Don't be a tool fo right wing propaganda with the stuff you post here

[PretzelWarrior]

That is, if you are trying to move progressive causes forward. Here is how I think about people who are already a smoldering pile of anger about "Obama did this!" and "Obama isn't doing THAT!".

Some have very specific points about what you wish to see addressed and what you're doing about it and what you'd like others to do about it. That makes perfect sense. This site and forums are a great way to share ideas and engage in grass roots political advocacy on a particular issue or issues. I've read through a lot of them, and I can understand why you are so passionate about things like civil liberties, rule of law, and government transparency--not to mention real health care reform.

But please.... The people who have nothing better to say than, "OBAMA LIED". or "OBAMA BETRAYED GAY PEOPLE." or "OBAMA has disappointed me!!!!" are just adding their little polluted rain drop to a pile of drops that collect and become a stream and then a torrent of negativity the right wing propaganda machine is hoping to use against President Obama. I believe there are enemies to a progressive agenda in the Democratic Senate and House. These people need to be dealt with the same way others have been dealt within the past--get a groundswell of opinion against them and vote them out.

A little "trust them, they got our backs" would be nice on our side. I know the Republican party faithful's problem was treating their party like a product that needs to be supported no matter what. But I think we do a little too much the other way. The site is full of cynics who are always looking for ways to be disillusioned and complain about it and are generally not happy until they've convinced themselves and the world that it is all a big sham so why bother supporting anyone including Barack Obama?

I don't mean this as a way of stifling debate or people's opinions. I've often loved how many progressive writers there are here and how well you express yourselves. The intellect here seems to be much higher than most online communities I've seen--I just wish that great intellect was showcased more often when contentious issues come up.

Anyway, I check in from time to time to put in my two bits and to read the articles links/videos link. This site is of great value to me and just suggesting ways for it to be better. Kind of like how some of you feel about your rights to challenge this administration in order to build a more perfect union.

[DJ13]

1. A little "trust them, they got our backs" would be nice on our side.

Trust has to be earned.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. I would think you've seen some important promises kept already

and an urge for him to get the ambitious programs piece done to earn himself some goodwill with the general population before he tackles political hot button issues with a smaller constituency supporting like repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I mean, what has he SPECIFICALLY DONE in these first four months to cause you to lose trust or belief in him? They do have to operate in the real world, these presidents. Even the really popular ones. Popularity/approval are fleeting things. Fortuntately, I believe the people of America are ready to get together and support this guy on a lot of tough things. But we have to realize the powerful force of status quo. He does have to calibrate each important policy point with what he can do based on political capital he's building right now in economy being stabilized and ratcheting down the war. Other than health care battle, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are of great importance to get right.

[DJ13]

8. what has he SPECIFICALLY DONE.. to cause you to lose trust or belief in him?

His economic policies are a continuation of the horrid DLC ideals that Clinton followed, which led to the current mess in the first place.


A year before officially announcing he was seeking the Democratic nomination he publicly supported single payer health care, but hedged his position at the time by saying first it would require the Democratic Party winning both Houses of Congress, and a electing a Democratic President.

Well here we are (thanks to the liberals he dismisses in all matters of policy), and yet..........


Look, I like him, I voted for him (twice), but he shouldnt need to have people pushing him to do the right things, he should be out front pushing for those things his constituents were counting on him to follow through on.

He's the greatest orator in recent times, if he was serious about pushing for the reforms voters were expecting he would be out front on key issues, prodding and shaming the corporate owned Congress to enact those reforms.

[PretzelWarrior]

9. I thought he was urging grass roots activisim on health care

he may be politically skillfull. He may be a great orator. But that doesn't mean he can get out ahead of the voters. He has to let people know that this is a tough fight and only the overwhelming voter feedback to Senators is going to convince them the voter's voice is more important than all the $$$ in the world for campaigning.

I hope we all take it to heart and contact our senators and representatives.

[Fire1]

26. You're right. He also said, these things will be accomplished

'with YOUR HELP.' I've heard from my congress people, the ACLU, the UAW, etc., soliciting funds and activism on issues across the board. If WE don't get involved we have noone to blame but OURSELVES.

