The People Want Real Leadership - An Open Letter To President Obama - FDL

[WillyT]

The People Want Real Leadership
By: Cynthia Kouril - FireDogLake
Sunday February 14, 2010 4:00 pm

<snip>

An open letter to President Obama:

“People are so thirsty for real leadership they will crawl across the desert for it and when they find out it’s a mirage they will drink the sand.”

I ought to needlepoint that quote on a pillow for the Oval Office for you. You campaigned on hope, to people who wanted meaningful change.

You said that you wanted health CARE reform, not health insurance mandates, but when the time came to articulate to Congress what you wanted to see in the draft bills, you took a back seat and let the two chambers come up with incompatible bills. For goodness sake, you let Sen. Max Baucus take the lead on the Senate bill and dawdle for months. Mr. President, it was supposed to be YOUR vision for health care reform, not his. Max Baucus isn’t our president, you are.

Now, after having promised to restore the independence of the U.S. Department of Justice, you are not supporting the U.S. Attorney General’s decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in the federal courthouse in Manhattan, close to Ground Zero. This despite the fact that the U.S. Marshall’s Service — guys who will be putting their own lives on the line moving this prisoner around — have determined that the SDNY courthouse is the safest place to hold the trial.

Instead, you have non-lawyers and non-marshals at the White House running around infecting this decision with tawdry politics. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel isn’t president, you are.

And if you want to close Guantanamo, do it. And do it faster than Sen. Lindsey Graham can pass his “strip the money” legislation. Once it’s a fait accompli, it will be too late to deny funding. Allowing Graham to dictate whether or not civilian trials can be held is nothing short of non feasance in office on your part. Lindsey Graham is not the president, you are.

The list goes on and on. During the campaign, you laid out a whole series of policy initiatives. People didn’t elect you because they liked YOU; they elected you because they liked the policies you were proposing. I assume that you actually thought about those policies and decided you actually liked them before campaigning on them. Mr. President, you must support your own decisions.

Anyone who has ever read this blog knows that I have no love for George W. Bush. In his entire presidency, he only got one thing right. He knew how to be decisive. Right or wrong, once he decided to do a thing, he didn’t let anyone or anything get in his way (until his wrong decisions got overturned in court). I‘m not suggesting that you go off half-cocked, or that you make every single thing a “my way or the highway” contest; but there are some things important enough to fight for.

In your case, it might not even take a “fight.” Just a “get out in front of the crowd, point in the direction you want to go and march toward the goal” kind of leadership. You have a golden tongue, and the post-presidential campaign activist group Organizing for America has an email list of millions.

If you want real health care (not health insurance) reform, scrap the piece of **** bill in the Senate and go tell them what you want to see in a new bill. If you have to roll up your sleeves and get out a pencil and help the write it, then maybe you should do that. Think it’s too risky? You could not fail on health care more than you already are.

You want to restore American rule of law and the international prestige that comes with that? You go to New York City, put up a sound stage in Foley Square and tell the people why it is legally and morally necessary to hold the KSM trial there and that, no matter the nay saying of cowards back in Washington, you will act upon the expertise of the lawyers of the Justice Department and the lawyers of the Department of Defense and the security experts of the U.S. Marshal’s Service. These people are experts in their fields, and the president should not only be able to rely upon that expertise, but should also publicly endorse that expertise.

I know you get accused of not being tough on terror, but I think the polling that trends that way has less to do with your terror policies, than with the incredible timidity and excessive deference you keep showing towards Congress. Look, the Constitution gives Congress enormous power; they don’t need help from you in holding or wielding power. However, the people of this country elected YOU president. You don’t need permission from Congress to be a president, you already are the president.

The people are looking to you to lead; to toughen up and go out there and do the things you promised on the campaign trail. In the absence of real leadership, the populist anger out there can be co-opted by the likes of Dick Army, who’s trying to manipulate the tea party movement, or even by a grifter like Sarah Palin. Talk about a mirage of leadership — sheez!

