GIVING OBAMA CREDIT FOR A BIG THING NOBODY NOTICES

[jonathan_seer]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/massive-fisher-price-recall-10-mil-products/story?id=11757016

During the Bush years, the FDA and other Federal agencies responsible for ensuring the safety of products sold to consumers to helping companies "comply with regulations without creating undue expenses and damaging their market" possibly driving them out of business (yes I know what bullshit).

As the Bush years passed, companies became "clients" of these agencies, rather than their regulatory responsibility. Working together with them became the priority.

The result was devastating to the consumer.

Once the regulatory agencies under Bush basically abandoned their protection role, the flow of unsafe garbage from overseas became a flood.

We'll never know how many Americans were harmed in this way, for immediacy is a must when finding out who what when where. Yet the Bush Admin regulators did nothing or threw up their arms and gave up without a fight.

We rarely saw a recall of any product.

The response by Bush admin regulators to finding food tainted with bacteria that could cause food poisoning says it all.

The FDA spent months trying to find the source. Eventually it gave up, without ever figuring it out claiming the supply chain was too complex and long to prove or find any one supplier who was at fault.

Basically unscrupulous food suppliers got away with murder, because some died from that food poisoning.

UNDER OBAMA this changed pretty quickly.

The recent discovery of salmonella bacteria in eggs was solved in weeks.

The often used excuse of the Bush Admin -the suppler chain on any one product being such a complex web finding sources of contamination was next to impossible- was not heard.

Instead we saw successful action, and the guilty company's executive testifying before congress explaining himself as the investigation goes on.

OBAMA has restored the Government's role as THE GUARDIAN of the consumer, and the FDA the watchdog of our drug industry.

Johnson and Johnson is NOT going to get away with another "phantom recall."

It no longer sees companies it regulates as "clients". They re once again regulatory responsibilities, done in the name of and for the public.

It NO LONGER MAKES THE SOLE CONSIDERATION FOR TAKING OR NOT TAKING ACTION the needs of businesses who flout our laws are derelict in production.

Today's big toy recall is a case in point.

Millions of toys are being recalled for safety reasons - poor design has caused numerous injuries in small children.

Compare that to the toy recall under bush. Nothing was does about lead in the paint used in toys made in China until the media took note.

President Obama's admin. acts without any need for media embarrassment.

We need to give President Obama credit.

Maybe he's not moving fast enough on each of our "single issue of greatest importance" to us personally, BUT when it comes to protecting society from tainted food, bad medicine, corrupt suppliers in China Etc., this president has delivered the change we sought.

It is like night and day.

President Obama has restored the Government's ability to regulate and ensure the safety of consumer products, medications Etc. after President Bush corrupted it by appointing industry hacks who spent their days foiling its efforts

Yet almost nobody on our team even bothers to mention these successes!

Have so many of us become consumed with a single issue that we have become "glass half empty" types unable to recognize when President Obama actually fulfills one of his promises?

He promised to restore the Government's ability to keep our food supply safe as possible, and ensure manufacturers don't get away with selling defective or dangerous products, and after 2 years of regular recalls, he has succeeded.

Yes I know I'm repeating myself saying the same thing in different ways, BUT IT BEARS REPEATING until it sinks in that we have received something tangible from the Obama administration and Democrats in charge.

We canNOT depend or expect the media to report the good stuff or explain that these changes happened, because President Obama believes in the government's role as protector of the consumer.

In trying to assess the Obama administration the worst thing we as Democrats can do is adopt the Republican tactic of only judging based on how he has failed to so far deliver on something, like health care.

Conflating distinct issues is not only unfair it's wrong and illogical. We have to stop making celebrating his successes contingent on succeeding on everything.

All too often the issues are utterly disconnected, and success in one has no bearing on success on another issue.

He has delivered big time on changes that benefit all of us in a variety of big and small, life and death matters when it comes to restoring the Government's food, drug and import regulatory role.

We should NOT deny him credit or fail to acknowledge the good and credible changes, because he's stalled on another issue.

There are many days left in his administration.

There will be many future opportunities to push his admin to do the right thing on DADT, Health care Etc.