[avaistheone1]

44. If Obama wants grass roots activism on health care why has he shut out single-payer health insurance

advocates from the discussion and the table?

[truedelphi]

10. The big huge steps he took in the "Economic Recovery"

Are big huge steps towards Feudalism. Eleven trillion dollars is a lot of money - and yes, some of that came about under Bush's regime. But couldn't Obama have done a great deal better than putting the very same, either incompetent crew or criminal crew in charge of Treasury and the Federal Reserve?

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing that was done before and expecting different results.

Wall Street hustled Main Street's money from 1981 to 2008. And now Obama is making Main Street pay the bill again. But that's it - we are busted now and there will not be a third time.

[PretzelWarrior]

13. yours is a case in point

I would say there is going to be a huge departure from what has gone in the past. The thing is....you don't do that kind of sweeping financial reform when you're just coming out of the bottom of a recession. Let's see some stability and growth in the economy and then start executing more ambitious plans related to that kind of reform of financial systems.

I am confident the treasury guys are already working on some of those.

[truedelphi]

16. Are you a fan of FDR? Are you aware of things he did?

He sure as heck didn't appoint the same people who brought about the Stock Market crash to help engineer the way out.

And he locked Congress up for a one hundred day session that looked into the causes of the Stock MArket crash.

Then Congress set about putting together remedies like Glass Steagall. GS kept this nation safe for the next seventy years (or so) after it was passed.

Are You aware that there is not a single reason why Congress could not just bring Glass Steagall back?

Yet Geithner, in keeping the Credit Default Swaps around, is playing with fire. But he's used to playing with fire. Boy, he sure helped the Japanese recession deepen, after the IMF sent him to Asia to help "straighten hings out."

And he certainly didn't alert anyone of how erroneous the occurrences on the Stock Market front were a year ago.

Anyway I should point out that I am not alone in saying what I am saying. Elliot Spitzer, who may have not Been the finest husband around, but was certainly a hard hitting Attorney General, says these things. Black said these things when interviewed by Moyers. And Naomi Klein said these things also - and she used the eleven trillion dollar figure as well!

[PretzelWarrior]

17. you do know Geitner was part of the solution, right? He didn't cause this.

He and Ben Bernacke dutifully tried to stop the bleeding early when they saw Bear Stearns was holding a bunch of worthless stock by arranging a shotgun marriage with another bank.

The whole reason it was so difficult to find a candidate and finding his deputies is difficult is PRECISELY because they need people with the adequate financial expertise but who are not part of the borderline criminals on wall street.

By the way, FDR had to come in and act after a couple of years of NOTHING being done right by the Hoover administration. There WERE NO protections and safety nets like FDIC, SEC, social security, etc. Because of FDR, it is not as if everything has to be rebuilt from the ground up.

What we are experiencing is A)a GIANT market correction with disastrous consequences to the average family because our entire economy and that of the world was overvalued. This is still being sorted out to properly value assets these banks hold. B)We are having to pay the price as taxpayers (or our children are) for restoring some order to the markets.

This isn't something you go in with a sledge hammer and fix no matter how idealogical you are about the need for reform. We need to carefully walk it back to stability and then use a scalpel to fix things that are clear problems such as the erosion of Glass Steagel, allowing the impossible derivatives (or at least very tightly regulating those markets).

[Fire1]

28. PLUS, the derivitives market is a 'new' animal. Only a LIMITED

number of so called financial wizards in Washington even UNDERSTAND how this market works and that's where Geitner comes in pretty handy.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

30. Exactly like a home security company employing a burglar .

I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. I think it's a direct correlation.

[truedelphi]

35. Worst of all , the thing the Media doesn't focus on,

Is this: Since Geithner decided that the banks that "Are too big to fail" should not be put into receivership, but left as their old corporate entities - thus, all the corporate entities' contracts relating to derivatives and Credit Default Swaps must be honored before any other contracts are honored.