People aren’t angry with Democrats because they failed to pass a health care bill. People are angry with Democrats because they came up with something which they had the nerve to call a health care bill, that was really giant piece of corporate welfare that would do little to improve the lives of ordinary citizens.

People aren’t mad at Democrats just because they continued the bail out of Wall Street, they are mad that the bailout came with almost no strings attached, and with no regulatory reform.

People aren’t mad because you have proposed unqualified or outrageous nominees ( you didn’t) , they are mad because you have allowed those nominees to wither on the vine for months, while the important work they are supposed to be doing, goes undone. Yeah, I’m talking about DOJ Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen right now, too. You have that recess appointment power for a reason.

The people of this country elected you to lead them. It’s time to toughen up and get to the leading part.

<snip>

Link (W/Video Clip): http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/14/the-people-want-real-leadership/

:kick:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Bobbieo]

2. Would President Hillary Clinton have done a better job? Is she

tougher or more liberal than Obama?

[ThomWV]

36. Who gives a flying fuck? She is not the President - she lost in the Primaries - get over it.

[Vincardog]

54. Obama is acting/doing exactly what I feared H. Clinton would do that is why I voted for Obama. What

HRC would do is not the question.

[RainDog]

3. excellent

this blogger identifies the issues - those last graphs really state what I hear from others and also what I think.

in order to succeed as a president, Obama is going to have to do something very uncomfortable for him to do: he's going to have to govern from the left - to get us out of this economic mess, to improve the health, education and affordability of shelter - and thus capacity to earn a living - for all Americans, not just the rich.

I know Obama is a conservative or neoliberal in much of his pov based upon the world in which he came up. but the world has changed.

[WillyT]

4. Yep... There's Only One Direction To Go...

And we need to start moving there NOW!!!

:shrug:

:hi:

[MissDeeds]

10. +1

We need to start moving there yesterday. This country needs to take a left turn. This nonsense of straddling the line or veering to the right is not going to bring about necessary "change". Sheesh.

[truedelphi]

47. The big problem is this one - Obama's people -

Rahm, Geithner, Bernanke et al have carefully given away the money.

So whatever Obama now has left to do, he must do by someohow solving huge problems without any cash.

Not an easy thing to do. And it will be even harder should the chips fall where they probably will, and the dollar devalues overnight.

And this is all very carefully contrived - very carefully contrived. Fourteen trillion and counting, and all we know isthat the Banksters inovlved with Goldman Sachs did very very well, and the rest of us not so well.

If McCain had gotten in and done these things, we'd be screaming bloody murder and we'd be out in the streets.

But because it is a black man, with a "D" after his name, then we accept it.

[tpsbmam]

5. I want to recommend x1,000!

I'm so freaking sad & frustrated over Obama & too many of our current crop of Democratic "leaders." And they're just not listening -- they're listening to the monied elite they swore they were going to ignore in favor of listening to US. Couldn't be further from the truth. My heart is broken. There's still time to heal it, but I'm losing hope as time goes on.

[slipslidingaway]

6. knr ... so true ...

"..People aren’t angry with Democrats because they failed to pass a health care bill. People are angry with Democrats because they came up with something which they had the nerve to call a health care bill, that was really giant piece of corporate welfare that would do little to improve the lives of ordinary citizens..."

[WillyT]

7. "It" In A Nutshell, Don't Ya Think ???

:shrug:

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

9. No doubt in my mind...

some people do not like to be conned.

:hi:

[Little Star]

50. If Democrats failed to pass a real HCR bill

people wouldn't have been mad at Democrats. They would have been mad at Repugs and blue-dogs. People are pissed that Dems didn't even try for REAL HCR! You are right slipslidingaway!

[slipslidingaway]

51. Many people are mad that they sold us out from the beginning...

when Conyers asked Obama to bring Dr. Angell and Dr. Young to the WH summit he request was denied.

