Perspectives on the President

[scheming daemons]

The Left: "This is a weak President who is not pushing through his agenda hard enough and therefore not helping the American people."

The Right: "This President is a Chicago Thug ramming through his radical agenda against the wishes of the American people."



Psst.... you're both wrong.

[Enrique]

1. i think he's pushing through his centrist agenda

which does help the American people, but not enough. After the Bush administration, with these large majorities in Congress, we need a big progressive push. We have a mandate and we need to make the most of it.

[DJ13]

4. +1

Right on the money.

[Sebastian Doyle]

52. We need 30 years of hard left ideology just to balance out the last 30 years of bullshit.

Failing that, the least we could do is not go any further to the right. And any further enabling of corporatism IS right wing, regardless of what "pragmatic" :eyes: label they put on it.

[zipplewrath]

55. The longer we wait

The longer we wait to "do the right thing" the harder it gets, and the more damage done in the process. I fear that when the day finally comes that the population demands single payer, the GOP will be in charge. God knows what "mandates" they'll pass, and we won't have a leg to stand on, not to mention the "cadillac taxes" they'll make us pay.

[bvar22]

78. Hey man, The Dems are going to "fix it later."

Obama just needs to get some "WINS".
Policy doesn't matter.
Thats the sensible, pragmatic way to do things!



Which way to the Mission Accomplished Parade?
:party:

[Jennicut]

66. The large majorities in Congress are not all Progressive, however.

The majorities in Congress are a coalition of progressives, moderates and blue dogs.

[LiberalAndProud]

108. We have a large majority if you count our right-of-center Democrats.

Hello Ben Nelson :hi: My "dem" Senator frustrates me endlessly. He does not represent me. He has far too much power in the Senate in comparison to the number of voters he does represent.

With friends like these, we need fewer enemies.

[zipplewrath]

2. You're right

He's pushing his agenda very hard. It's just that his agenda apparently includes cadillac taxes, mandates, re-electing Senators Spector and Lincoln, and moving Gitmo to Illinois. It apparently also includes ramping up the war in Afghanistan. What it doesn't apparently include is confronting the right wing. He'd rather "look forward".

[NJmaverick]

6. Why does your list not include green jobs and energy, millions getting healthcare

Wall Street getting regulated and consumers being protected? Why is your list so one sided?

[JuniperLea]

8. Good God...

I'm so glad I can't see Ignored's list...

[zipplewrath]

10. Ignorance is bliss

But I guess you won't know that.

[zipplewrath]

9. More like the short list`

I have my criticisms of those activities too. I was just trying to keep it short. He is consistently disappointing to me. Other than the nuclear arms issue, and some of his early diplomatic efforts, I've found little to enjoy out of this presidency other than the smallest of minutia.

[NJmaverick]

12. I asked about how completely one sided your list was, not its length

[zipplewrath]

19. And I explained

And I explained that it wasn't "one sided" it was short, which was why it did not include the topics you suggested. If I had, my criticism would have gotten longer.

[NJmaverick]

22. I find that a realistic person would have a list of positives and negatives

not just a long list of negatives.

[zipplewrath]

26. As I explained

And apparently you aren't reading, I don't have much of a list of positives, other than minutia. He's been fairly consistently disappointing. Yes, if I dig down I can find some things like signing leadbetter and some executive orders. But strangely, it always seems to bring up much larger related issues upon which he has been disappointing.

[NJmaverick]

41. There are millions who are now getting badly needed health insurance

that strongly disagree their their health and well being is "minutia".

[zipplewrath]

54. You keep making this claim

But you don't seem to understand who is getting it and who is not, nor who could have before. You never seem to realize that 25 million will STILL be without insurance, and millions more won't be able to afford to actually use it.

[NJmaverick]

56. I liken your position as someone who sees a firemen rush into a burning building

risking life and limb and runs out with a baby who was just minutes away from certain death and all you can say is- "big deal, we still have a big oil slick in the Gulf"

[zipplewrath]

59. More like he ran out with the 95 year old guy

and left the 150 babies inside to die.

"well, at least he saved one life" you say.