This could bring about a nightmare of costliness - no one even knows how much the derivative losses are. Michael Collins over at "Scoop" has suggested OVER 500 Trillion dollars. Others, like Gary Fielder, use that number also. When I personally spoke with Fielder in mid-January 2009, he was optimistic that the saving grace for us American citizens would be that the financial institutions would not be so awful as to insist on 100 pennies on the dollar.

Well, within six weeks we found on that the financial institutions could be that greedy. AIG insisted on paying out 100 pennies on the dollar. While the Media has endlessly focused on the bonuses, what could further implode the economy is this deal that the Credit Default Swaps MUST be paid first out of whatever monies any financial institution receives.

So instead of the money going into a bank (and/or AIG) and paying to re-inflate the value of the products (SIV's composed of home mortgages for instance) that money instead pays off the bets that were made that the mortgage bundles would be bad.

Whereas if the Credit Default Swaps were ignored until AFTER the money was used to re-inflate the value of the products, then much of that debt would go away. (After all, you can't claim you deserve to be paid on the bet that the mortgage bundle would be bad, if someone makes that bundle good.)

There are other loopholes just as insidious. So don't expect any loans from our government to these demons and crooks in the banking circles to be paid back any time soon.

There are very real reasons why Geithner has let this happen. Can any of you say, "Close ties to Goldman Sachs," boys and girls?

[Fire1]

37. I seem to recall back in March Goldman Sachs and BOA

wanting to repay the TARP funds as early as April and were told to wait for the stress test results b/c if too many banks repaid too quickly, this may 'spook' the market which would be devastating for smaller banks and ultimately the economy (being worse than it already is).

[truedelphi]

40. In both institutions cases,' they have received so much money OUTSIDE of TARP

That of course they want to pay the monies receives from TARP so they can ignore those onerous bonus and salary provisions.

In Goldman Sachs case, it has received so much money PASSED THROUGH the auspices of AIG that one really starts to understand the value of a flow chart another DU'er posted linking up all the bigger players to Goldman Sachs. (Paulson, Bernanke, Kashkari, et al)

Although Bernanke is now fond of stating that the Federal Reserve is duly audited every single year, one has to really scratch one's head to wonder what sort of audit job OVERLOOKS these Goldman Sachs connections. Such a material fact of this nepotism would be fully documented were this your local ASPCA's audit - but the Big Boys don't have to fear material facts being revealed during an audit by one of their own. Such is the inbred world of the Wall Street crowd.

[Fire1]

41. I've suspected as well, that the gov't provisions were the

reason for the sudden 'big pay back.' It's also a big part of Obama's rejection of same under the guise of 'market instability.' I was most pleased with the provisions and as a result I'm sure they will re-pay as quickly as possible just to get out from under 'big brother.'
Indeed, most of the players in this game are attached to Goldman Sachs and the investors will get paid.

[truedelphi]

32. I doubt I'll convince you.

Apparently you are more involved with Wall Street than Main Street.

But ya know something? There were people in almost every large financial investment firm that TOTALLY understood derivatives, and understood it so well that they tried to alert their bosses about how the Global Economy would come crashing down. I'd rather see those whistle blowers figuring things out than Geithner.

After all, Geithner destroyed the Asian economy, especially Japan's. What part of "fail" don't you get?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

33. Paul Volker issued a very explcit warning when he voted against their deregulation

which turned out to be true in almost every aspect. Warren Buffet also recognized their lethal potential on the financial system.

People were more interested in harvesting a few acorns for themselves while the getting was good. And that's the truth.

[truedelphi]

And Brooksley Born tried to take the beast by the horns and

Stop the Coming Madness.

But her voice was a voice lost in the wilderness.

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2011602.aspx

[truedelphi]

31. Glad to hear you know more that Krugman,Spitzer, Black, Scheer,

And others.

Guess the definition of insanity doesn't impress you. Doesn't impress Obama either.

But it sure as heck impresses the rest of us.

[texastoast]

3. A perfect world is going to take a while

While we can disagree about what the new administration does, it would be nice if some of the long-time members here didn't behave like trolls with impunity.

I guess spirited, polite debate is a thing of the past at DU. I've really missed it.

