his party.

This president is far from perfect, as are all of them, but I DO believe the man cares about us little guys. Call me naive( go ahead, I'll wait for it.............................................thank you), but I'll take his TRYING to enact meaningful legislation, ANY DAY, over the horrifying alternative that we could have been dealt. ( hint: what starts with an 'M' and rhymes with 'shit'?)

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. I can't believe Jeff In Milwaukee's post got hidden by a "Jury" ...

Maybe the, "WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN, YOU IGNORANT SACK OF SHIT? NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER HAD THAT KIND OF EXECUTIVE POWER. FOR CHRIST SAKE, PLEASE GO STICK YOUR HEAD IN THE OVEN BEFORE YOU WRITE DRIVEL LIKE THIS AGAIN" rant was over the top; but it pales in comparison to the crap that routinely survives juries.

[countingbluecars]

70. I agree.

Even if the oven comment was a bit over the top, the rest of the post was worthy of further discussion. Rather silly to alert on such a post.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Not silly ...

strategic. Looking at the participants on this thread, alerting on something like this would virtually guarantee a hide.

I wonder how many of jurists were participants in this thread.

[Luminous Animal]

173. I think a person is not allowed to be a of a comment in a thread

in which they've participated.

[1StrongBlackMan]

186. I've wondered about that. eom.

[Nye Bevan]

81. It's too bad when someone goes to the trouble of writing a long post,

and then gets it hidden because he can't resist calling another DUer an "ignorant sack of shit".

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Read it again ...

the post wasn't referring to, or directed at, a DUer; but rather, the writer of this "He's terrible because he can't make other people make other people do something" piece.

[Nye Bevan]

97. Ah, I see that now. My bad.

I guess the jury made the same mistake I did.

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. You are much too generous ...

Maybe the jury members did, but I suspect they hid it because the agreed with Thomas' "analysis", more than the hidden post. That seems to be how things work ... when the decisions aren't based on WHO made the post in question.

[Cha]

329. That's happened at least once before to a DUer.. oh yeah it was me.. I called Scalia

a stupid asshole and some alerter thought I was directing it to the OP.. actually it pretty clear who I was talking about.. but, you know alerters. Thankfully I won that one.

[1StrongBlackMan]

349. You won that one because ...

you had a jury that dislikes scalia more than they dislike you (and possibly a couple that actually read what you wrote)l whereas, Jeff pulled a jury that agreed with what Thomas wrote so no need to actual read the post in context.

[Marr]

150. "Maybe"? /nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. Yes ...

maybe, especially where the offending line is followed with "... BEFORE YOU WRITE DRIVEL LIKE THIS AGAIN."

[Cosmocat]

73. +1

what I posted, except with the energy I was suppressing.

[Cha]

328. Thank you, Ferretherder! Jeff's post was Excellent and the DU jury HID it because why?.. Protecting

Thomas Fucking Frank at Salon?

[Ferretherder]

337. Thanks, Cha. I don't get the 'hide', either.

I think, like 1StrongBlackMan, that he was calling out the OP, not the DU'er, so......huh?

This place ain't what it was in 2001!

[bread_and_roses]

39. K & R - We had his back - millions would have gone into the streets

Millions were ready to go into the streets for him had he just followed up on his campaign rhetoric. We had his back. All of us who wept with joy at his election, all of us who worked for it, all of the youth who were motivated to work and vote, old Lefties like me who had "hope" again, Labor, minorities, students ... millions.

Instead, he immediately put 1% toadies into power, proceeded to abandon Labor, ignore the poor, and abandon the middle-class to save the Banksters and the insurance/pharma vampires.

I hope I am wrong, but I saw candidate Obama as our last best hope to avoid economic and environmental catastrophe - through the power of the millions he had behind him. All squandered.

[Adrahil]

172. You like how they turned out in 2010 after he went all-in on the ACA?

Yeah, we sure had his back then!

I swear to Jeebus that some folks here are delusional.

[bread_and_roses]

248. Delusional? Do you recall the campaign and the inauguration?

Do you remember the anger at the banksters? I do.

By 2010 it was way too late. There had already been too many betrayals. The momentum had gone. And the ACA - a muddle contrived to protect the vampire insurance industry from national health care - was hardly anything to excite people. The price for our selling out on national health care was a public option, remember? And even that was left on the table without a whimper from President Mellifluous.

The moments when real change are possible are all too rare, and they are not stable. Obama blew his - and ours.

[mikekohr]

40. The above tripe is proof we have those on the left as deluded as those on the right

I feel sorry for the insane clown posse, running around with their hair on fire, besmirching and vilifying President Obama.

They debase and demonize a good, competent, accomplished, man who has served this nation in a manner and scope they can never hope to match.

They will never hear of the hope President Obama has given to the uninsured, to the uninsurable with a pre-existing condition, to the working poor, to women striving to be paid as much as a man that performs the same job.

Bitterness plays poorly in history, and wise men don't debase themselves by partaking of it. But like hogs drawn to slop, they sup that bitter cup of foolishness, filled as it is with the dregs of humanity and overflowing with bile and malice.

[cali]

46. You do realize who wrote that piece, right?

[Octafish]

199. Whoosh.

[mikekohr]

306. I was not refering to Mr. Frank

Whooosh

[truebluegreen]

54. Very deep, er, derp.

The hope President Obama has "given"? All by himself.

[conservaphobe]

84. Salon gives every bitter voice in America a soapbox.

They always take popular people and things and shit all over them.

Those who bask in the stench of their own bitterness eat it up... everyone else scoffs and moves on to more meaningful content.

[freshwest]

280. An Anonymous quote (not Anonymous©) agrees with you:

Misery is easy to create. It's the tool of the maliciously lazy.

Happiness takes work, it is the reward for a life being well lived. Make the choice to not let others steal your hard earned joy.

~ Anonymous

[randome]

87. Damn!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

110. Oh, please. nt

[freshwest]

279. That is a very good post supporting those he's helped. Thanks.

[conservaphobe]

47. Ah, the contrarian rag rears its ugly head once again. nt

[tularetom]

52. From a progressive perspective Obama screwed up right from the gitgo

When he took office the country was really pissed off at Wall Street. He could have come down hard on the banisters, gotten the whole middle class on his side, took the momentum away from what was to become the tea party, and used that momentum to pass universal health care. Instead he appointed some of the crooks to oversee the other crooks and passed it off as reform.

It isn't true that he hasn't gotten anything done. IMO he has done exactly what he intended to do. The Dow has almost tripled since he took office and the fat cats are fatter than ever.

For most of us however, it might as well be fall 2008.

[qazplm]

90. how

how could have come down hard?

It's called the executive branch for a reason. They execute laws. Congress passes them. What you can do by executive order is pretty limited, it certainly would not be anything that you could "come down hard" on Wall Street.

Rhetoric wouldn't have done it. How exactly would he have "taken away the momentum from the Tea Party?"

The powers folks invest in the Presidency is nothing short of magical quite frankly.

[woo me with science]

125. By not doing this:

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395

CUT THE CRAP! Your Month in Review from the most "progressive" administration ever.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025006297

Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014336360

Spare us the absurd "magical" comments. Seriously.

[L0oniX]

164. Don't forget this. Part one and two below...

(much thanks to you)

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3152360

...in every policy area important to the One Percent.

This list does not show the President trying to enact a more liberal agenda and being obstructed. It shows him working aggressively and proactively, over and over again, to install corporatists into his administration and to enact a corporate agenda.

Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like:
A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. Tim Geithner. And now Penny Pritzker.
Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legal immunity for telecoms/warrantless wiretapping
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
Entrenchment of exorbitant for-profit health insurance companies into healthcare, through mandate
Legal assault on union rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House colluded with House Republicans *against* Democrats to WEAKEN surveillance bill. 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024984920 

White House (again) Seeks Legal Immunity For Firms That Hand Over Customer Data 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024906691 

Obama Administration To Reveal Justification For Drone Strikes On U.S. Citizens 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024979665 

Obama administration quietly approves new loopholes to help insurance companies gouge patients: 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4970298 

No single payer according to Obama's HHS nominee. 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4973013 

The murder of net neutrality 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4903646 

Obama's Crony Capitalism will Kill Net Neutrality. *New* FCC Staff in bed with ISP's 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024906730 

Democratic Opposition Lines Up Against Obama Judicial Nominee 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024945344 

Secret trade memos calling for more fracking and offshore drilling 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024975916 

Obama's Defense Department Refuses to Tell Senate Which Groups We’re at War With 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024985813 

President Obama close to authorizing mission led by the US military to train moderate Syrian rebels 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025005755 

Syrian rebels describe U.S.-backed training in Qatar in new documentary 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025004518 

Ethics watchdog calls for investigation of EPA assault on renewable fuels. 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024987371 

This Trade Deal Will Make You Sick, Maybe Give You Mad Cow 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024979506 

Why do we bother: Feds Ever-So-Gently File Criminal Charges Against Credit Suisse 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024974240 

Too Big to Jail: DOJ Charges Two Banks with Criminal Acts, But Will Not Hold Them Criminally Accountable 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024906501 

College presidents upset. Obama's Ed Dept says rating colleges will be like "rating a blender". 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025004676 

Opening the US interstate system to tolling 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024894570 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024892605


And after all that hard work, it's no surprise that Our President put on his comfortable walking shoes and headed out for some golf: 
White House downplays golf outing with Bain Capital lobbyist 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4977762

[woo me with science]

363. Actual policies?!

You expected someone to respond to this?!

Thank you for posting it. How empty and desperately avoidant of reality is the Third Way propaganda machine...

[treestar]

57. The only way to fight the right wing is get them out of office

It is being stuck on the Presidency that is why the left is failing to get much of their agenda. If they started at the school boards and state legislatures instead of expecting the Presidency to get them everything, they might be getting somewhere. The right is fanatical and energetic and knows to get those offices. The left is lazy and full of magical thinking. It's too bad we don't have in the left what the right has. It's why we don't get much progress.

[woo me with science]

143. Yup, and that includes Third Way Republicans in Democrat suits. nt

[Cosmocat]

59. 535 tio 1

Look, I think he is too cozy with big business like most others here.

But, he isn't a dictator.