[NJmaverick]

84. We can work with your 150 babies anology

the fireman goes in and moves with inhuman speed and rescues 75 (more that was thought possible) of the babies before the building collapses. Heart broken over those that perished he finds himself called into your office the next day (your his supervisor) to find he is being suspended for letting 75 babies die and you're thinking of filing criminal charges.

[zipplewrath]

100. Except obama changed his position

He didn't "run in" and he changed from being a fireman to being a cop.

[janx]

13. "the smallest of minutia" ?

Do you also find him unstrong?

[zipplewrath]

18. In some respects

I find him overly sensative to conflict and criticism, especially from the right. "No Drama Obama". He is fairly "steadfast" in his own agendas, which is how you can detect when he's getting pushed, he tends to drag his feet instead of just saying no.

[janx]

30. So being steadfast means that he is unstrong?

:shrug: How do you know that he's being pushed, that he's dragging his feet? I remain unconvinced.

[zipplewrath]

33. Steadfast is when he IS "strong"

As I say, that's how you can tell what his agenda is, because although he avoids confrontation, he still sticks to the pushing the subject. He's "dragging his feet" when he doesn't get out in 16 months like he said, much less even quicker as he could. He's dragging his feet when he is 18 months in and Gitmo hasn't changed one bit, and they still don't have the trials going. He's dragging his feet when congress has to push him on DADT, and he negotiates ways to hold them back. He's dragging his feet when he announces that troop reductions will begin in 2011 without announcing how many, or when it will be "done".

That's how I can tell.

[derby378]

101. It's not healthcare, it's health insurance

And there's not much guarantee that the health insurance is going to provide better access to healthcare. That's gonna hurt.

[VMI Dem]

3. Centrists problem - demonizing both right and left.

Psst...one of the two is bad.

[zipplewrath]

15. Brilliant!

Too bad I can recommend responses.

I've said before, when you average right with wrong, you get wrong. When you average good with bad, the best you get is mediocre, the worst you get is bad mascarading as good.

The problem with triangulation is that it tends to move you away from your positions towards your opponents.

[Oregone]

39. Standing for nothing is the new cool thing to do

[QC]

99. Standing for nothing is pragmatically sensible. n/t

[LWolf]

5. Error:

The left doesn't think he's not pushing through his agenda hard enough.

We think he has the wrong agenda.

[JuniperLea]

7. "WE"

Please don't speak for me.

[DevonRex]

11. ^^^^What she said.

Thanks JuniperLea.

[LWolf]

24. Of course not.

But then, I don't consider you to be "the left."

You can be to the left of Obama and not be left of the center.

For the record, when I say "center," I don't mean "centrist" which is code for neoliberal. I mean the statistic "center range" on a bell curve, when plotted on a straight line.

When I say "left" I mean to the left of that "center" range.

[NJmaverick]

47. I see the problem. You are using the word left when you actually are meaning

"only those that agree with me"

[LWolf]

49. No. I'm meaning "leftist."

I'm referring to leftists as a group as "the left."

Do you consider yourself a leftist?

[NJmaverick]

50. I prefer the term liberal or even better progressive (I like the progress implication)

but you could also use leftist to describe me.

[LWolf]

60. I use the term "leftist"

to differentiate people from "liberal" or "progressive," which are both, imo, ambiguous terms that can be spun to mean different things. As I've pointed out before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8772970#8775369

I use it because it's more blunt, and clear-cut. According to this particular scale, which I've found to be the most accurate as far as my own placement relative to the rest of the country, I'm a leftist libertarian, but then, that's true for most of DU regardless of what politicians they support. I'm sure you've seen it before. I only bring it up to point out that "left," for me, would have to fall somewhere to the left of that center line, which the current administration does not.

I'm not sure what to think about people whose positions on issues fall to the left of the line, but whose politics fall to the right. Are they still "left?"

[NJmaverick]

106. I tend to worry far less about labels and more about getting things done

when you are busy making real progress, the idea of sitting back and worrying about labels seems so superfluous

[LWolf]

107. Let me know when you manage to get

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health CARE "done."

When you end wars of empire and the bogus "war on terror," and bust the mighty military industrial complex.