[PretzelWarrior]

6. polite debate. cordiality. ahh...those are quaint notions. :)

I'm hoping we settle into some kind of reasoned approach to all of this. I know many including me seem to have only known being the frustrated minority. We need to switch gears and be productive in our help of achieving our hopes and dreams via this President and Congress.

[Bucky]

4. Point of order. What gets posted on right wing websites isn't important.

Deep reveal: neither is what gets posted here.

[PretzelWarrior]

5. I would say you are wrong. and right.

I do understand that places like Huffington Post get much more traffic and are setting the tone for the liberal side of the argument. But for those that do spend time here, we have some who are set in their views and nothing will change them. But we also have those who are moveable and open to suggestion. That works on the positive side and the negative. I can say through my encouragement from this site I am much more politically active. I have to take breaks from this site from time to time because it is so toxic. I would have to think that is something others experience too. So, in that sense I think how we choose to discuss things and evaluate what the President most of us voted for is doing, we should put a little more thought into it.

Too much id here sometimes which makes it a depressing place to read now that Democrats are in power. I see a lot of "babies in high chairs throwing fits and throwing food" and not as much "adults in a coffee shop having an intellectual conversation about the issues".

[arcadian]

20. Bucky speaks the truth.

and Pretzelwarrior is full of shit. Who decides Pretzelwarrior? You?

[PretzelWarrior]

21. i think there are commonly understood methods of insightful debate

and telling a well-meaning poster that they are "full of shit" is not usually included. I hope you fell better after getting that off your chest. Perhaps good enough to make up for the feeling of being slapped your terse and cold insult reply had on me.

[arcadian]

22. So, in short, yes, you will be the decider.

[PretzelWarrior]

23. I don't believe that's what I said.

But I do see you are fond of the one sentence or phrase come backs. The actual dialogue...not so much.

[lamp_shade]

7. Recommended.

[HopeOverFear]

11. Excellent post

The passion is awesome and great, it's just that some people don't know how to channel it (myself included).

[struggle4progress]

12. The trolls mature and erupt in cycles here

[PretzelWarrior]

15. yes.....I can see they have a bit larger voice than previously.

due to the more "activist" nature of people who are posting right now when there aren't any major world events sucking us to any and all news sources. Things could be better....but today, things are relatively calm in the Democratic world. No controversies. Some encouraging news in economy, etc.

So naturally a lot who normally contribute are off doing other things. I have been one of the absent for long stretches.

[Clio the Leo]

14. Thank you, dont post that crap, and dont reply to it. NT

[tomp]

18. "trust them, they got our backs"

criminally stupid, foolhardy advice if meant sincerely, enemy propaganda if not, and shows you know either nothing or everything about real american politics or the history of the democratic party.

THEY DO NOT HAVE OUR BACKS--NEVER HAVE NEVER WILL!

"The site is full of cynics who are always looking for ways to be disillusioned and complain about it and are generally not happy until they've convinced themselves and the world that it is all a big sham so why bother supporting anyone including Barack Obama?"

thanks for being so open-minded. anyone who disagrees with that bullshit, of course, proves your point, right? you don't like the way some people express their opinions here, neither do i. we're even. i've also got a suggestion for making this place better. stop saying stupid/incorrect shit. or better yet, just go away.

[PretzelWarrior]

19. I've been here since 2002. I won't go away, but your tone is not productive

I didn't mean we should give carte blanche to them which is why I contrasted it with the recent GOP genuflection to their leaders despite the policies that were clearly damaging to them and the country.

So you seem to be okay with ad hominem attacks and prematurely blaming Obama in your posts on a message board. Exactly what type of posts do you find offensive?

Notice, I didn't say people shouldn't post their disagreements with the Obama administration. I said they should at least to the mental work of stating why and what should be done differently (and heck! perhaps even what it is that would be considered an acceptable level of action by Obama on a particular issue).

[Political Heretic]

24. "trust them, they got our backs" - is not the appropriate sentiment when considering our leaders

Theoretically, our political leaders work for us. They are selected by us to represent us and work for us. We are (again theoretically - this is how it is supposed to work) their employers.

As an employer, I intend to evaluate and review the job performance of my employees. I don't just "trust" that they "have my back." This isn't a religion, they are not my "friends" - they work for me.