:(

Here is what Candidate Obama said in a campaign speech a month before being elected in Newport News, October 2008. So a few months later he was a candidate who was crushed by the drug and insurance lobbyists.

He campaigned against the type politician he became.

:(


"And we are tired of watching as year after year, candidates offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise only to see them crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance lobbying once the campaign is over.

That is not who we are, that is not who we have to be, enough is enough, it time for us to change."


Here is the Obama/Biden detailed HC plan... what happened?

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.

The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion (per year),33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality."

[asdjrocky]

8. Wish I could rec this a hundred times.

[guru5685]

11. A civics lesson prehaps?

Much of what this letter states as "should do's" for the President are, in a word, unconstitutional. Seperation of powers (see constitution Art 1-3) give Congress the power to make the laws, spend the money, and generally be a pain in the ass for everyone, the President the power to execute the will of the Congress and Command the military, and the Courts the interpretation of the laws.

After that quick review, it is important to point out that over the past 100 years, several chief executives have usurped extensions on their power that has never been corrected. The power of the President is far beyond the intent of the framers.

If you really want a President like Lyndon Johnson again, be prepared for the consequences. The "Great Society", while extremely important and moderately successful, has given the Republican party most of the ammunition they have used over the past 40 years. Post LBJ, Democrats only heald the White House for 12 out of 40 years... There is a reason...

Governments and societies are better changed incrementally. They are better changed with respect for the governmental institutions and safeguards that have made the United States most stable, powerful, generous, and richest democracy in the world.

This letter seems to urge our president to "take the reigns" much like LBJ. He is better to operate within the framework that our Constitution lays out for him. It has mostly worked for nearly 250 years, and if we want to continue to grow as a people, country, society, and a world we should urge him to pull back on the reigns...

[WillyT]

13. It Must Be Wonderful For You To Afford Counseling Patience...

and incrementalism.

For those of us who are drowning, we can't afford the luxury of waiting.

:shrug:

[guru5685]

15. Do two wrongs make a right?

Do you really want our President to make the same gross oversteps of power and authority as the last president at the cost of lasting change? The only path to true change is through incrementalism. Look at what the republicans have done to the great society. They attempted to backrupt Soc Sec in the Reagan admin. and if Tip O'Neil had not been there to rescue it, it would be gone. They has defunded all of the oversight in welfare, and now abuse ravages the system. All of this happened because the change was swift. Incremental change has a chance of lasting and benefiting everyone. The path suggested in this letter combined with your response, suggests that there was a thought amongst some that the election of Obama would be the ladder out of peril for all. No administration change could ever be that bright of a light. As refreshing as his campaign and rhetoric was/is, he is still constrained by the Constitution and the mechanisms of government. Working through those instead of manhandling them is the ONLY path to the lasting change promised in his campaign; and our only hope.

[WillyT]

17. Well... I Think You Assume That We Have A Considerate And Well Informed Electorate...

and an uncorrupted government in Washington D.C.

If we had those things, I might agree with your argument.

But we don't, so I don't.

Sorry.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[guru5685]

27. What do you want the government to do?

What is it that eveyone seems to think that the government can do about unemployment? I would honestly like to know... Sure we can build a few bridges and what-not but what can the government do sustainably for employment?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[guru5685]

32. It wasn't sustainable

FDR did things in a totally different environment. He had 25% unemployment...we have 12-13% and he did not provide lasting employment. The great depression lightened with FDR's actions and some of the New Deal policies proved to be sustainable. The post war economic boom is what finally ended the depression. FDR had a significant unemployment problem his entire presidency. Obama's stimulus has already done what you are asking for and it cost $1 trillion (basically wiped out the budget for the year). The problem is that there are systemic problems with the economy that have not righted themselves yet and they are adding to the unemployment problem (ie. credit markets, poor construction market, capital liquidity, stariving industrial support industires etc.) So I repeat the question, what do you want government to do?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[guru5685]