The American governmental system has this thing called congress, and there are 525 of them and one of Barrack Obama.

He BARELY, and I mean by the grace of god being able to go back on a reconciliation vote in the Senate, BARELY got a CONSERVATIVE health care reform passed.

People are flat just living in a fantasy world trying to think there is ANYTHING the man could have done to fight the absolutely unified and concrete obstruction of the republicans with his gutless party in congress ...

[cali]

60. I wish those reacting reflexively to this article could grasp the greater gist of it.

Yes, it's harsh on Obama, but there is more to it than that. Franks is so right when he says that we've elevated the value of bipartisanship to mythic status- to the severe detriment of our greater good- and the president has not been courageous on that front at all. It's a beast that needed to be taken on, head on.

[Cosmocat]

69. Absolute, fantastical bullshit

There are NO words this president could have spoken that would have changed any outcomes.

He has every single republican, man and woman, scared of losing their positions, having to hate and oppose him 100 percent.

He has the corporate media GLEEFULLY lapping up and advancing their bullshit.

He has a democratic party cowering in the corner, scared of its own shadow.

They BARELY got a CONSERVATIVE health care reform done, and they barely got the finance reform done that they did get done.

There are no words, NONE that this President could have spoken to change any outcomes.

No republican was going to vote for anything, no democrat was going to be whipped into a courageous fury to advance more progressive legislation.

This is the bullshit democrats do in polar opposite to republicans.

They rallied around dipshit for 8 years, as big a disaster as he was, they had their talking points and stood behind him.

Democrats, just the opposite, the have left this President hanging his whole term pretty much, outside of fighting against Romney.

When things don't go well this fall, this is the kind of shit that leads to it. It disaffects people, surpresses votes allows the Rs to do what they do on election day.

[cali]

75. We most certainly do not know that. Obviously that is unknowable. We can make

informed guesses and analyze what he as said and done.

Your post is ignorant. It's big on fantastical claims and short on any evidence. There are more than a few gutsy liberal democrats, dear- not to mention Bernie. And they are far far more Progressive than this President- who is not Progressive in 85% of his policies.

Your post is partisan nonsense, devoid of actual facts.

President Obama has pushed the truly awful TPP and equally bad TTIP. He has supported fracking and NOT called for the Halliburton loophole which exempts producers from complying with the EPA. He has supported an increase in fracking, including in sensitive areas. He has opened the eastern seaboard to gas and oil exploration that is incontestably damaging to sea life. These are ALL issues on which he has great latitude. He has appointed such pigs as Froman and Siddiqui.

I do my research. You don't.

[Cosmocat]

198. Get snarky and dismissive

Point stands relative to the article ...

[countingbluecars]

76. Amen! nt

[woo me with science]

105. What utter fantasy, that obstructionism is the problem,

as has been shown over and over and over and over and over and over again....

[JoePhilly]

140. +1000

[Number23]

286. That's actually not true. By wide margins in every measure, Democrats OVERWHELMINGLY support

this president and always have.

His support is highest from the true Dem base -- blacks, liberals, and the more educated.

Black support - 84%
Democrat - 79%
Liberal support - 74%
Liberal Democrat - 81%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx July 6-12, 2014

In all actuality, these are the lowest numbers he's had from the above groups since he took office. Democrats have proudly stood behind this president and the only group that's supported him more than the generic Dem label have been liberals although some on DU have burned a billion calories and have to wring out their shirts daily trying to pretend otherwise.

Other than this bit, the rest of your post is spot on.

[Cosmocat]

339. Thanks

I was noting democrats in congress ...

VERY short list of democrats who have really went out and defended/supported President Obama and/or aggressively championed good, progressive policy to drive the discussion somewhere other than endless republican witch hunts ...

[woo me with science]

98. Nah, the swarm is merely a sign that the OP hits home

and is considered dangerous by the propaganda machine.

On this board, a post telling the truth as clearly as that elicts the Third Way bat signal.

It's message management, period.

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. Wow ...

"the Swarm"!

Gee, how should we refer to the perpetually outraged, non-swarm.

[JoePhilly]

141. I like Combustible Hair Club.

We'll have 2+ more years of their teeth gnashing and garment rending.

Then Hillary will take office.

[1StrongBlackMan]

144. And, then ...

we'll have 8 more!

[woo me with science]

148. Predictable avoidance of policies in favor of sliming DUers. That's how the propaganda rolls.

I seriously doubt they plan to end up with Hillary as the nominee. Every single poll on *issues* shows that her Third Way/DLC/MIC agenda goes against everything the country has clearly said it wants right now. I think they are having her play the role of intentional distraction from the eventual actual Democratic candidate, that was so well described in the "rodeo clown" thread and predictably swarmed by the Third Way crew trying to pretend the analogy was a personal insult rather than a useful analogy for the distraction strategy.

I suspect they have a stealth fake populist waiting in the wings. They know overt Third Way garbage policies don't sell with Americans anymore.

[JoePhilly]

202. Ah, the evil "They".

[joshcryer]

262. All you ever do is slime DUers.

All you ever do. You never post realistic policy proposals, you never discuss practical solutions, no, you just talk about "they" and "them."

[woo me with science]

265. Oh, Josh, this is such a silly post.

First, the article is about assessing the administration's record, not about proposing "practical solutions," so nice try there.

But what makes your allegations particularly absurd is that you know I post about policies all the time. In fact, it's my and others' insistence on bringing conversations back to the *actual policies* of this administration, rather than letting empty adulation or appeals to party loyalty stand alone, that gets the Third Way posting crew here so very upset.

In fact, I wrote some of the few posts in this very thread that even *mention* actual policies. I wrote them because the Third Way crew here is here trying *again* to pretend that we have only Republican obstructionism to blame for the corporate direction of this administration. Well, we know that's not true, because we have observed firsthand and repeatedly discussed here the many aggressive and PROACTIVE corporate betrayals of this administration. But because that nonsense keeps being attempted, it remains important to keep posting the lengthy lists of predatory, corporate policy choices by this administration that had absolutely nothing to do with Republican obstructionism.

And I wrote those posts even before you responded here, which makes this complaint of yours look even sillier.

[joshcryer]

270. We're a capitalist society. "Corporate policy choices" are normal.

Policy proposals that do not recognize that we are a capitalist society are not practical, they are just naive, head in the sand approaches. They make for excellent sound bytes, but they don't do anything remotely resembling the political realities in Washington.

Obama never ran as an anti-corporatist, and in fact, his bi-partisan message meant that he would embrace them. It sucks, he surrounded himself with the other side, Geithner, Summers and Rahm Emanuel. The article linked in the OP bashes Obama for putting SS (and Medicare) on the table, a campaign promise. The dude was not an anti-corporatist.

Ironically, his own cabinet fought him tooth and nail on many issues. Summers even went so far as to say "there's no adult in charge" in the White House.

I think in the end this means we won't ever elect a junior senator who talks a big game but who has no real leadership experience.

If you want to elect someone it better be someone who knows how to wheel and deal and be partisan as all get out. And of course, you must accept that we live in a capitalist society.

[woo me with science]

277. Yeah, that seems to be the new talking point. I've seen it several times since yesterday.

Attempting to normalize predatory policies, including the continuation of the vast majority of Bush polices under a Democratic President, as an unavoidable part of living in a capitalist society. I wish I'd bookmarked at least one other time I saw it....The wording was almost exactly the same. What utter garbage. And what utter nonsense to pretend that Obama was up front during his campaigns about these policies and exactly how corporate and predatory toward the 99 percent he would be.

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on NSA spying:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5047981

I guess when you reach a point where you can no longer deny the predatory agenda itself, all you have left to do is try to normalize it. And that includes trying very hard to hope people will believe that Obama would have been Democrats' primary choice if he had been honest and up front about his plans to push for the TPP and the TISA, to enact even more vicious austerity than Paul Ryan initially hoped for, to pursue expanded drilling and fracking, and to use our "Justice" Department to actively defend mass spying on Americans.

And you are certainly misrepresenting how the Democrats ran on Social Security. In 2012 they arrogantly and publicly refused to disclose their plans on it DURING AN ELECTION campaign. I remember, because I wrote an outraged OP about that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594 . Then Biden came out and promised the people point blank that Social Security would not be cut. They certainly did *not* run on promises to use it as a bargaining chip.

Yesterday I posted for one of your colleagues a list of links of this administration's outrageous contempt for Americans re: the NSA spying. The links documented the administration's active concealment of important information about their spying from the people being spied upon, attempts to defend outright LYING to Americans and to the courts about what they collect, and the outrageous abuse of spying information to arrest and imprison Americans using false evidence trails. I got pretty much the same response you just gave me, trying to normalize the outrages and suggest that anyone who complains just doesn't understand how things work in this country.

Here's the upshot, Josh. Vague blather about "political realities" is not an adequate response. We have established that the betrayals are not due to Republican obstructionism but rather are coming aggressively and proactively from the administration itself. There is no Republican overruling him and forcing him to work aggressively to pass the job-gutting, wage-gutting, national regulation-gutting TPP, or to further deregulate business with the TISA, or to defend spying on Americans. To claim that he ran advertising this sea of predation is, to put it bluntly, more than absurd.

And to suggest further that his record is *redeemed* for all this predatory behavior, simply because we should have expected it (?!) is the cherry on top of this insulting argument you are making.

I call it, 'Third Way blase," the attempt to normalize the unconscionable. And I suppose it's all that left when the abusive policies can't be denied anymore.

[joshcryer]

287. See what I mean about making it personal?

When was SS cut? You seem betrayed by a talking point, by a political maneuver, rather than reality. And that's precisely how ratfucking works. You look at Warren "running away from" the I/P question that a far right winger threw at her. Total smear job without any basis.

How does a capitalist President handle TPP? TPP is a symptom of the capitalism we enjoy, it is not a cause and nor will it perpetuate it (if anything it will weaken it by creating disproportionate trade relationships; but policy-wise that's what we want, cheap labor, for cheap goods we no longer make on our soil).

So looking at the BRICS moves today, and how Russia, China, and Brazil are all getting cozy on 17% of the worlds trade, it is only logical for a capitalist President to seek the TPP which covers 40% of global trade. It's a geopolitical incentive to keep us one step ahead of our competitors.