If you're absolutely hung up on the word "trust" then I can only say what my father always said, which I guess is some old Reagan quote I'm sad to say: Trust, but verify.

What we are doing is the verification that our "trust" is warranted.

The other reason why this "trust" thing doesn't work is that my concerns are not about things that haven't been done yet. My concerns are about policy that has already been implemented. I have a surprising number of deep disagreements with the policy that has already been established by this administration. Trust doesn't enter into it - that trust has already been broken in key areas.

[PretzelWarrior]

25. got it. Well, I guess you seem to be stating things in a reasoned way

You've probably done quite a bit of discussion on that in other posts, so I won't burden you to reply about what those specifically are.

[BlooInBloo]

27. OP would be good, if only the ones you're talking to cared about being used as rw tools.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. +1

[Cha]

34. Yeah, "caring" is

key.

[Zodiak]

36. Wow...an attempt at reasoned discussion

And it is going rather well despite a couple of bumps...excellent.

As for my part, I have grievances for sure. Many are policy-based, and others are differences in political strategy.

I am not pleased about Geitner and Summers. There has been too much money given without oversight, which is desperately needed. I am glad to see some stabilization and a little movement towards regulation, but I have not seen any signal that there will be enough of a paradigm shift for sustainability.

I am not pleased about the escalation of war anywhere. I am not convinced that we can do much good in these regions without being enmeshed in a quagmire that will only sap our good-will for generations.

I am not pleased with the situation with health care reform. I think that it is a gigantic political blunder to not come to the table with single payer as the first order of business. Without it, there is no hard position to negotiate away, and the true goal, a public option, become the bargaining chit to be whittled down to nothing. I realize this is the fault of Congress, mostly, but I do not think there has been any real leadership shown here from the executive branch.

I am not pleased that any real signaled progressive position the Obama administration takes is immediately rebuffed by conservative Democrats or some organization that has a history of lying and cover-ups (CIA, Pentagon).

I am not pleased with the overall progress of ensuring a transparent and open government, but I do acknowledge that there has been movement in this area, as well.

I do not like that the campaign signaled no lobbyists, but many appointees of the Obama administration have taken money or worked for the industries that they are appointed to regulate. I do not trust foxes to guard hen-houses, and I have already seen some of these appointees (like Salazar) make some very questionable decisions.

And lastly, I am not pleased with the over-reliance on historically anti-progressive Democrats (like Rahm Emanuel) to populate the administration. The fact remains that the political allies of many of Obama's appointees are the same people who are working hard to block his initiatives in Congress. I sense that these DLC, Third-Way, Blue-Dog types are blocking liberals and progressives from access to policy-making decisions, and that betrays the notion of "inviting all to the table".

On the flip side, I am very happy with Obama passing the stimulus package, and I think that he has already done wonders for the sciences. I do think the tax relief was much needed for the middle class and poor. I also like the effect that Obama has on foreign relations....he's done a lot of good work already (although not releasing the photos was a political mistake).

I do think he has good intentions. But I also think he is encircled in a bubble that wants to cut him off from hearing the voice of the people, and he has to make some Faustian deals. As long as I see movement in the right direction on a number of fronts, I am relatively sated, but I have not seen that yet.

I still support Obama, though. Who else am I going to support? A Republican? LOL. Just because I complain doesn't mean I do not support the man. I just want him to hear us through the bubble so I speak up. Beltway wisdom is a real pain in the ass.

[rhett o rick]

38. To say we should have faith and trust in him even though things look like

they are headed in the wrong direction is something i heard my right wing friends say about bush in about 2002.

I took it as a bad omen when Pres Obama dumped Dean in favor of Emanuel.

It appears that the Pres is going to let the war criminals off the hook. That'll do it for me.

[Honeycombe8]

39. You hit the nail on the head. nt

[leftofthedial]

42. yeah, so no matter what Obama does, STFU!

Otherwise, you're a right-wing tool!




:puke:

[snowdays]

43. and you will be stalked.

[leftofthedial]

45. relentlessly

[PretzelWarrior]

46. good job. you're almost there.