In the run up to the midterms however, our focus should be on the hardcore, real and good changes he's made that benefit every American equally.

This is a must, because if we don't speak up no one will. If we don't we will ultimately share the blame for allowing the other side's big lies become the truth on which Americans decide who to vote for this November.

[Uzybone]

1. KnR

[Ozymanithrax]

2. But, But, But Rahm ... But Banksters ... But ... Heath Care Giveaway...

Thank you mister President for your work protecting Americans everywhere...

Now, back to...

Some parts of the previous message were...
:sarcasm:
The Thank you was heart felt and genuine.

[tavalon]

5. No, and

This isn't a bipolar situation. And, he ought to have used the stage we gave him to tout this change. That is one of the things he has turned out to be not good at. I get that he's doing things behind the scenes but it's only the things he does in front of us that get the coverage and that is the same as it ever was with position of President. It's part of politics. And it's a part he hasn't done especially well.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. He has used his stage to initiate change...

they are small, but they are change for the better. I prefer actions to touts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. Without the touts, however, we are left with only the glaring compromises and

shortcomings and failures.

What so many fail to recognize is that we who criticize preemptive compromise WANT Obama to succeed. Putting the teeth back into regulation is NOT a small change - it is a really big one which saves lives and, if you think about it, saves businesses and jobs, because a company hit with a multi-billion dollar suit because it covered up problems for years is going to fail, whereas a company which is caught early by the regulatory process will fix the problem and keep on going.

If he had addressed DADT in his first six months, it would have been repealed a year ago. If he had fought for a public option from the beginning instead of letting a timorous congress take the lead, we'd have everything we got in the HCR AND a public option as well.

We need both actions AND touting of successes. If we had actually gotten that for the past two years, we wouldn't be in trouble today.

[whathehell]

67. It needen't be one or the other..

Both is best. n/t

[Chulanowa]

39. Do you have the bar on a hoist?

'Cause it seems to shoot way up pretty often.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

63. This guys has been traveling all over the country touting what he has done.

You didn't see it on the Tee-Vee, therefore, it's not true.

No one's covering his bully pulpit as he continues to travel, sadly...

[yurbud]

69. and because of media bias, it has to come directly from his mouth, & probably during an Oval Office

speech, or it won't be covered.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. I see you didn't even mention the public option in your post.

Clearly not a real progressive.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. I am a liberal, not a progressive...

...and the public option was lumped under the health care thingy.

[lame54]

41. Why did you have to go there

[glitch]

58. Agreed. Keeping us divided when there is some good news seems to be a popular objective.

When there is something good we can all cheer, why pre-empt it with snark? Who benefits from that? It's like you don't support him on this so you can't support him on that. Weird.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Thank you. Awesome post. Kick & Rec.

[Lisa D]

4. Great post

and refreshing, too :)

KnR

[Sinistrous]

6. K&R

[vaberella]

8. Obama gets blamed for most everything. Thanks for this!! n/t

[slay]

9. HOW WOULD IT LOOK IF EVERY TOPIC WAS IN ALL CAPS?

i could give a huge list of the things he hasn't accomplished as well so... :shrug:

[Pirate Smile]

11. Thanks for being the Debbie Downer of the thread because, Gawd Forbid Obama get some props without

someone trying to sh** on him at the same time.

Good example of why some critics get treated as perpetual complainers and whiners because they can't acknowledge anything positive.

[impik]

22. Yea, thank god for the "ignore" function

[mkultra]

61. good point, that debbie downer has earned a spot.

[ProSense]

23. Yeah, but

it would be a list of things no President has accomplished so what would be the point: Look at all the things President Obama hasn't accomplished that no President has?

[Drunken Irishman]

28. God I hope you don't have children...

That type of mindset would make you a terrible father.

[slay]

32. I'm sure your mother wished the same thing for herself

but lucky her - she got you. :P

[Drunken Irishman]

33. My mother never focused solely on the negative...

She was always happy to point out when I did well and when I didn't. That's something you haven't figured out how to do.