And so it follows, there's no need to "normalize" the language, this is the reality, posts on a message board will not change that reality. You don't have to accept the reality, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide solutions.

You talk about the NSA. The NSA is empowered by the Patriot Act. If you want to get rid of the spying you should be calling for the Patriot Act to be dismantled. Instead, what we have are people pumping Snowden and Greenwald and literally talking about how they ushered in these grand reforms, when literally nothing has happened to reform the NSA. And, I should condition this, it's not like Obama supporters also support the NSA's overreach. We don't. But if you're going to get rid of it don't place the onus on a President as if they're a dictator who can magically stop enforcing laws arbitrarily.

Of course, that's precisely what those who think that they are political players want, they want a President, like Bush, who implements the laws how he sees fit. Telecom immunity was one such area where a President illegally tapped calls. He should've been impeached over that. And of course, our Presidential candidate voted to give out that immunity. Before he was elected, mind you. And yet you pretend like we are out of touch or something or trying to deflect when we're merely showing you how Washington works.

Anyone can say whatever stupid shit they want to say, that's fine, but if it's not truthful or if it's twisting things, then they're not really ready to have a coherent policy discussion. Before we voted for him Obama said he'd cut the deficit, drill for oil, build Keystone (he campaigned specifically on it in fact the second time around), increase the drone war, etc. These are all things Obama said he'd do before anyone cast the first ballot to elect him.

[woo me with science]

357. That's quite an indictment of the Third Way.

All attempted smears and diversionary arguments aside, including

*your attempt to mischaracterize an attack on a bad argument as a personal attack

*your attempt to divert the thread to a discussion of putting SS on the table, when the point was correcting your misrepresentation of how the President *campaigned* on SS *and* when your attempt to suggest that putting SS on the table didn't harm human beings or the party or the nation has been exposed as viciously false many, many times already: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5235403)

*your attempt to pretend, absurdly, that Obama ran overall as a Third Wayer instead of presenting himself as a change agent promising to reverse the abuses of the Bush administration....rein in the surveillance state, stand for the people against corrupt banks, not sign anything that did not include a public option, fix NAFTA rather than promising to pursue multiple ADDITIONAL predatory trade agreements in secret, etc., etc., etc...

All this nonsense aside, I guess I am stunned that you think any of what you just wrote redeems this presidency or does anything but confirm that this presidency has been a disaster for Americans.

You acknowledge that the corporate policies are pushed by the president and his administration, and you attempt to justify that by arguing that (1) corporate policy is a natural and unavoidable part of living in a capitalist society, and (2) Obama said he would do these things anyway.

So there we have it: the dismal philosophy of the Third Way: Only fools expect presidents to stand for our interests over those of corporations, and only fools would have believed Obama when he told us he would stand for our interests. Even if I were to give you both points, you still have made my case that this presidency has been a sellout to corporate interests over the interests of the people. Whether it's expected or not, and whether he was honest about his plans or not, does not change the depressing conclusion: that we are sold out, and that this administration is actively participating in the sellout.

IMO it's a cheap and stale tactic to assert that Americans deserve blame for not offering solutions to the corporate cage that is being carefully built around us, when you relentlessly excuse the president who campaigned on representing us for actively building that cage.

Thank you for confirming the defeatist, accusatory, and predatory message of the Third Way.

[joshcryer]

364. And you do it again.

80% of your response is about the "Third Way" and "Third Way philosophy." I attempt no "redemption" of this administration. Its weaknesses were predictable from the very first utterance of a bi-partisan strategy. Anyone could've predicted the outcome, anyone.

We deserve the government we elect. We elect a government that is for the TPP because we want to sit fat and happy as the rest of the world does our manufacturing, as we use intellectual property regulations to subjugate the planet to our will via the MIC.

The American people don't want the tax loopholes closed, because it means that corporations actually have to pay their way, and prices go up. The American people don't want tariffs for Chinese made goods, because we want cheap labor to make our shit for us. The American people don't want to bring manufacturing back because they'd rather have cushy service industry financial industry jobs where they don't have to get off their asses for most of the day. The American people don't want fee and dividend because it means that we can no longer offshore our pollution to other developing countries.

The American people are the epitome of a dying empire, wanting to subjugate the world to our whims.

[Number23]

291. Nailed it, Josh

[Cosmocat]

71. K&R Jeff in Milwaukees hidden post!

S P O T

O N

[cali]

102. so you endorse the sentiment "should stick his head in an oven"

to, well, anyone- let alone to Thomas Franks who has done so much in the way of liberal analysis.

Good to know- and vile. disgusting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. Perhaps he agrees with the other 50 lines of commentary that also got hidden? eom.

[JoePhilly]

82. Franks talks out of both sides of his mouth.

First he says Obama didn't do enough to get the GOP to work with him.

Then he points at the grand bargain, that never actually happened, as an example of Obama trying to give in too much to get something done.

[Jamaal510]

223. +1

[stupidicus]

85. Frank pretty much nailed it

and BHO's relatively recent metamorphosis into a less "civil" pottymouth in the course of confronting/describing them publicly in speeeches and whatnot after all this time, would indicate his awareness of the central role his better late than never, but long needed, adversarial self and monster he's failed to adequately combat that way will play in his legacy.

I would disagree however, with the gutless and ineffective description unless it is qualified with "by design".

AS I've long seen and argued it however, future generations aren't gonna care so much about the inequality he failed to rectify in any meaningfull or long lasting way, the bandaid of the ACA, or the failure to secure the infrastructure spending he's now championing, but rather his actions/inaction on climate change. In a very big way, infrastructure spending has long been needed because of that, and as anyone familiar with what AGW will bring us in terms of health issues, perhaps single-payer as well.

That he's largely played the role of mediator and reconciliator between those who've deserved the pitchfork treatment and those either blinded by the theatrics of it all or willing to overlook it all due to their fear of rightwingnuttery that "nowhere else to go" thing exploits, can't really be disputed, can it? It also bears mentioning, that his list of accomplishments also shine with a brilliance that would otherwise be lacking but for the presence of that rightwingnut monster he's never shown any real interest in actually slaying, as exemplified by

But bipartisanship as an ideal must also be kept sacred, of course. And so, after visitors to the Obama Library have passed through the Gallery of Drones and the Big Data Command Center, they will be ushered into a maze-like exhibit designed to represent the president’s long, lonely, and ultimately fruitless search for consensus. The Labyrinth of the Grand Bargain, it might be called, and it will teach how the president bravely put the fundamental achievements of his party—Social Security and Medicare—on the bargaining table in exchange for higher taxes and a smaller deficit. This will be described not as a sellout of liberal principle but as a sacred quest for the Holy Grail of Washington: a bipartisan coming-together on “entitlement reform,” which every responsible D.C. professional knows to be the correct way forward.

He's done a great job in the role of the "good cop", as indicated by the whines/objections to the content of this post from those incapable of seeing him in that uniform you've seen here.

What slays me about all this, is that it took an Nth dimensional chess player like him 5 years or more to know and understand
an enemy most of us little people knew and understood long ago. That has only two plausible explantions -- either he's stupid or has been playing the part to our collective detriment.

[woo me with science]

116. "I would disagree however, with the gutless and ineffective description unless it is qualified with

'by design.'"

Indeed. We live in a world of aggressively deceptive politics these days...down to serial lying from poiticians and systematic manipulation of message board content.

[stupidicus]

179. you know it woo

much like with the preference Bush had for the "incompetent" description as opposed to "criminal", BHO would no doubt prefer to be seen that way over "complicit".

He wasn't dragged kicking and screaming into the Beltway Hive with a mission/mandate to effect changes in that domain of the kind he sought http://www.thenation.com/blog/170077/why-obama-right-about-change-wrong-about-outside-game in policy changes and the level of bipartisan cooperation required to achieve it, it was just a deception intended for and designed to offer an explanation for what I long and generously characterized as timidity, as opposed to the gutless and ineffective characterization that Frank used.

As can be seen here

As one former Obama campaign staffer told me, when I was researching OFA for this report, it was “literally useless” to ask volunteers to call members of Congress who are “clearly going to support the president’s healthcare proposal.” The staffer explained that by contrast, a strong outside game would mobilize activists to show up in person at public events of moderate Republicans (not unlike the town halls that first sparked Tea Party outrage), but that OFA was probably “just not allowed to do that politically, by the White House, and that’s a shame.”

it seems that even his effort to change it from the outside was hampered by an aversion to risk that boggles...

have a good one dude

[creeksneakers2]

271. Obama tried big steps on climate change

He's taking on big coal now. He tried cap and trade early but it died. He's increased fuel efficiency standards for cars.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21603482-presidents-new-climate-rule-will-change-america-he-hopes-it-will-change-china-and

[stupidicus]

356. I am of course aware of all of that

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-climate-change-the-real-story-20131217

as I am a great deal else regarding the matter

http://americablog.com/2014/06/theres-war-coal-obamas-helping-coal-true.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/26/obama-admin-secretly-weakening-epa-rules

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/2/5770506/remember-when-the-gop-believed-in-climate-change

http://americablog.com/2014/06/obama-plan-reduce-carbon-emissions-allows-coal-heavy-states-increase-emissions.html

which is why I say he'll be judged on the totality of his actions/inactions, which imo would lead towards it being a blemish on his legacy from the pov of our descendents.

[EEO]

86. The perfect example of the weakness of Obama is how he tried for months to get the...

Republicans on board with his healthcare legislation when it was clear they would never accept compromise. And once it was passed, "Obamacare" was hammered for years, and the conservative echo chamber still takes time now and again to strike it.

[Maedhros]

324. It's almost as if the ACA was conceived and implemented as a purely political football

for Republicans and Democrats to viciously fight over while the important stuff (like the TPP) gets decided with bi-partisan cooperation in the murky background.

[Nye Bevan]

89. Since President Obama's reelection, the top rate of income tax on the rich has increased by 4.6%.

The top rate of tax on interest income for the rich has increased by 8.4%.

The top rate of tax on capital gains and dividends for the rich has increased by 8.8%.

And despite the RW's kicking and screaming, health insurance companies have to issue a policy to anyone who wants one, no matter what pre-existing conditions they have.