When you end privatization and union-busting.

When you end the war on public education.

Those are 4 of the key issues I think outweigh most of the rest.

Real, substantive progress on any one of those would be cause for celebration, and I'll be glad to join you, and anyone else who worked to accomplish those things, regardless of labels, in celebrating.


*obligatory disclaimer: "you" is rhetorical, not personal.

[NJmaverick]

109. I'll be sure to wake you up when we're finished

[LWolf]

111. You won't be able to.

I expect to be dead by then.

As long as I'm living, though, I'm not giving up.

[JuniperLea]

86. I'm so far left, I'm off the chart...

Every time I take one of those political compass tests, I nearly fall off the edge.

But then I'm actually smart enough to know that the rest of the world doesn't see from my perspective, from my personal window/picture frame on the world. I am smart enough to know that I have to work within the framework that is presented, while also attempting to stretch the view of others who do not share my perspective, and to do all this without being a belligerent asshat. Being a belligerent asshat is counter-productive; it can work to turn people even further from the ideals you are trying to push. But here is a really important part of this equation: I'm smart enough to know that a decade of fertilizer is going to take a while to clear out... and the stench will take even longer.

Oh, and I don't tap my foot whilst awaiting the nukerator to warm my lunch... that's always a clear sign of a belligerent asshat.

[LWolf]

89. So you are one

whose politics are separate from your actual position on issues.

That's a legitimate position. I don't have to agree with it, and I don't. I don't think it's particularly "smart," but that's okay, too.

[JuniperLea]

93. How smart or not you think it is...

Is really more telling of you than of me.

I don't wear rose colored glasses. I don't think all or nothing at all is the intelligent way to progress in this world. I would love for Obama to don cowboy boots and saber and run rough-shod over everyone and make things happen now. I felt that way about a public option in the health care legislation. I feel that way about these absurd wars. I feel that way about how Fucks Gnus is allowed to incite violence. But I also understand the delicate balance of a political system that's out of balance. Obama is charged with keeping all his plates spinning whilst changing his socks. That a few plates are broken is a small thing to worry about right now, as long as the dirty socks get changed.

[LWolf]

97. Telling of me, lol.

That's highly amusing.

I posted something about Obama; he's not pushing through a "left" agenda. He's pushing through a neoliberal agenda.

I framed it terms of what the left thinks of his agenda. You know; those of us his chief of staff referred to as "retarded." That doesn't include you, I'm sure. You're the smart one.

I could have framed it differently. I could have simply pointed out that most of his most staunch supporters have been pointing out to people for more than a year now that he never pretended to be a liberal, and that those who thought differently were just not paying attention, etc.. Therefore, his agenda is not "left."

But I didn't. I framed it from the perspective of the left. I figured that would be okay, since his administration has already characterized us as "retarded."

It's been fun. When I was a kid, I used to stir ant hills or block the entrance with a piece of fruit for the same kind of reaction, and was just as fascinated then, observing them through a magnifying glass, and wearing protective long sleeves and pants.

Of course, I always ended up with a few stings anyway, which were negligible in the big picture, compared to the entertainment I derived. That kind of observation can be very telling of the inhabitants of the hill.

Should I respond to everyone who has something to say to me, and keep the hysterical over-reaction going, or let it die? I'll have to let it die for awhile, anyway. I've got a chicken coop to clean for my hens who are out...searching out and devouring all kinds of bugs.


It's been a fun way spend the hot hours of the afternoon. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

110. Point of fact Rahm didn't call all liberals "retarded" only those

spending money attacking Democrats instead of Republicans. I suspect the Chief of Staff has more respect for those of us liberals who are practical enough to recognize the real enemy.

[LWolf]

112. Point of fact my ass.

The reference was liberal activists who oppose conservative Democrats in Congress and plan to primary them. Which, of course, means supporting other DEMOCRATS. Not supporting Republicans in general elections.

Activists are so irritating.

[NJmaverick]

113. I am glad you now see your error

that Rahm never made the sweeping statements you mistakenly claimed he had

[LWolf]

114. .

:spray:

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

115. Is that you way of admitting your mistake?

[LWolf]

117. No, it's my way

of responding to stupid comebacks.