[sulphurdunn]

10. Congrats Prez.

The FDA is an executive branch agency. Changes there do not required legislation, merely interpretation and enforcement of the law. What you did was good. Now do the same thing with the Pentagon. The generals also work for you.

[Tafiti]

64. That's not the whole story.

Yes, the FDA is an executive agency, but their authority is both derived from and defined by enabling legislation. Not only that, but executive agencies can also be hamstrung by the appropriations process, so if Congress doesn't want the FDA to do something, it's very simple--they underfund them. And that's pretty much what's been going on.

If you've got 9 minutes, this is well worth watching. FDA Commissioner Dr. Hamburg raises this issue specifically: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module_byid.html?s=news01n42ddqf56

(Edited to insert missing word.)

[sulphurdunn]

70. I watched the video. Thanks.

[Frustratedlady]

12. Thanks for a positive post.

It seems so many posts are criticizing Obama for not fulfilling the poster's wants and needs. They seem to forget there are many people Obama must please.

He has done a good job as far as I'm concerned and I enjoy reading what others have to say in praise, as well.

I just hope the next two years will go smoothly and he can really accomplish everything he wanted to do.

[meeshrox]

13. Thank you for this...

something refreshing when I was feeling down.

[Pisces]

14. Great post. K&R

[Diane R]

15. Nice to see a positive journal entry in the upper right hand corner for a change.

[krawhitham]

16. What is wrong with you, this is DU, Obama gets credit for nothing

[Irishonly]

17. Great Post

I hadn't thought about it. Everything was handled so smoothly just like it was always supposed to be. Thank you.

[AtomicKitten]

20. K&R

:patriot:

[impik]

21. But yesterday i bought

this Pizza, and didn't like the taste of it. This is not the change i voted for!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

24. I agree with your facts but disagree with your interpretation.

You make several good points. However history and science lead to a different conclusion, i.e. that President Obama is not to be congratulated despite several progressive accomplishments.

First let me acknowledge he has done several good things (as evidenced by your OP) and that he has been dealt the worst presidential hand since FDR.

Having said that, American history points to times when decisive action, outside of popular consensus, is necessary. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 might be the first historical example. I don’t believe there was a popular majority, much less consensus for such a bold stroke. Another example might be the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Perhaps the trust busting of Teddy Roosevelt is another.

Perhaps there was a popular majority in favor of the New Deal. Nonetheless the extreme opposition of the upper class and SCOTUS was clear. However, FDR certainly had no majority support for opposing the rise of fascism. He had to do so using deceit and also Machiavellian subterfuge prior to Pearl Harbor (e.g. Lend Lease). Isolationists and fascist sympathizers in the U.S. allowed no moral alternative.

However in the aftermath of WWII, a new class of moral imperative issues has arisen. Issues which could be labeled existential threats.

The first was nuclear winter (i.e. a full scale nuclear exchange). Another was the depletion of the ozone layer. The hardest to combat is climate change. This crisis is already devastating two continents (Africa and Antarctica) and rapidly debilitating the other four.

Without radical action, world civilization is likely to collapse sometime in our century. How exactly the global ecosystem will “go critical” is not certain. But what is highly likely is that we are careening toward the deaths of billions of people and the destruction of civilization for the foreseeable future. And what is certain is that climate change models in the last two decades have proved to be overly optimistic and that the time table for the acceleration of climate change has to be constantly revised with ever more dire predictions and more quickly realized

So while there are many important issues in our time, I agree with James Hansen that climate change is the pre-eminent moral issue of our age. This climate scientist bases his claim on the conclusions of scientific consensus.

I’m sure Neville Chamberlain did many good things as prime minister. But the moral imperative of his age was opposition to fascism. History has judged him to have failed at Munich by appeasing Hitler in his aggression in central Europe. His actions risked the loss of western civilization. He failed in his duty.

I believe the same can be said of President Obama in Copenhagen in 2009. The time is short and he did nothing of any significance, according to Naomi Klein and other critics.