Not as "ineffective and gutless" as some think.

[woo me with science]

121. And if you try to use 4.6 percent to portray *this* presidency as a liberal effort,

Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 11:40 AM - Edit history (1)

you ignore the vast majority of the President's own appointments and policy decisions. You ignore that under this president the vast majority of the Bush (now Bush-Obama) tax cuts were deliberately made PERMANENT

You ignore escalating inequality and the fact that the president's major policies on the horizon (TSA and TISA, corporatization of the internet, assaults on journalism and whistleblowers) will escalate the pain. You ignore the growing police and surveillance that this president is actively defending.

You ignore the entire record, which shows repeated, proactive implementation of a corporate agenda, not someone trying to implement liberal policies and merely being obstructed.

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395

CUT THE CRAP! Your Month in Review from the most "progressive" administration ever.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025006297

Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014336360

This is the problem with propaganda. It defies reality. It tells us that 2+2=5, when everyday around us, we directly observe that 2+2=4.

No, our real problem is corporate money deluging our elections, both parties, our media, and all three branches of government. It drives policy in the Republican Party, and it drives policy under Third Way Democrats and this administration. Pretending that the President has not actively worked on behalf of corporate interests (and that the next corporate-backed President won't, either, unless we can fix this corrupted system) is, quite simply, inconsistent with reality.



http://m.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. But ... But ... But ...

since we can't repeat the narrative he's not raising taxes on the wealthy; we'll just go with, it's not enough!

[uwep]

93. I disagree with the headline and the message it sends.

Filibuster after filibuster, from financial issues to shovel ready jobs, the repukes stymied the Democrats and the President at every turn. Articles like this severely hurt Democrats chances this fall. I am ashamed that something like this is on DU. Of course this is my opinion, formed from what I have lived through the past 20 years. I have never seen an article by the right criticizing "W" the way this article does President Obama. In my view, President Obama, is a thoughtful and careful man. He has brought back the country from one of the worst recessions since the depression, he has kept the us out of wars in the middle east and has ended two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If it had been McCain, Cheney, or Mitt Romney, we would be in wars in North Africa, and the middle east. He has killed Bin Laden and is still managing a growing economy. Let's put the blame where it belongs, on the teabaggers in congress and the lock step repukes. Please lets try and unite Democrats, or we will end up with a repuk congress and president. I am not a one issue Democrat. This is a left center WEB site and it helps me maintain balance of the right media reporting. I am truly sorry to see an article with this headline on DU.

[woo me with science]

113. LOL...And the influx continues...

[creeksneakers2]

272. Influx?

Is that what you call members taking part in a discussion?

[Bobbie Jo]

344. You know,

influx.

Like an invasion, only we won't see it until the takeover is complete.

[NC_Nurse]

118. I'm glad someone is willing to break from the "consensus" of Dems to

give voice to those of us who are fed up with the corporate tool that this president has been. I'm glad other people are happier than I am with him, and that they are excited about Hillary. Makes it less important for me to continue to support them. I'm done working for useless Dems. The only ones I support are the minority of actual liberals left in the party.

[woo me with science]

122. Amen.

Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Accurate use of quotation marks, by the way.

[2banon]

182. Good way of putting it..

It seems more and more have reached the political crossroads .. departing from the RW Corporate Dem who've taken over the party. But we're far from reaching "critical mass" I believe.

In fact the Corporate State is so over whelming in strength, the socio-economic oppression of Women still quite severe (thanks to SCOTUS and Congress Critters in both parties.. Burgas coming soon?), Racism alive and well in all sectors of our society, etc, etc, you get the point.

Revolution for real, actual change takes several generations.. I think it will likely be at least another century or even longer (if ever) based on the rate we've been "progressing".. rather regressing is more like it. .

I think the OP is an interesting article, I give it a rec. But frankly, the way I see it, this is so not about Obama, but about us. and that is the sad, pathetic state of affairs we choose to continue to exist in and prop up.

[840high]

303. ...^ that

[Zambero]

134. And the 2000 election dispute could have been fairly settled also

And the current SCOTUS makeup would have been altogether different, had it not been for that infamous 5-4 vote upholding the Florida "fix". There have been many more 5-4 votes tilting right since, and many more to come until the court balance is shifted away from corporatist / cleric mode. Should I mention relentless Senate filibusters as well with inability to invoke cloture, blocked House votes for those Senate bills that managed to get through but have been pigeonholed by Boehner lest he incur Tea Party ire? During the brief period of time preceding the 2010 mid-term elections, much did get accomplished until obstructionism was given free rein. The January 2009 GOP pact to freeze Obama in his tracks wasn't fully realized until a couple of years later, but if one takes these people at their word, one will also realize that they are not beyond directing events toward train wreck mode, if such (in)action puts them in a better position to seize absolute power down the road. Then the real train wreck will ensue, and we will look back and view what's happening today as "good times".

[catbyte]

304. The thing that drives me crazy about the complaining from the right AND

left when discussing Obama's tenure before the 2011 disaster is that he DID NOT have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for MONTHS after the election and also later in 2010. Al Franken couldn't be sworn in because of the childish tantrums that Norm "Toothpaste Commercial" Coleman threw & refusing to concede. Al Franken was sworn in, when, July 2009? Then Senator Ted Kennedy's brain cancer prohibited him from attending during much of 2010. So actually, PBO had maybe 6 months of a filibuster-proof majority from 2009-2011, and a lot of that time the Senate was in recess. Actually, I am surprised that he got as much done as he did. It makes me sad to see how so many here--of all places--despise him so much.

[stillwaiting]

139. Throughout all of the obstruction Obama and way too many Dems continued and continue to

speak the bipartisanship mantra. Doing so, instead of excoriating and tearing up the current Republican Party, provides the Republican Party cover and has allowed entirely too many people to not know or understand what's been happening during this historical obstruction. Therefore, the Dems are complicit.

If today's current Republican Party can't be pilloried, marginalized, and exposed for the sham that it is then the opposition isn't trying to do so. Period.

[woo me with science]

156. Every single time the Republican Party scandalizes itself into the potential dustbin of history,

corporate Democrats do their very best to bring it back.

Corporatists depend on closely divided government and hyperpartisanship to get away with their scam of "gridlock" and pretending to be unable to respond to the will of voters.

The con game has just about run its course.

[stillwaiting]

169. Yes, for the love of Buddha, yes. It's THE big con. Why don't more see it?

I just don't know if it has run its course yet. So many in our society don't care and don't pay attention, and of those that do pay attention, many don't agree with us about the Democratic Party's complicity in propping up the Republican Party.

[L0oniX]

171. ...or propping up the 2 party system.

[L0oniX]

170. "The con game has just about run its course." INDEED! K & R

[XemaSab]

243. Nailed it.

n/t

[annominous]

142. To be fair, Obama faced a different situation than Reagan did

It's important to remember what Reagan did to retirement plans in the 1980s -- he persuaded everyone to participate in IRAs, and get invested in Wall Street. That made everyones' pockets easier to pick when the time came, but no one thinks that way while they are getting ahold of their employer match.

Had Obama not saved the banks and Wall Street, many more Americans' savings and retirement plans would have gone down in flames. FDR had a banking failure to deal with, but not one that so many ordinary people had so much investment in. FDR did not have to deal with too big to fail. Obama did, and he did not deal with it, and now too big to fail is even too bigger to fail than before. So I agree he's been ineffective, but that's because Wall Street outplayed him at eleventy-dimensional chess. They've been setting up this gambit since Reagan's administration, it's done they won. Now the big banks are trying to get tax breaks for credit unions repealed, that's another front in the banksters war against us.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/06/business/la-fi-credit-union-taxes-20130706

It's also important to remember, as the author of the salon article does not, that liberals didn't have any option but Obama in 2008 and 2012, once the 2008 primary was resolved. In our primary system, for the election for POTUS, only a few voters in a few states get to decide who the nominees will be. I think it's BS, but the states with the power do not care about my opinion, they just want the power and prestige of being the deciders, so it's also a done deal unless the rest of us demand a national primary date. We could have primaried Obama, I suppose, but in the runup to 2012 that was not a serious option, according to the wise ones. The selection of Obama was also a done deal. We need to figure why, and avoid knee-jerk presidential-candidate selections, if we can, in the future.

Anyway, by Nov of 2008 or of 2012, what were my options, Palin/McCain? Rmoney? Never gonna happen.

All that said, I'm very disappointed with POTUS Obama's management of the banking meltdown that fried the world, his use of drones, his use of memos to justify killing American citizens abroad ... and his timidity in tackling the RWNJs .

[Erda]

145. I don't agree that President Obama or his presidency have been "gutless"

In fact I think he has been a strong and balanced leader, given the complexities of this nation and the world we live in.

I think his presidency has exposed much of the bigotry that has existed unchallenged in too many of us, but change takes time. It takes growth and different thinking.

Powerful people who have committed crimes will not surrender without a fight, and unless there are people who will back him, President Obama by himself cannot bring the likes of a George Bush or a Dick Cheney or a powerful anonymous banker or CEO to justice. Secret money talks and buys public policy. Even FDR settled with the GOP when they plotted to assassinate him. He did not throw them in jail where they belonged.

Half of the country has bought into the "lazy, always playing golf" nonsense that the Republican party is spewing about the President. Remember the "witchdoctor" images and the "fist bump" fears and "is he wearing the right suit?" "Can he conduct himself properly in public" questions that we don't really think about now. They have gone away because President Obama has been excellent at his job and has outsmarted Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. And they hate him for it. I hope, instead of criticizing him, we show up in November and deliver a Democratic majority. Walking the "middle way" is difficult. Both sides will find fault and criticize you for being "feckless."

[woo me with science]

151. Ooooh, the racism card.

I was wondering when that one would appear.

"I think his presidency has exposed much of the bigotry that has existed unchallenged in too many of us."

Speak for yourself. And try to focus on policy. The overall direction of this presidency has been a disaster for the 99 percent and an ace in the pocket for the banks. And it's not over yet. TPP and TISA are on the horizon, our internet is being transferred to corporate control, and the surveillance state is being defended with our own "Justice" Department.

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395

CUT THE CRAP! Your Month in Review from the most "progressive" administration ever.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025006297

The influx continues.