41. Statistics dont lie...

Year Unemployment (% labor force)
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
1941 9.9
1942 4.7
1943 1.9
1944 1.2
1945 1.9


Here are the numbers from 33-45. They are from Historical Statistics US(1976). They clearly demonstrate that FDR had an impact that suffered setbacks around 38 when he attempted to pack the court (extreme party politics and abuse of presidential power) and that the second world war righted the issue. Now could we talk about the issue of what exactly government should do rather than posturing and calling me Ronald Reagan !!!

[pnorman]

57. The (POST WW2) "historical revisionists" preach that the New Deal FAILED in 1938.

and the economy returned to what it was just before FDR took office. Not so, as those above figures show, and others can no doubt be produced to illustrate that. But FDR always had a strong component of "balance the budget" Fiscal conservatism in his make up, and in 1938 he succumbed to his conservative advisers. He greatly cut the funding of the agencies that were continuing the recovery, and the results were soon all too obvious. But it was a setback of relatively modest proportions, and more or less mended. FDR then had the power to exercise "personal leadership", in a manner that subsequent presidents could only dream of. That was of course the delusional fantasy of Bush43. Obama certainly doesn't have it. But I agree with many here that a bit of "swagger" might be a good idea!

I may be well out of step with most on this thread, but I'll hold to my support for Obama for several more months. He seems to have acute sense of "what is possible", and I sense no derangement of his Moral Compass. If "we of the left" lose faith in him and desert him, he'll be dead in the water by the mid term elections. What then? Does anyone here SERIOUSLY think that the American voter will look to Dennis Kucinich for "leadership"? Dennis is still my "hero", and I still have some of his memorabilia around the apartment. Likewise I just found a coil of "Vote Nader for President" stickers (an even dozen! Maybe I should put them on eBay?). But let's get real!

[veganlush]

55. It's already too late for incrementalism....

....even if they got some legislation passed tomorrow (they won't) it wouldn't go into effect immediately, wouldn't show voters any results that they could get excited about, not in time for 2010. And with the treasonous SCOTUS decision, the game tilts dramatically in favor of the right-wingers. If anything gets done on this President's watch AFTER 2010, it will be credited to the new Repugnant majority, and won't be anything progressives would like anyway.

The Democrats had one shot-and a long shot at that-and they blew it. If the President, as head of the Democratic party, had directed Reid to stand up for the agenda even a little bit, maybe something could have gotten passed that the people would have liked, and we might have had a slim chance in 2010 (but only if something had gotten done to blunt the SCOTUS decision.)

I'm sorry for the pessimism and it doesn't mean I've given up-I sure would like to be wrong about this..

edited to correct numerous gaffs...

[Me.]

16. + 1

[ipaint]

14. Conservative mumbo jumbo.

If there is a prize for the political scam of the 20th century, it should go to the conservatives for propagating as conventional wisdom that the Great Society programs of the 1960s were a misguided and failed social experiment that wasted taxpayers' money.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century. Since then, the poverty rate has hovered at about the 13 percent level and sits at 13.3 percent today, still a disgraceful level in the context of the greatest economic boom in our history. But if the Great Society had not achieved that dramatic reduction in poverty, and the nation had not maintained it, 24 million more Americans would today be living below the poverty level.

This reduction in poverty did not just happen. It was the result of a focused, tenacious effort to revolutionize the role of the federal government with a series of interventions that enriched the lives of millions of Americans. In those tumultuous Great Society years, the President submitted, and Congress enacted, more than 100 major proposals in each of the 89th and 90th Congresses. In that era of do-it-now optimism, government was neither a bad man to be tarred and feathered nor a bag man to collect campaign contributions, but an instrument to help the most vulnerable in our society.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html

Or perhaps we should just let millions fall into poverty to avoid giving a relatively small number of rich, pampered and greedy conservatives "ammunition".