I originally supported (and attempted to help draft) Al Gore in the 2008 presidential cycle because I thought he was most likely to provide world leadership on the issue of our age. When it became clear he would not run, I supported Obama because he was an unknown quantity. I thought it possible that he would have the extraordinary courage to do the right thing, while all other viable candidates had already demonstrated political cowardice on the Iraqi War Resolution in 2002. I was disappointed in 2009 by the travesty in Copenhagen in 2009. I consider it planetary treason. I have not supported President Obama since. I will not support him in 2012 unless he finds some radical way to redeem his treason.

I understand the gravity of such a position. Republicans represent a policy path of almost certain destruction, as well as certain magnification of human suffering globally, even putting aside the ravages of climate change. Moderate policies, with some progressive, conservative and reactionary policies thrown in, is much preferable to the neo-fascist policies generally advocated by the contemporary GOP, at least in the near term.

However, my position is that if no real effort is made to row our sinking life boat to shore, alternative courses are of academic, rather than vital interest.

I hope to God I am wrong about the implications of Obama’s refusal to lead the world at Copenhagen. But scientific studies indicate otherwise. We don’t know absolutely that the ecological effects of climate change will take a nonlinear course, but the principles of real conservatism dictate that we not rely on unlikely sanguine scenarios. The head of the Democratic Party must provide world leadership on this sui generis issue, or get the hell out of the way.

[ProSense]

27. Hmmmm?

Having said that, American history points to times when decisive action, outside of popular consensus, is necessary. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 might be the first historical example. I don’t believe there was a popular majority, much less consensus for such a bold stroke. Another example might be the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Perhaps the trust busting of Teddy Roosevelt is another.

So it's your understanding that the President has done nothing outside of popular consensus? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I originally supported (and attempted to help draft) Al Gore in the 2008 presidential cycle because I thought he was most likely to provide world leadership on the issue of our age. When it became clear he would not run, I supported Obama because he was an unknown quantity. I thought it possible that he would have the extraordinary courage to do the right thing, while all other viable candidates had already demonstrated political cowardice on the Iraqi War Resolution in 2002. I was disappointed in 2009 by the travesty in Copenhagen in 2009. I consider it planetary treason. I have not supported President Obama since. I will not support him in 2012 unless he finds some radical way to redeem his treason.

Your choice, but the President has to make choices based on the real dynamics in Congress. The Kerry-Boxer bill couldn't even get the support of progressive Senators. Where were the climate activists on Kerry-Boxer? When Kerry-Lieberman surfaced, some of the bigger organizations stood up. For his part, Gore began lobbying Congress and encouraging others to do so. He was completely ignored.

Health care was a priorty, and as difficult as the road was, had a much stronger chance of passing than a climate bill. Even those who believe the President needs to do more on climate change acknowledge that he has made progress in this area.

Joe Romm:

Yes, despite pushing through a variety of clean energy and CO2-reducing strategies that make him the greenest president to date, he has utterly failed on his crucial campaign commitment of passing comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation. In part this is for lack of serious trying by his White House, but mostly because of the disinformation campaign pushed by Big Oil and corporate polluters and because the Republican Party has been captured by Big Oil, Big Polluters, and the Tea Party extremists, who themselves are backed by Big Oil , as discussed here.

New rules raising fuel standard requirements.

New rules to regulate coal air pollution

New sulfur dioxide emissions limits

New rules to limit water pollution from mining.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

30. Let me try again.

So it's your understanding that the President has done nothing outside of popular consensus?

My point about consensus is that in exceptional circumstances, a president must be ready pass his "profile in courage" moment, regardless of popular sentiment.

Your choice, but the President has to make choices based on the real dynamics in Congress. The Kerry-Boxer bill couldn't even get the support of progressive Senators. Where were the climate activists on Kerry-Boxer? When Kerry-Lieberman surfaced, some of the bigger organizations stood up. For his part, Gore began lobbying Congress and encouraging others to do so. He was completely ignored.

My point was addressing climate change diplomacy, i.e. the need to lead the world at Copenhagen. I take your lack of defense concerning Obama's role at Copenhagen as a tacit admission of my accusation. Certainly domestic legislation is one part of the role of the American president in addressing climate change. But world leadership is his transcendent role in that regard.