[merrily]

162. It's like the crane kick in the Karate Kid, Daniel-san. "If do right, no can defense."

[d_b]

158. I hope this Museum of Fail

includes the Alcove of Blue Links: A spoonful of Splenda can sweeten any shit sandwich!

A legacy of sucking right-wing ass, drones, the biggest insurance scam in history, and a 30 second clip of him singing Al Green.

Fucking A.

[polynomial]

168. The best thing that happened

President Obama flushed out a huge amount of corruption that was hidden by mainstream media. We see this in on going debates and conversations on Du especially this one which is good with sensible language. However most Americans observe that corruption is not acted on aggressive enough.

Yet, extortion and retribution by the GOP, business, media, and legal authorities is likely in the background in proportions that even the well informed Americans do not comprehend.

This post has a lot of good points especially the museum stuff. But, there are a lot of tax benefits that go with building a museum that is kept a mystery by media. A lot of banking and stock-market, treasury, Federal Reserve, corruption happened in the housing market. From what is out there any non-money type gifts like stocks or bonds that have street value are tax deductible. I could be wrong but don’t think so.

However, the justice system is so loaded and corruption up into the Supreme Court it could be argued President Obama is sparing the American public stress from theater and commercial programming that the cable television networks would intentionally place in confused and convoluted misstatements because present day media is complicit to this vary corrupt social connection. This has been going on since the radio message about the war of the worlds or big brother watching you by Orson wells.

A huge example is the Reverse Mortgage commercials that from my opinion could be given very many more options, but with those that are offered only benefit the rich. Any undergraduate in engineering or economics that is versed in the calculus of the line path can fathom this advertising of this mortgage process can easily build a gerrymandered political structure for the current one percent.


With that said makes many wonder that the housing crash was very intended benefit for the rich making a poly-plunging free market for certain political gains that enhance power and control of just the few. We know it can be proven over time and when that happens the GOP and the media will likely vanish, or be banished, or risk the trial by we the people. Then surprise even some Democratic political people will vanish too.

[2banon]

188. Interesting points and perspectives

but I don't think I agree with the forecast.

but then again, I've become so "cynical" I guess this past decade that my perspective is forever skewed, jaded.

I see the corruption thing as so solidly institutionalized, and we really can no longer even pretend to have a democracy of any stripe except a highly engineered and corrupted "form" of it.

I no longer see a chance in hell of any progressive changes taking place in the next century.

Unless of course something so catastrophic occurs beyond the scope of the military or wall street, central bank etc. control, in which case all bets are off anyway. But I'd be happy to be wrong..

[sadoldgirl]

214. Just a silly question here:

It has been said for a long time that B.Clinton was the best Republican President since Eisenhower. Is PBO the second or does he pass BC?

[Maedhros]

325. This may be an apt analogy:

The United States is a luxury automobile, once shiny and new but now with many rust spots and belching smoke, racing toward a cliff while the driver and passengers fight desperately over which music to play on the radio. Anyone that suggests that the car be turned away from the cliff is shouted down or thrown out of the vehicle.

Clinton and Obama are some of the most effective drivers, but neither showed any interest in slowing or turning the vehicle.

[whatchamacallit]

219. Yep :/ n/t

[bigtree]

220. I looked for Frank's solutions in this article, concrete solutions, I really did

. . . I didn't find any that went beyond his dismissal of the degree of republican obstructionism and his strange and curious belief that the President of the United States could do much more economically than propose budgets and sign (or veto) the legislation Congress sends him. In all of the criticism there's an unspoken belief that there's some autocratic lever the President has, or should use to allocate our tax dollars that would make the differences he wants to see.

There's the unspoken belief in this article that the President is capable of shaming the republican opposition into some sort of epiphany and cause them to do the things that this president and our party has already convinced the majority of the public they should.

Absent from Frank's criticisms are any mention at all of proposal after proposal, harangue after harangue over the years from President Obama; perhaps to satisfy his conclusion that the President could have responded "more aggressively to the Great Recession or by pounding relentlessly on the theme of middle-class economic distress."

I don't fault Frank for not acknowledging the almost countless occasions where the president has rhetorically defended the middle-class (which would disprove his claims). I am surprised, though, that he doesn't seem to make the point here that talk doesn't automatically equate with action.

But, let's take his point about the President's response to the 'Great Recession,' which is, arguably, the most prescient event in this presidency, and which defined and affected almost all of this presidency's economic policy.

President Barack Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus bill was passed in Congress during the first month of his Administration and received opposition from all but three Congressional Republicans.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” was passed and enacted in February of 2009 and contained approximately $800 billion in stimulus programs, tax cuts and tax incentives to help the economy, which at the time was losing almost one million jobs a month.

In the CBO report, “Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from July 2011 Through September 2011,” a breakdown by year shows that the ARRA created or saved from 5 million to 25.4 million jobs from March 2009 through September 2011, as follows: (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12564/11-22-ARRA.pdf )

2009:a low estimate of .9 million jobs to a high estimate of 3.6 million jobs
2010:a low estimate of 2.6 million jobs to a high estimate of 13.2 million jobs
2011:a low estimate of 1.5 million jobs to a high estimate of 8.6 million jobs

CBO estimated that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the third quarter of calendar year 2011 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:

--They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.3 percent and 1.9 percent,
--They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
--They increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million, and
--They increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

In an interview with Michael Grunwald, Time magazine correspondent who published The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era, an account of President Barack Obama's stimulus bill, Grunwald asserted that the stimulus transformed America.

GRUNWALD:

____ The Obama team thought a lot about the New Deal while they were putting the stimulus together, but times have changed since the New Deal. The Hoover Dam put 5,000 Americans to work with shovels. A comparable project today would only require a few hundred workers with heavy equipment . . .. The New Deal was a journey, an era, an aura. The Recovery Act was just a bill on Capitol Hill.

Yet its aid to victims of the Great Recession lifted at least 7 million people out of poverty and made 32 million poor people less poor. It built power lines and sewage plants and fire stations, just like the New Deal. It refurbished a lot of New Deal parks and train stations and libraries.

Most of the money in the stimulus went to unsexy stuff designed to prevent a depression and ease the pain of the recession: aid to help states avoid drastic cuts in public services and public employees; unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other assistance for victims of the downturn; and tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers. And the money that did flow into public works went more toward fixing stuff that needed fixing — aging pipes, dilapidated train stations, my beloved Everglades — than building new stuff.

In its first year, the stimulus financed 22,000 miles of road improvements, and only 230 miles of new roads. There were good reasons for that. Repairs tend to be more shovel-ready than new projects, so they pump money into the economy faster. They also pass the do-no-harm test. (New sprawl roads make all kind of problems worse.) And they are fiscally responsible. Repairing roads reduces maintenance backlogs and future deficits; building roads add to maintenance backlogs and future deficits.

The stimulus included $27 billion to computerize our pen-and-paper health care system, which should reduce redundant tests, dangerous drug interactions and fatalities caused by doctors with chicken-scratch handwriting. It doubled our renewable power generation; it essentially launched our transition to a low-carbon economy. It provided a new model for government spending — with unprecedented transparency, unprecedented scrutiny, and unprecedented competition for the cash . . .

Most critics from the left conflate Bush's bank bailouts with President Obama's stimulus . . . $350 billion of TARP money was saved for the new President when he took office in 2009. Obama never used the TARP funds. Instead, he launched his $787 billion Economic Stimulus package.

from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html

____ Of course, no one can be certain about what would have happened in an alternate universe without a $787 billion stimulus. But there are two main reasons to think the hard-core skeptics are misguided — above and beyond those complicated, independent economic analyses.

The first is the basic narrative that the data offer. Pick just about any area of the economy and you come across the stimulus bill’s footprints.

In the early months of last year, spending by state and local governments was falling rapidly, as was tax revenue. In the spring, tax revenue continued to drop, yet spending jumped — during the very time when state and local officials were finding out roughly how much stimulus money they would be receiving. This is the money that has kept teachers, police officers, health care workers and firefighters employed.

Then there is corporate spending. It surged in the final months of last year. Mark Zandi of Economy.com (who has advised the McCain campaign and Congressional Democrats) says that the Dec. 31 expiration of a tax credit for corporate investment, which was part of the stimulus, is a big reason.

The story isn’t quite as clear-cut with consumer spending, as skeptics note. Its sharp plunge stopped before President Obama signed the stimulus into law exactly one year ago. But the billions of dollars in tax cuts, food stamps and jobless benefits in the stimulus have still made a difference. . . . aggregate wages and salaries have fallen, while consumer spending has risen. The difference between the two — some $100 billion — has essentially come from stimulus checks.

Republicans, at the time, complained that the President was using the money for purposes outside of their bailout of financial institutions. The President wanted the excess funds used for deficit reduction, but settled on allocating about $200 billion of the TARP money for small businesses and about $50 billion for housing (neither of which have found enough takers to use the money up yet).

from HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/obama-wont-use-tarp-funds_n_385807.html

The Obama administration will only use money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to pay for one of the president's newly announced job-creation initiatives, relying on other sources of revenue to pay for the other two major components.

The president announced new plans on Tuesday for infrastructure repair, small business loans and home retrofitting. But only one part of that three-pronged approach -- small business lending -- will be paid for out of the $200 billion the White House says is left over from TARP.

"No one is suggesting using these savings directly for job creation programs," a senior administration official tells the Huffington Post. "The only part of the TARP savings that would be used directly would be for small business lending."

WSJ: How $50 Billion in TARP Money Is Being Spent on Housing
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/03/30/how-50-billion-in-tarp-money-is-being-spent-on-housing/

the Grist outlined 'Obama's Forgotten Urban Agenda':

President Obama created a special post at the White House for cities. The administration funneled more than $2.6 billion in stimulus money to transportation projects through the so-called TIGER grants. A significant chunk of this money went to transit and “complete streets” projects that benefit bicyclists and pedestrians as well as cars.

Another stimulus offshoot, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, sent $7 billion to cities and states to help deal with the aftermath of the housing crisis. The funding allowed cities to repurpose or redevelop abandoned and foreclosed properties.