How about those who preach incrementalism be the first up to sacrifice their lives to the cause. Give the poor and uninsured a break.

[guru5685]

18. consequences?

You failed to address my actual point. Why did the progress stop at 13%? Had the problem been approached in an incremental way, the impact may have been deeper and more sustainable. If the oversight was still in place, would there be story after story about abuse in the welfare system? Would Soc Sec have been as vulnerable as it was in the mid eighties (and today)? The price we all paid was 28 years of power hungry, anti-equality, borderline racist, poor hating republican presidents!! If you want to pay that again, be my guest, but make sure you understand the consequences of your desires of our president going in... The line of thinking that you are advocating is going to land Sarah Palin in the White House! Are we willing to let that happen??? Can you imagine moose hunting from Marine 1??

[ipaint]

19. The country elected a labeled socialist.

The lack of advancement on these issues is what will land palin in office. Why is incremental any more sustainable. It would be much easier to dismantle and much less noticeable. Is there something about incremental that means it's now written in stone and can never be touched again. That rediculous.

An attack on effective social change will happen again should we ever get any effective change. This country and mainly it's poor and disadvantaged are paying a high price because democrats moved right. Republicans will always be assholes on attack and real democrats will have to be in on the fight for the long haul.

Democrats dropped the ball.

They sat back and decided corporate money was more important than protecting workers and the poor. They sat back and let repubs dismantle our safety net and they continue to move to the right on every major social issue. The vast majority of democrats today wouldn't know how to fight for workers, they don't have a clue as to the problems we face daily in just sustaining a minimum lifestyle.

And I'm real sick of the Big Bad Scary republican meme. It's phony and as grayson has shown they are easily shut up and put their place should someone decide to stand up for the regular people in this country. They are toxic and the reason obama won is because he presented himself as a progressiive populist who will change washington radically. That's what people want. A fighter.

They didn't get one, they got an incrementalist that can only move in one direction- to the right. The wealthy love incrementalists. They are easily controlled because the people are not behind them, or their barely changing ideas, for the long haul.

[guru5685]

20. Revolution?

Are you advocating social revolution? Are workers here really the victim of a corrupt political establishment? Workers and the lower social classes are the victims of the globalized economy. Manufacturing is moving to the east...it is a crushing fact of globalization. The sustainable pricing of the comsumer driven ecomony requires expense controls on the supply side. How do you fight for a worker in a service driven economy? What sort of social revolution are you expecting? Have the people that are in the "disadvantaged" classes that you describe, done what our President ased? Have you signed up for the peace core? the military? are you serving your community? The sum of what the president wanted was for everyone to put back into the community what the take out. I am a to the core yellow dog democrat. I believe in helping the poor and disenfranchised, but I also believe in the American way. If someone is a memeber of a disadvantaged group and is expecting me to drop opportunity in their lap, they are sadly mistaken. You have to want it enough to sacrifice for it. If you are advocating changing this fundemental American value, then please enlighten me on what your post-revolution America will look like...

[ipaint]

25. Once again right wing mumbo jumbo.

Reagan would love you.

[guru5685]

28. Answer the question please

Could you please answer the question... If we are involved in a revolution what will it and the post era look like?

[ipaint]

38. I don't have the time to waste.

At this point I can smell a repub a mile away and something stinks.

[guru5685]

42. You couldn't be farther from the truth

I am the farthest thing from a banner waving member of the GOP. I am a lifelong democrat that just wants sustainable government and lasting change. I want to really discuss the issues and how to deal with them in a way that will make this country better for the every citizen in it. Critical to this point is how to make this type of change last.

[Enthusiast]

21. You have just repeated

GOP talking points. We should listen to you? Why?

[guru5685]

29. These are not GOP talking points

Usually it takes a lot longer to forget the lessons of history. Bush has only been gone a little more than a year!!!!! I am pleading for the long term success of any change and the responsible exercise of power by the cheif executive. Just because Bush did it doesn't make it right.