[NJmaverick]

118. So pointing out the factual errors in your posts

is considered "stupid"?:shrug:

[LWolf]

119. No, inaccurately attempting

to point out "factual errors" is...er...funny. Or stupid. Or both.

[NJmaverick]

120. You incorrectly claimed that Rahm called all liberals "retarded"

that was PROVEN to be incorrect and yet you feel you spin some how doesn't make it so:shrug:

You remind me of this old saying:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts

[LWolf]

121. No. I accurately claimed that Rahm called

those that I consider to be "the left," (see yesterday's amusing uproar) those "activists" retarded. Let's not try to spin my own statements to inaccurately fit what you are trying to construct.

You remind me of people I know who have to have the last word. ;)

[NJmaverick]

122. So you claim qualifiers that didn't exist in the original and a nonstandard use

of the term "the left". That's a rather huge stretch.

For the record while I don't condone Rahm's insensitive choice of words, but the idea that those activists were squandering precious resources attacking Democrats instead of Republicans could fairly be labeled as foolish.

[LWolf]

123. I'm not stretching.

Just tapping away on my keyboard. It IS time for a stretch, though. I've got physical labor awaiting me out in the summer heat; best not to let it get any hotter.

I'm glad to know you don't condone the word choice. While he apologized to the cognitively disabled, he didn't apologize to those he was willing to engage in juvenile name-calling to attack.

If it's not okay to attack Democrats in primaries, the entire party, and all of DU, must be worthy of his name-calling.

Of course, he doesn't seem to have any problem with attacking Democrats. Democrats who vote, rather than who are supposed to be earning votes, that is.

[Forkboy]

37. He can sure as fuck speak for me.

[JuniperLea]

83. That's fine with me...

He should then say... me and Forkboy... blah blah blah... not a collective "WE." That's hot, steaming fertilizer.

[Bobbie Jo]

69. Indeed.

...and thank you.

[NJmaverick]

14. Please don't speak for me either

[LWolf]

16. Of course not.

But then, I don't consider you to be "the left."

[NJmaverick]

20. Well now you are wrong twice, first you were wrong to presume you could speak for those of us on the

left and then when you got called on that you compounded your mistake by falsely declaring that I wasn't on the left because I didn't meet YOUR version of being on the left. I think you would be better off if you simply spoke for yourself in the future.

[zipplewrath]

23. You're not on the left of him

The GOP is so far right theses days just about anyone can claim to be "on the left".

[DevonRex]

25. How would YOU know? Do you have some kind of "list?"

How very McCarthy of you. :eyes:

[zipplewrath]

28. Judge and jury?

You ask if I have a list, then judge that I do all by yourself, and you call ME McCarthyistic.

You have explained many of your positions, and they are significantly to the right of the other poster. I'm not sure why you aren't proud of that.

[NJmaverick]

42. Seeing how you consider millions of people getting desperately needed insurance "minutia"

I don't think you are good judge of what constitutes the "left"

[zipplewrath]

53. Millions who already qualified

As we have discussed before, IIRC, 25 million will still be without insurance (That's a WH estimate). The estimates were that there were anywhere between 35 million and 45 million prior to the bill. Of that, roughly half already qualified for government assistance in health insurance (or actual health CARE in some cases). As such, it is debatable that "millions" will have insurance that couldn't before. It will be mostly a case of which millions won't have insurance.

And, as we have discussed before, millions will be forced to buy insurance, but they won't be ensured of getting health care, nor being able afford it even if they have access.

It was a big reshuffling of our health insurance industry, but it wasn't all that much of a BFD. In 10 years we'll be speaking of it in the same manner we speak of DADT, DOMA, or NAFTA, all passed by the last darling of the DLC/Centrists.

[NJmaverick]

58. Those with preexisting conditions did not qualify

and the millions getting government aid to pay for insurance may have been qualified (but the term was meaningless to them)

[zipplewrath]

61. And many still don't

Of that 25 million, many are those with pre-existing conditions that will have premiums so high, and wages low enough, that they won't be required to purchase insurance. Mind you they still won't have insurance, but they won't be penalized either. The estimates on how many people the pre-existing condition clause affects aren't huge. Many, MANY group health insurance plans already didn't bar pre-existing conditions. More will be forced to buy insurance, and won't be able to afford to use it. Heck, folks already have insurance and can't afford to use it.