Through a pilot program called Strong Cities, Strong Communities, six struggling burgs have received expert help in the form of “fellows” who’ve helped fill understaffed city offices and promote economic revitalization.

Obama’s most far-sighted effort — and the one that best illustrates what he’s up against — is the Sustainable Communities Initiative, which brings together the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to decide where government development dollars are best spent. How sensible, you’re thinking — let’s get the people who build the roads (or train lines or bike lanes) together with those that oversee housing and development policy, and toss in the people charged with making sure that we don’t create a mess of the environment in the process. But this wasn’t happening before . . .

. . . the partnership doled out roughly $200 million in sustainable community grants to promote dense, transit- and pedestrian-friendly development. The 2011 grants helped create a loan fund to build affordable housing and a food distribution hub near public transit in Sacramento, Calif.; fund a revitalization plan for the St. Charles parish in New Orleans; improve access to public transit for low-income residents in Boston; create a sustainable building code for the Kansas City region; and the list goes on. (For a much more detailed description of all this, check out Alyssa Katz’s supergreat story, “Reverse Commute,” in The American Prospect.)

In his first year in office, President Obama cut taxes for 95 percent of working families through the Recovery Act with the Making Work Pay tax cut. With that same piece of legislation, he created the American Opportunity Tax Credit -- which is currently helping more than 9 million families afford the cost of college.

The Recovery Act also lowered the threshold for refunds through the Child Tax Credit -- providing a tax cut to 11.8 million working families. The President also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for families with three or more children.

President Obama has passed tax cuts for small businesses 17 times. These measures range from allowing corporation to expense 100 percent of their new investments until the end of 2011 to creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed. And the President also signed legislation to create tax credits for businesses that hire veterans.



excerpts from transcript of a (rare, print) interview with President Obama conducted by Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear of The New York Times. The interview was conducted at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., on July 24, 2013 . . .

PRESIDENT: . . . I think if I’m arguing for entirely different policies and Congress ends up pursuing policies that I think don’t make sense and we get a bad result, it’s hard to argue that’d be my legacy. And so I’ll worry about my legacy later or I’ll let historians worry about my legacy.

I do worry about what’s happening to ordinary families and all across the country. When we know that rebuilding our infrastructure right now would put people back to work and it’s never been cheaper for us to do so, and this is all deferred maintenance that we’re going to have to do at some point anyway, I worry that we’re not moving faster to seize the moment. When we know that families are getting killed by college costs, for us not to take bold action -- which means that young people are graduating with massive debt, they can’t buy a home as soon as they want, they can’t start that business that they’ve got a great idea for -- that worries me.

. . . what I want to make sure everybody in Washington is obsessed with is how are we growing the economy, how are we increasing middle-class incomes and middle-class wages, and increasing middle-class security. And if we’re not talking about that, then we’re talking about the wrong thing.

. . . obviously, what Congress does matters. As I said in the speech, the economy is far stronger now than it was four and a half years ago. Most economists believe that growth will actually pick up next quarter and the second half of the year. And the one thing that could really screw things up would be if you have a manufactured crisis and Republicans choose to play brinksmanship all over again.

. . . one of the challenges, as I said in the speech, is that there’s almost a kneejerk habit right now that if I’m for it, then they’ve got to be against it. And I think there are a lot of Republicans who are frustrated by that, because they want to be for something, not just against something. But they’ve got to work through that pattern that’s developed over the last couple of years . . .

Now I'm going to do something which might surprise those who see this post as some fawning defense of this President. I'm going to agree with what I think is his point about this President's frequent insistence that there's something worthwhile about republicans that can be negotiated with or compromised with. I don't think most of the talk was anything more than a political head-fake which was more directed at the public perception of his office, than it involved any substantial or unnecessary.

Compromise is the natural function of our democratic system of government which is challenged to reconcile the myriad of interests and concerns from a diverse group of national legislators from many different regions of the country. I do believe there is value in taking an aggressive stand for what you believe in, but I'm not always convinced that just arguing is always the best course.

I believe President Obama has been slow to recognize the importance of taking a firm and principled stand against what is just opposition for opposition's sake. He's waking up to it now, perhaps too late - maybe, to be fair to him, he just thought the stakes were too high to just argue and accomplish nothing in the wake of all of the obstinacy. Yes, he has taken some, but Frank is correct if he's arguing that they've not been a hallmark of a presidency which began with many, many pledges from Barack Obama to 'work with' and 'reach out to republicans.'

We need to END republicanism, not partner with it's practitioners.
Democratic principles need to dominate the political arena, not sidle up beside republicans looking for some reciprocal grope.

Republicanism is not just an opposition party, it is a dangerous and destructive philosophy. Put into practice, it is naked corporatism, unquenchable militarism, unashamed discrimination, and anti-democratic tyranny. This republican class who is in power right now is the worst in my lifetime; nothing but a front for their corporate masters.

They are putting our nation at risk and threatening the health of the earth itself. This shouldn't be just a battle to just sit a couple of rungs above them. They need to be disenfranchised from successfully promoting and furthering their agenda.

"Reaching out" to them will be opportunistically characterized by these thugs as acceptance and acquiescence; ultimately rejected by them as not good enough or not far enough. They need to be taken down, and their supporters need to understand we're not willing to subject the nation, any more, to the consequences of the republican party's elaborate con job masquerading as policy.

We shouldn't pretend that there aren't specific issues which form a dividing line. Most of these, on the Democratic side, are long standing efforts to provide basic needs and to uphold or establish basic rights which the republicans obstruct with whatever position or strategy suits the moment, often completely running over their previous philosophy, like their former objections to 'nation-building', or conservatives' former support of privacy rights.

What the President seemed to be unaware of in making these expressions of comity, is that many of the compromises he's seeking may well make sense in the political arena - like clearing some untidy backlog of unfinished business. Yet, most of those compromises threaten divide many in the country from the Democratic party which has pledged, and fought to support and defend these opportunistically-discarded initiatives in the past. That 'partisanship' is a NECESSARY response to republican obstructionism.

These days, our party doesn't have a progressive agenda; it has a timid and defensive one in the face of an extreme republican opposition, and I reject any implication that our Democratic politics has EVER been unnecessarily confrontational. These 'lifelong republicans' need to be aggressively challenged and discredited when they try and push their obstructionist, industry enabling agenda, not mollycoddled.

[JoePhilly]

226. I kept waiting for Franks to explain how shaming the GOP would work when ...

... actual compromises, which included a variety of elements that they support, would not.

I mean, if they won't take any of the things that they want, just how does he conclude that they'd ever be willing to give you what you want, for nothing.

In this types of article, I often look for the author to layout an actual and realistic path forward. I want to see them talk specifics, about the proposals, the people they'd engage, so on.

Rarely see it.

Apparently, Obama was supposed to prevent the collapse of the US economy, and then also totally transform it into a non-corporate nation.

How he was to accomplish that is never outlined.

[bigtree]

231. republican obstruction has been unprecedented

here's a 'Crooks and Liars' account:


___ From the GOP's record-setting use of the filibuster and its united front against Obama's legislative agenda to blocking judicial nominees and its admitted hostage-taking of the U.S. debt ceiling, the Republican Party has broken new ground in its perpetual quest to ensure that Barack Obama will be a one-term president.

Even before Barack Obama took the oath office, Republicans leaders, conservative think-tanks and right-wing pundits were calling for total obstruction of the new president's agenda. Bill Kristol, who helped block Bill Clinton's health care reform attempt in 1993, called for history to repeat on the Obama stimulus - and everything else.



Time after time, President Obama could count the votes he received from Congressional Republicans on the fingers (usually the middle one) of one hand. The expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to four million more American kids earned the backing of a whopping eight GOP Senators. (One of them, Arlen Specter, later became a Democrat.) Badly needed Wall Street reform eventually overcame GOP filibusters to pass with the support of just three Republicans in the House and Senate, respectively. Last summer, it took 50 days for President Obama to get past Republican filibusters of extended unemployment benefits and the Small Business Jobs Act. As for the DISCLOSE Act, legislation designed to limit the torrent of secret campaign cash unleashed by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, in September Republican Senators prevented it from ever coming to a vote.

The one-way street that is bipartisanship in Washington was most clearly on display during each party's attempts to pass tax cuts and economic stimulus. While some turncoat Democrats (like debt super committee member Max Baucus) helped Reagan and Bush sell their supply-side snake oil, Republicans were determined to torpedo new Democratic presidents:





Consider the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act now credited with saving up to three millions jobs and preventing what McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi called "Depression 2.0." Obama's margins in the passage of the final $787 billion conference bill were almost unchanged from the earlier versions produced by the House and Senate. Despite then Minority Whip Eric Cantor's earlier claim that Obama's bipartisan outreach was a "very efficient process," the President was shut out again by Republicans in the House. In the Senate, the stimulus actually lost ground, as Ted Kennedy's absence and the no-vote of aborted Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg made the final tally 60-38. So much for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's January 2009 statement that the Obama stimulus proposal "could well have broad Republican appeal."

Since House Republicans assumed their new House majority in January 2011, President Obama's agenda has been effectively shut down. But even before their successful hostage-taking of the federal budget and U.S. debt ceiling, Senate Republicans for years had been shattering filibuster records to stop Democratic legislation dead in its tracks.

As it turns out, the Roadblock Republicans started their work when Democrats recaptured the Senate in 2007, only to redouble their efforts when Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office in 2009.
Back in 2007, former Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott explained the successful Republican strategy for derailing the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate:

"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us."

And the Republicans of the 110th Congress were just getting warmed up. The Senate GOP hadn't merely shattered the previous records for filibusters. As McClatchy reported in February 2010, the Republicans of the 111th Congress vowed to block virtually everything, counting on voters to blame Democrats for the GOP's own roadblocks:



As even Robert Samuelson (no friend of Democrats) acknowledged, "From 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate, they filed cloture 130 times to break Democratic filibusters. Since 2007, when Democrats took charge, they've filed 257 cloture motions." The Senate's own records reveal obstructionism is the new normal for Republicans:




read more: http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

[stevenleser]

274. LMAO, yes, like the GOP would have cared about 'shaming'. This is magical thinking.

Like much criticism of Obama from the left, it requires a massive suspension of disbelief in order to swallow things that would simply not be possible that are painted as easy-peasy if only Obama would have taken these steps...