[Enthusiast]

31. Yes they are.

[guru5685]

33. If you dont want to address the point...

Then why bother. This is the kinda of behavior that is going to have the GOP is office. No political party has ever maintained long term success by going way to the extreme of the party. Look at the GOP over the last 8 years and look at them now!!! Even FDR had huge problems!! The New Deal was basically brought to a halt when he tried to pack the court to protect some of the New Deal. I want long term power for the Democratic party so we can fix this mess. It took the last 40 years to make it and it will probably take half that long to fix it.

[Enthusiast]

39. Oh, you mean FDR

was poorly served by appointing supreme court justices that were TOO progressive? Maybe justices that didn't approve of the New Deal would have been better?

[guru5685]

45. What?

even the most loyal deomcrat can't defend FDR's attempt to pack the court !

[ThomWV]

37. Horseshit - there is nothing unconstitutional about Leadership

[MissDeeds]

12. K&R n/t

[mmonk]

22. Recommended.

[Orsino]

23. The people *say* they do...

...but keep electing the same old corporatists.

I think we have a real leader in the White House, but until we decide to send some more to Congress, little will change.

[upi402]

44. Obama was the guy who picked a Clinton Republican cabinet, etc

Not sure where your hope is coming from. He sits on his hands. Obama likes us getting screwed, as per typical. Are we THAT used to it now?

[quiet.american]

24. Someone who thinks the teabaggers are legit, and partners w/Grover Norquist has no cred w/me. nt

[depakid]

35. errr.. Jane Hamsher's not the author of the piece

[quiet.american]

40. Errr... I know. There's not a word of it that doesn't suggest they're not joined at the hip.

"Cynthia Kouril" might as well be an alias for "Jane Hamsher."

[lonestarnot]

43. You were selling some nice clues there, but I don't know if he's buy'n.

[cameozalaznick]

46. Let's make it a real letter

and send it to the white house. Perhaps if they got enough copies...

[defendandprotect]

48. More pleas to someone who is obviously not listening . . . ???

We need a plan B -- !!!

Grayson in 2012?

Not too early to begin thinking about this -- !!

[Echo In Light]

49. “People are so thirsty for real leadership they will crawl across the desert for it and when they...

...find out it’s a mirage they will drink the sand.”

Actually a large general strike would be a good beginning

[thotzRthingz]

52. re: "The People Want Real Leadership" ... here here! (n/t)

[humbled_opinion]

53. Should have seen this coming in the summer...

The President can only blame himself for the situation he finds himself and the nation in. Stop governing like Bush Lite and fundamentally change this country that is why you were elected. Stop all the wishy washy... bi-partisan please, it is getting old it isn't Republicans that you have to get to agree with you it is moderate Democrats that are afraid of actually sticking to Progressive values.... FORCE the CONGRESS to act on your behalf that is what a LEADER does. Go down to capital Hill and REBOOT them. TELL THEM EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT DONE and when you want it done by. If you want the Healthcare bill that is in Conference then stand up and tell CONGRESS to put it on your desk. If you want something DIFFERENT then STAND UP and tell CONGRESS what you want and to PUT IT ON YOUR DESK...

American's understand where we were and where we are and if you Don't act Mr. President then I fear the only choice you will be left with is a hard move to the Right after the fall elections and that will mean certain doom for you second term.

[Phlem]

56. I hope ya'll aren't disapointed

when nothing comes of this. If you notice, his actions do not match his flowery speeches. This why things are worse a year later and headed towards "where's the USA" @ 100 mph.

The Democratic party is corrupt and all the leaders are party to it. On a better note, it is the only party with progressives in it a few good politicians trying to make a difference for the better for our citizens.

Just don't hold your breath waiting for Obama, you'll suffocate.

At the very least if he actually does accomplish something of significance, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

-p