[LWolf]

31. Okay.

You are right.

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

21. Your opinion matters why?

:rofl:

[LWolf]

27. It matters as much as the opinion of any other.

Either my opinion matters, or no opinion matters. Including yours.

It's my opinion about what constitutes "the left" at issue. "Liberal" and "progressive" are no longer "left." Sitting to the left of the right wing doesn't put anyone to the left of the center range.

If you want to co-opt and corrupt the meaning of "left," as in "leftist," what will you call the actual leftists?

[NJmaverick]

35. The problem was you expressed your opinion as representing all of us on the left

rather than stating it as your own.

[LWolf]

45. "All of us on the left."

To the left of what?

[DevonRex]

68. But it's just not your call to decide who is or isn't "on the left." People here have

different approaches to politics, but the agenda is the same - to get liberal policies in place. We are ALL liberals here. You simply can't declare that posters are not on the left. You aren't judge and jury here.

If we have RW trolls, the mods and Admin will take care of that. But no one poster has the right to declare another poster or posters to be "not on the left."

[LWolf]

88. Of course I'm not.

Judge and jury here.

Thankfully, neither are you. :D

[DevonRex]

91. Very true.

:P

[Uzybone]

57. I don't consider you "the left" either

[LWolf]

62. What do you consider me?

Be careful, lol.

[POAS]

79. I don't consider you to be

the keeper of "all that defines the left".

[LWolf]

87. Good thing,

since I'm not, and have never claimed to be.

I would be just devastated if your judgment was inaccurate!

[janx]

17. I don't want a cartoon beaver wearing glasses speaking

for me, if you don't mind. :rofl:

[LWolf]

29. Oh, but he speaks so sensibly.

He's a pragmatic, sensible liberal who backs Obama no matter what.

Those to the left of Chuckles are referred to by our sensible chief of staff Rahm as "retarded."

[janx]

32. Of course!

All of that makes perfect sense! :rofl:

:rofl:

Beaver with glasses, Rahm, "retarded," all of it--it's perfectly understandable and should be to anyone! :rofl:

[NJmaverick]

44. That would be a strawman, not a woodchuck

[LWolf]

48. Chuckles certainly is a strawman. nt

[POAS]

65. We think you don't speak

for the entire "left".

[DevonRex]

71. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

:yourock:

[POAS]

76. Speak for yourself!

:)

[DevonRex]

80. LOL!

Good one!

[LWolf]

92. I don't, of course.

I speak for me, and for those who hold similar positions.

Who are you speaking for, POAS? As in "We think you don't..."

Why is your "We" more legitimate than mine? Don't bother. It's not.

I am highly entertained by the energetic outrage spawned by a comment about inaccurately labeling Obama's positions.

Regardless of where any DUers position themselves on the political spectrum, it's been acknowledged again and again, right here on DU, in GDP and elsewhere, that Obama is not "left." Therefore his agenda is not "left."

Those acknowledgments are almost always in response to criticism of his policies, pointing out that he never claimed to be progressive, or liberal, or whatever, and that those criticizing him "didn't pay attention."

Until I say he's not pushing a "left" agenda, and the swarm begins.

Never a dull moment.

:rofl:

[POAS]

96. It was a sarcasm

when I employed the "we" I'm not surprised you picked up on it.

As for the swarms I've seen those that seem to hover over DU. Not sure where they come from exactly but they seem to arrive like vultures swooping down from some high perch.

Be sure to stay in touch, your posts are always so.... well I find I just can't bring myself to say it, but have a nice day anyway.