[JEB]

296. They (GOP) don't seem too impressed

with capitulation and pandering in the name of bipartisanship, so why not confront, shame or bowl them the fuck over?

[stevenleser]

301. First, your framing is incorrect. But lets assume it isnt for a moment. They dont care what we do.

That's the point, not that our strategy is wrong. They don't care. All they need to do is convince enough of the folks that whatever we are doing is 'bad' and they stop us. You think going further left would help that? THey fooled enough folks with moderate policies that it is too leftist. How easy do you think it would be to manufacture outrage against seriously left policies? They would actually have the truth in their favor at that point.

Their entire strategy is about delaying and denying and to do that they just need to convince enough people to be able to stop bills from being passed and win off year elections. what you propose would make that easier for the GOP to do, not more difficult.

[JEB]

305. Standing up for working people and our environment is the way

to get my vote.

[BumRushDaShow]

241. Very good analysis with excellent source material, although I disagree with the following

Compromise is the natural function of our democratic system of government which is challenged to reconcile the myriad of interests and concerns from a diverse group of national legislators from many different regions of the country. I do believe there is value in taking an aggressive stand for what you believe in, but I'm not always convinced that just arguing is always the best course.

I believe President Obama has been slow to recognize the importance of taking a firm and principled stand against what is just opposition for opposition's sake. He's waking up to it now, perhaps too late - maybe, to be fair to him, he just thought the stakes were too high to just argue and accomplish nothing in the wake of all of the obstinacy. Yes, he has taken some, but Frank is correct if he's arguing that they've not been a hallmark of a presidency which began with many, many pledges from Barack Obama to 'work with' and 'reach out to republicans.'

We need to END republicanism, not partner with it's practitioners.
Democratic principles need to dominate the political arena, not sidle up beside republicans looking for some reciprocal grope.

And I do so for a very simple reason. But before that, first I will agree that we should "END republicanism" - and moreso in its current form. I think it is obvious now to even the disinterested public, that the GOP of today is essentially blocking for blocking's sake and have ceded any and all policy decisions to RW talk radio and RW extremist blather. They have thrown Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes under the bus in order to refuse to be seen agreeing with a Democratic-version of those earlier Presidents' policies. I think they get that.

But the problem with the average citizen is that they misunderstand how the government was designed to operate as it can get messy in terms of how legislation is enacted - and basically it requires 2 chambers of the legislative branch to agree to pass the exact same legislation, and then send it off to the President to sign. They don't care about that part and just "want stuff done and now!!!". But the messy part cannot be wished away. And the media magnification and distortion of the inter-workings of the legislative process, only serves to obfuscate a process that has gone on for over 2 centuries yet is presented as if this is something new under this President.

And that brings me to my reason for disagreement - as of 2010, the GOP controls the House and the House controls the power of the purse. So in order to get any legislation passed, a compromise MUST happen. Standing on principles is definitely a way to go, but to continue to stand there when the ground around you is about to collapse, might make you a "hero", but you'll be a departed hero - in essence a martyr, while the conditions that you stood for to change continue to be unreachable.

As a side-note, one should take a look at how few vetoes the President has actually issued - the answer being "just 2", and both were pocket vetoes that occurred before and during 2010 when Democrats controlled both chambers. Meaning very little has made it to him from the legislative branch since then, that was not laden in controversy, hyperbole, and outright hysteria, but was ultimately compromise legislation. Boehner was recently whining about some 50 bills that the House passed waiting for Senate review but we all know what was in those bills. Similarly, the Senate has dozens sent to the House that Boehner refuses to bring to the floor for consideration. And so it goes and the people complain.

One can only hope that Democrats can focus on 2014 and getting some House seat pickups and I'd love to see Allyson Grimes take McConnell's place.

[bigtree]

245. I don't think we disagree about the process of enacting legislation

. . . I would note that when he finally took a firm stance on the debt ceiling, republicans retreated.

Still, I partially concede that, "I'm not always convinced that just arguing is always the best course," and that, "maybe, to be fair to him, he just thought the stakes were too high to just argue and accomplish nothing in the wake of all of the obstinacy."

It's not unheard of for a strong, principled stance to cause opposition to fall. What I agree with is the fact that this republican opposition don't seem to care about anything but opposing this president. Remember, though, many of his compromises were met with even deeper opposition. That's not much of a case for compromising with them.

[BumRushDaShow]

253. I agree that calling their bluff

was something that the GOP didn't anticipate, but probably half of DU didn't either. But it took almost 3 weeks of people like me being furloughed ("sacrificed" for "principle&quot before the GOP "retreated", as they began to try to cherry-pick funding certain functions not realizing those functions needed other unfunded functions to be there to operate. Meanwhile their corporate media machine worked overtime to cushion the blow from their stupidity, furiously highlighting the delightful reading of Dr. Seuss while hundreds of thousands were sentenced to a silent journey of unknown length without a paycheck. And doing so with the wrath of the GOP hate machine further denigrating the roles of the government worker.

The compromise 1-year extension of unemployment insurance was a blessing for those long-term unemployed in 2011, but it became a bashing point from the left because of single-issue principles and not thinking in terms of the very people (unemployed) who would benefit - even if for the short term during the prolonged downturn.

The fact that Harry Reid had to invoke the nuclear option in order to get confirmations moving again, is a case in point as to how far they were willing to go to cut off their noses to spite their face. So as an example, thankfully we now have ALL of the judges in the D.C. circuit confirmed, that have gone unfilled for far too long, and that court will cover some issues extremely important to Democrats.

[uponit7771]

266. +1, Republican meme = Obama is a dictator, the OP communications nothing different other than

... Obama is kind and shoulda done something more.

[bigtree]

267. re-reading it

. . . still wondering where all of this 'analysis' and 'content' is?

On second look, outside of dismissing the unprecedented republican obstruction and insisting the president could just talk it away, the majority of this article sounds like sour grapes about Barack Obama getting a library.

[Jamaal510]

225. This is another big reason

why I would never run for president. You get called weak and ineffective by some supposedly on your own side of the aisle for them not getting everything they want, even despite having a whole political party in Congress opposing you and despite any areas you do happen to be effective in:
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Obama's presidency has taught me that a job as the U.S. president is by far the most thankless in the world. There are many people who want to talk about what they'd do differently, despite not being the ones in the oval office and apparently not knowing all of what goes on there. It takes more than just a president to get what we want most of the time. You can't have a president just hold a gun to Congress' heads (sideways) and be like "hey are you gonna' raise the minimum wage, or am I gonna' bust a cap in you?'
It's also going to take years for the country to completely bounce back from the mess from the Bush ll administration. Obama never said that he could fix all of the country's problems overnight or in a few short years.
With this, along with all of the recent foreign policy crises and all the assassination attempts, they can never pay me enough to be president. Never. I would go insane within the first month in office.

[Hekate]

227. Professor Paul Krugman gives the President an A-; says he's the most consequential since...

...Reagan, "not that I liked what Reagan did, but he was consequential."

About 40 minutes ago, interview with Fareed Zakaria, CNN. Zakaria asked Krugman to grade Obama, and Krugman said that in "grading the difficulty of the test" (specifically the behavior of Obama's opponents) he would give him an A-.

Fascinating.

[Maven]

228. I see the apologists are in overdrive on this thread.

Truth hurts.

Meanwhile, the rest of us "Putin lovers" will continue to hope for something better.

[bigtree]

232. I see that critics of Obama are no more inclined to respond to those defenses with facts

. . . than Franks bothers to provide in his article.

[Cha]

331. Yeah, but "the truth hurts"..

Professor Paul Krugman gives the President an A-; says he's the most consequential since...

...Reagan, "not that I liked what Reagan did, but he was consequential."

Hekate http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025267002

[Cha]

330. What truth? From Thomas Frank, Really? I'll take Paul Krugman's assessment of President

Obama over some whiny writer at Salon.

Professor Paul Krugman gives the President an A-; says he's the most consequential since...

...Reagan, "not that I liked what Reagan did, but he was consequential."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025267002

As for you "Putin lovers".. that says it all right there.

[QC]

351. Nice to see you giving Krugman another chance!

Krugman was all over the fucking place making dirty remarks about Obama 'cause Krugman wanted Hillary. Too bad, Obama won..and he get over it.

Krugman really can take a flying fuck at a doughnut.

Krugman's a fucker.

I don't trust Krugman's assessment of Obama supporters..he's too fucking jealous.

...krugman can take his shit jealousies and stuff 'em up his arse

Fuck you krugman and the wagging finger you ride around on. Sounds like you're jealous and don't want to see Obama get the presidency 'cause then what would all those warnings you gave look like? Pile o' crap? Yeah.
[link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5917616&mesg_id=5918678|

krugman's a fookin' egghead. ...

Who knew krugman was such a tool?

[questionseverything]

359. lol

thanks for keeping track

[Maven]

362. ROFL

[Cha]

366. So? I call him out when I want to.. Nice to See Krugman's has come around to my way of thinking.

[libodem]

229. I hate the title

I'm bookmarking so I can read this well. I have a lot of respect for the people who have recommended it. There must be some merit.


Later reading.

[pansypoo53219]

235. the teevee gnewz are still sniffing newt + reagan's ass.

we have no real news.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

237. LOL I said this in 1 paragraph yesterday.

So a different Democrat would have been more effective...
Obama gets a free pass from many here because people misrepresent the facts and say Congress blocks everything. There's also this notion that, with respect to the things he has delivered (which we know can't be much because of obstruction) they wouldn't have been championed by any Democrat. He's just a Democrat who moves to the right to comprmise, but otherwise can't get much done.

Nothing special.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5263021

[Rex]

261. Yeah that one weakness every WH has had since Reagan was in office.

Wall Street runs Washington D.C. However I would NOT call his two term ineffective or gutless by a longshot! It only applies to our current malady that is destroying the country - our continuous denial of living in a plutocracy and what can be done to fix it.

Washington D.C. should be calling the shots...not Wall Street. It is an illness that has infected the SCOTUS and made Congress a running joke among other nations.