[PretzelWarrior]

47. if that's what you got out of my post....you may want to reread.

I said nothing of the sort.

[leftofthedial]

48. I know.

[solstice]

49. I see little difference between your "post my way or you're a RW shill" attitude

and that of the repugs keeping people in line after 9/11 by calling them "unpatriotic." It's all sheer intimidation in the guise of cohesiveness. It didn't work on me then and it's not going to work now.

Then after delivering dire warnings about how to post, you actually claim that you're not trying to "stifle debate." Ha. You asked if somebody had read what you said - I suggest you read it yourself.

Your tactics do not work with me - no matter who does it or who I voted for.

Just because I voted for Obama doesn't mean I won't scream my head off about how "OBAMA LIED" or "OBAMA BETRAYED GAY PEOPLE" if I feel that is the case - and I do.

If he needs to be assuaged to do the right thing, then he's not going to do it anyway.

[katandmoon]

50. The only backs I see Obama having are BushCo's.

[Overseas]

51. Yeah, don't protest from the left, let the right pretend he's a super left wing socialist

If President Obama is only getting protest from the right wing, it will appear as if he's doing just fine for the left wing liberals. The right wing likes to say "See, the 'hard left' really likes him!" -- and by holding back the progressive criticism, they can wave that argument around.

Protest from the right + No complaints from the left = "He's too liberal"

I think strong protests from the left show the public that President Obama is not following the most progressive agenda. He's choosing a more moderate liberal path. That will be reassuring to a lot of the more moderate Republicans and Independents who changed parties to support him. And to younger Democrats who don't realize how much farther to the right our country has been pushed over the past twenty years. That what we now call the center was considered moderate-right thirty years ago. (For excellent detail on how this has been achieved, see Eric Alterman's book, "What Liberal Media?" www.whatliberalmedia.com. For a more fun romp through some of that history, see David Brock's "Blinded by the Right.")

And then there's the whole media monopoly issue, with the 50 or so media companies we used to have in the 80's consolidated into about 5 conglomerates in right wing hands today. http://www.corporations.org/media/ So every right wing critique, no matter how crazy and unfounded, will get an airing. Every GOP hack who supported the Bush Cheney gang's destructive rule has been given lots of air time to talk about how more tax cuts and brutality will solve all our problems. No matter that those ideas drove our country off the cliff. The bankrupt GOP leadership will get an airing, and when their ridiculousness becomes too apparent, Newt Gingrich will be given lots more air time to introduce his new packaging of those damaging ideas. Contract on America for the new century.

Protests and criticism from the left will get only a quick reference-- "President Obama may be disappointing his progressive base with this move"-- when we would hope for a more thorough airing, but our media are clearly very conservative these days. They want to continue pretending that the US public is more conservative than they really are. Protests from the left demonstrate that President Obama is not "too liberal."

For example, protests in favor of single payer push our legislators against the waves of campaign funding poured into their coffers regularly by the Healthcare-is-a-Privilege groups, who want to continue having our medical care managed by a for-profit insurance industry. They pushed Ben Nelson to propose reducing the public option to a mere possibility, if over the NEXT SEVEN YEARS, the insurance for-profit industry doesn't adjust its practices in certain ways!!

It has been OVER TEN YEARS since the healthcare for profit industries crushed the last Democratic attempt to get national health insurance, saying they would VOLUNTARILY ADJUST their costs and services. And what did we get from that? Ever escalating costs with an ever-diminishing list of covered services. And a supergenerouslymagnificentoffer in 2009 to CURB THEIR COST INCREASES BY 1.5% OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, to save us $2 Trillion !! Without much serious discussion about "Where were you over the last ten years?"

But anyway, the main point for me is that if the President is only protested from the right, he will seem like he's governing from the left. Since he is not governing from the left, but more from what used to be the center, protests from the left should be welcome because they illustrate that fact.

Even if the conservative dominated mass media don't acknowledge progressive protests much, the public will see some of the demonstrations on their local news. That will help more people recognize that he is governing along moderately left of current center lines. And may be one of the reasons he has such broad public support.