[LWolf]

98. I've had a great day, thanks.

I'm certainly not going anywhere any time soon, except to do the chores I left undone while watching my post attract all that highly entertaining attention. My posts are always so...I don't I've seen you respond to many of my posts outside of this one. If you are enjoying them, you'll find those that are more than a hot afternoon's entertainment on my journal page. Feel free to enjoy as many as you can handle! :hi:

[POAS]

103. Your welcome.

[Davis_X_Machina]

34. Perspective.... President... on DU....

:rofl:

[janx]

38. I think this thread has legs.

What do you think? ;-)

[Oregone]

36. Oh, but Im sure *you* are right....

I find "The Truth Always Lies In Between" cliche to be just that...a cliche.

Some times liberals are actually correct. How about that? Pretty crazy statement Ive made, right?

Is it so wrong that a liberal might be correct?

[POAS]

67. What makes you think the person

you are addressing isn't a "liberal". Are you in the business of defining the values of others?

Assigning yourself and others labels which you chose to define for the benefit of your position is a cliche' as they come!

[Oregone]

70. When demeaning two groups and lauding the stand-for-nothing center...

...it made me assume they associate themselves with that very center.

Yes, perhaps this is an unfounded assumption, and they were engaging in self-criticism.

[POAS]

75. Keep defining by your own perceptions

I'm sure you'll find much agreement inside that cozy little nest you've built out on that limb your on.

[Oregone]

82. I plan on it.

Thanks for your blessing

[DevonRex]

81. It's demeaning overreactions coming from both ends of the political spectrum.

A little common sense would have told you that.

[POAS]

94. Unfortunately

sense is far from common in these parts and when it does show up it gets labeled and pigeon holed.

I just wish we could get to the root of the problem causing such a lack of sense (common or otherwise) around here.

[DevonRex]

95. So would I. I'd like to get past hysterical reactions and instead get the facts

before announcing hardened positions based on incorrect information. That goes for us here at DU and people like Vilsack, too.

Anything that comes out of the media has to be double and triple checked.

Obviously this OP was talking about overreactions coming from both ends of the spectrum and not "the left" and "the right," because not all people within those 2 camps would say those 2 opposing things. There is a LOT of gray area in between.

[Forkboy]

40. Wow, that's deep.

[NJmaverick]

43. You response or the OP?

[Forkboy]

51. The OP reads like a poor man's fortune cookie.

What the Hell was there to respond to? It's like debating Sesame Street's letter of the day.

How you doing today? :hi:

[Oregone]

72. LOL

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

63. The canal?

[CakeGrrl]

46. Somewhere between the two lies the truth, to paraphrase the saying. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. +1

[POAS]

77. +2

[Jennicut]

73. Dem Presidents always have to hold onto that coalition of liberal, moderate and centrist Dems.

DU is made up mostly liberal and moderate Dems and we fight all the time. But I think seeing each other as enemies just completely counterproductive. I could care less that people use a cartoon character like it represents actually complicated real people and their ever increasingly complicated feelings.

I get that Obama is too centrist for some, while he is just fine for others. Nothing wrong with pushing the President to the left. But we mostly just put each other in two different camps and then decide to put labels on those camps. Whatever. You know what? My ideas on policies are all over the place. Half the time I can't put myself into any one camp because it depends on the policy or decisions the administration makes on a daily basis. Sometimes I like their decisions, sometimes I don't. Obama to me is neither the enemy nor is he perfect.

[bvar22]

85. There is a problem with your premise.

If you examine the last 30 years, "The Left" (The AntiWAR, Pro-LABOR, Civil Rights, Fair Trade, strong regulation, wing of the Democratic Party) has been correct on every major issue, while the "Centrists" and the Right have been dead WRONG.
.
.
.
but don't let HISTORY get in your way.



"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[grahamhgreen]

90. There is nothing "Centrist" about pushing policies that only help the ultra rich/monopolies.

[BootinUp]

102. How does your narrative fit with this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4474502

Not too well. Do facts matter to you when you post?

[grahamhgreen]

104. Like this..

We don't just need to ALLOW the Bush tax cuts to expire - we need to pro-actively return them to pre-Reagan levels of 74% or Eisenhower levels of 94%.

Not to mention they allowed the estate tax to expire as well.

[BootinUp]

105. And the failed narrative continues!

lol.

[NJmaverick]

116. If what you said was actually true the Republicans would be helping

and supporting him, rather than fighting him tooth and nail.