[WillyT]

263. K & R !!!

[Doctor_J]

288. The biggest waste of a presidency in history, most likely

My own biggest complaint is that he ran as a Democrat. He is a republican.

[LarryNM]

294. Really Don't Know - Sometimes You Do What You Want

Other Times You Do What You Can and yet Other Times You Do What You Must.

[NealK]

297. K&R

Great article.

[KoKo]

298. What a time it has been...So Much Hope for Change after Bush Years

Rise of the Netroots...Activism ...Growing the Blogs and Websites and being INVOLVED FOR THE CHANGE!

Air out of that BALOON....

I don't know about Obama. I think that History will be a long time taking to figure out what we've been through and what Obama was all about.

We might not see the consequences of his "Laid Back Style....that allowed Corruption to Go on and Prosper....until it doesn't or didn't and his dealing with Cheney/Rumsfeld/Neocon influence and the consequences.

I think he's a "placeholder" and what comes after him might be his legacy in retrospect.

By "Doing Little" but slightly modify while continuing the Bush Corp that was in place he might end up looking like a Savior because his administration pointed out how badly devastated our Congressional Governance had become and how the MIC/Entertainment Oligarchy had managed to Control Us All.

He might end up a Great President because he presided over the Revelations of All of this by just enabling what was Already in Place while firmly keeping a lid on more shenanigans going forward. IOWD's ....he put a lid on what had gone before but did little to reform or promote legislation that would stop it moving forward once he was no longer President.

Obama has kept his hands clean...while the pot was boiling and when it overflowed a grabbed a sponge, sopped up the bits of overflow..and and turned down the burner just a notch. But...it isn't over.

I don't know if anyone else at this point in our History...could have done Better or Worse than Obama...but, I suspect all would have been WORSE and that he was the Best we could expect given how far things had gone with the the unfettered Corporate/Military Control we live under these days through decades of Deregulation.

He's the best we could do... And...much is not his fault...but those who brought him to power for not Backing Him Up. imho....for what it's worth.... I can't be too harsh on him when it is his Dem Backup that FAILED HIM....if there ever was any Dem Background that mattered.

[NYC_SKP]

302. Yes, I feel the same way about Bill Clinton's administration.

If you're talking about the current admin, then I'm gonna have to disagree.

[awoke_in_2003]

309. I don't agree with everything the president has done...

but to call him gutless? What president, in our lifetime, has had to face the hate that Obama has? Who made Syria give up its chemical weapons without a shot being fired? Gutless my ass.

[krawhitham]

310. When did DU turn into an ANTI-Obama site?

[Cha]

332. It's just the usual haters taking the opportunity to drop

their venom.

Anyway.. I'll take my and Paul Krugman's assessment of President Obama over some writer at salon whining to make a buck.

Professor Paul Krugman gives the President an A-; says he's the most consequential since...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025267002

[Bobbie Jo]

345. January, 2009. nt

[uponit7771]

352. They were always here they're are just more anti Obama on the weekened

[Major Hogwash]

311. What a crock!

I guess opinions like this will always be posted here by the haters.

[whereisjustice]

312. Rick Perry barks, the president jumps, and nearly $4 billion dollars fell out of his pocket

Meanwhile, Wall Street and the SEC are night swimming in sewage because the Justice Dept. is too corrupt to prosecute the rich. The millions of jobs lost to Asia continues eating away at middle class opportunity like cancer, and billions and billions are spent spying on innocent Americans. All that fucking spying and noisy, undisciplined Russian rebels move a very large, high altitude missile system, undetected, under a major civilian flight path... after all, who could have predicted? Meanwhile, CIA has pushed torture further underground and NSA is busy trading naked pictures collected off the internet.

This administration, like the last, has been tireless in its efforts to protect the most corrupt institutions in America from justice and public accountability, while mumbling insincere platitudes about it being for our own safety.

Now, tell us all again how his hands are tied.

[SammyWinstonJack]

320. ...

[certainot]

317. your sister's a whore, your brother's a thief, and your ideas are treasonous (SAYS RW RADIO)

Last edited Mon Jul 21, 2014, 10:44 AM - Edit history (3)

and the left just ignores it.

that's what 1000 of the loudest radio stations on the planet have been screaming all day for 20 years

the gutless ineffective dumbasses here in this case are the lazy "vote, blog, whine" pretend liberals.

the biggest political mistake in history is the total ignorance of rw radio by the left. they put soapboxes on every corner and stump in the country and the left sticks their fingers in their ears and walks on by, while whining about the inability of their reps to kick ass.

what a pack of whinny twits.

and dumbass trolls who don't know they're trolls because they have no sense of what the GOP and their tools have done the last few decades but came in on a pink unicorn thinking all obama was going to march into the white billionaires' house and kick ass.

you haven't been paying attention as to how politics works.

it's very possible you're just an idiot and not a troll, in which case i will apologize for calling you a troll. but you are still an idiot.

you really believed those rw lies about obama calling himself the messiah who was going to change everything his first year? or were you so naive that you actually believed limbaugh and sons, who said obama actually was quoted saying he was the messiah.

assuming you're not a troll, you and a lot of other gutless and ineffectual whining cretins have ignored the rw's best tool, rw radio, and have been blaming the victims as usual

i will assume with all your bluster that you have some issue you're passionate about. well guess what. if it's getting any traction, there's a lot of idiot think tank scripted republicans on your local radio station that are louder than tens of thousands of you.

[progressoid]

350. Yes, Duers are whinny twits, dumbass trolls & idiots

What an informative post.

[AIRSTONED]

336. Back on topic.

"Right-wing obstruction could have been fought: An ineffective and gutless presidency’s legacy."
I think the President and ALL the Democrats. should have done a better job controlling the message. "FACTS"
If you control the message you control the people! If you let people know the "FACTS AND ONLY THE FACTS"
The American people, everyone would know what has happened in the last six years. REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION HAS HELD US BACK!
I have lived in the North East part of Tennessee for the last six years,"41yrs.in St.Louis before" and WOW! The poor people here are so misinformed by the information they get from FOX its remarkable,and the local news is even worse! The race thing is bad enough, then to get all of your political ideas from FOX and local news the people down here are just lost in space! So they will continue to vote against their better interest.
"DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON AN INFORMED CITIZENRY!" "Daniel Dennett".
'

[BumRushDaShow]

347. "If you control the message you control the people"

In order to "control the message" you must have a megaphone to present that message. And if you don't own the megaphone because RW conservatives have purchased almost all of them, then you are SOL because you can have the perfect message, but no one will be able to hear it.

I.e., many many Democratic elected officials through to the VP and President, have been out there presenting the message but there is little coverage of it. The attendees at the events when the messages were given, have heard it, but few others get the chance because it's rarely broadcast outside of a few sound bites. And then people whine and complain that "no one is out there messaging" when in fact they ARE, but the reach of it has been stunted.

Liberals and progressives WITH MONEY need to start buying bundles of stations (and be willing to take a hit when it comes to "profitability" because such is rarely profitable but the RW accepts it as "part of doing business&quot , to make sure that the message is spread far and wide.

[AIRSTONED]

354. I know it's easy for me to be a armchair quarterback, but If I where the POTUS.

If I where the POTUS, I would give a weekly television address. Kinda like "Lunch with Bernie Sanders" only cover all the weeks obstruction with facts to back them up. I would make it mandatory for the speaker of the house "if sober" and majority leader of the Senate there to answer to the people of this country the weeks successes and failures.
The President, two ranking members of both parties of the House, and two ranking members of both parties of the Senate to answer the people of this country's questions asked throughout the week. Be it call in,write in or Email. Someone needs to be placed on the HOT SEAT for the bullshit that happens every day! I checkout C-Span 1 and C-Span 2 on a Daley bases, and hell 90% of them aren't even there! This broadcast should be MANDATORY!
I am a first amendment supporter of the freedom of speech but, a person should be held accountable for what they say! If a person is proven to be telling a flat out lie, they need to be held in contempt for perjury and suffer the consequences on the spot!
It's just a idea, and I know it will never happen. For instance People should know what it cost the taxpayers to listen to Green eggs and ham for hours. I CALL BULL SHIT!
Sorry for the rand just needed to vent.

[BumRushDaShow]

358. "If I where the POTUS, I would give a weekly television address."

He DOES give a "Weekly Address" both as video (available on YouTube and on Whitehouse.gov) and audio (available for broadcast on local radio stations) EVERY Saturday.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address

I listen to it on the local all-news station here in Philly at ~6:08 am Saturday mornings. Of course when Shrub did his addresses, this SAME #1 news radio station played the address at 10:06 am, but the black guy's address was relegated to 6-something in the morning. Of course the television networks would never air anything from him outside of national emergencies.

I remember during his first year in office when you even had schools with RW-organized mass protests to refuse to show a "back to school" video that he recorded -

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Local-Schools-Refuse-To-Air-Obamas-Speech-57711982.html
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2009824700_apusobamaschoolspeech.html

and each year they continue the freak-out and refuse to air any Presidential "Back to School" messages.

http://www.politicususa.com/2011/09/28/obama-back-to-school-teabag-terror.html

How can anyone operate in so toxic an environment that after the snub happens, people are in shock, but then quickly forget what happened in order to numb their senses to the idiocy... and then they go back to whining about "messaging".

I do agree that maybe Congress should have the Speaker and Majority leader participate in the equivalent of the UK's "Question Time" in Parliament. But then our legislature would never agree to do such - let alone for the public that elected them.

And as a note about the CSPANs - even when Congress is not in session and the channels are freed up for other programming, very rarely will they offer to air any of the President's speeches (and they may do major ones "once&quot or any liberal events except maybe overnight during a graveyard shift. In fact, they often fill their airtime with drivel from AEI, Heritage, and every lunatic fringe RW "conference" (in quotes) featuring every RW loon under the sun.

If you don't control the means for broadcast dissemination, then your message can be perfect but unheard. Fortunately the younger crowd does utilize the alternate media offered on the internet and that's about the best one can do unless liberals buy up some brick and mortar media shops.

[AIRSTONED]

361. Agreed .....

[woo me with science]

367. kick

[bigtree]

369. let this tripe fall

. . . looking forward to the next two years . . .savoring it.

Then, onto building a grand and historic library. (I know that just KILLS some folks here )