American politics are so far to the right of other G20 countries generally that ratification of a significant climate treaty is probably still a nonstarter in the U.S. Senate. Yet paradoxically the only truly successful climate treaty was entirely dependent on American leadership. In Inventing Al Gore, Bill Turque described how Gore personally saved the Kyoto Accord in 1997 at the eleventh hour, against the advice of his political advisers.

Al Gore passed his profile-in-courage moment. Barack Obama flunked his.

[ProSense]

35. No

"I take your lack of defense concerning Obama's role at Copenhagen as a tacit admission of my accusation."

No, it doesn't.

"Certainly domestic legislation is one part of the role of the American president in addressing climate change. But world leadership is his transcendent role in that regard."

Your problem is that you seem to believe that the only test of leadership is solving the climate crisis.

There are many pressing issues, world hunger and poverty among them. Obama’s Development Reforms: From Charity to Growth

The thing is as critical as climate change is, the solutions are not going to have an overnight impact, and it's important that the solutions address the problems. One of the reasons Congress failed to pass a bill is that members wanted to weaken it beyond its capacity to have any real impact.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

37. I'll take that bet.

Your problem is that you seem to believe that the only test of leadership is solving the climate crisis.

Your straw man argument won’t wash. “Only” (your word) is not a synonym for “transcendent” (my word). I certainly appreciate that world hunger is a profound humanitarian and national security issue.

It’s easy to come up with a list of incredibly important issues for America. Poor nutrition and hunger right here. Major educational reform is needed. In particular we need to study the policies advocated by Arne Duncan and then set off to reform education in exactly the opposite way, for the most part. We need a federal “Clean Money” statute, in order to have real democratic elections in the age of television. We need media outlets without a corporate bias, like the BBC. We need real health care reform. We need guaranteed housing. We need to bust up the giant corporate behemoths. We need robust organized labor, a living wage, etc. We need a redistribution of wealth so that the poor and the middle class make economic progress again. Basically we need to end the Age of Reagan and get back to Jeffersonian principles.

But none of that will mean a damn thing if Pennsylvania becomes beach front property in a couple of decades, or tropical diseases resistant to antibiotics break out in the south or the Midwest becomes a desert. If you don’t plug the leak in your life boat it doesn’t matter whether you repair your fishing net. That is why climate change is the transcendant issue.

In the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen the African delegation walked out in disgust. People are dying in droves right now because of the desertification of Africa. This isn’t some ivory tower issue about the future. People are suffering and dying right now. That’s why the Africans walked out.

Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the G77 group of developing nations, greeted the news that rich countries will spend a mere $10-billion helping poor states cope with climate change by saying that it was "not enough to buy us coffins."

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/12/copenhagen-where-africa-took-obama

Here is how Naomi Klein assessed Obama’s role in Copenhagen:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-obama-climate-change

For the most important issue of our time, Obama gets an F-. It would have been better if the Copenhagen conference had not occurred. At least we would have still had the Kyoto emission standards in place. Obama took the easy way out, pushing the anemic standards out to 2020. Shame on him. He is the first Democratic president not to make progress in a climate treaty, following in the tradition of both Bush presidencies. The audacity of Copenhagen will live in infamy.

[ProSense]

46. A lot of nothing

Your straw man argument won’t wash. “Only” (your word) is not a synonym for “transcendent” (my word). I certainly appreciate that world hunger is a profound humanitarian and national security issue.

Straw man?

Your previous comment in context:

Certainly domestic legislation is one part of the role of the American president in addressing climate change. But world leadership is his transcendent role in that regard....Al Gore passed his profile-in-courage moment. Barack Obama flunked hisp.

Your problem is that you seem to believe that the only test of leadership is solving the climate crisis.

Your current comment:

It’s easy to come up with a list of incredibly important issues for America. Poor nutrition and hunger right here. Major educational reform is needed. In particular we need to study the policies advocated by Arne Duncan and then set off to reform education in exactly the opposite way, for the most part. We need a federal “Clean Money” statute, in order to have real democratic elections in the age of television. We need media outlets without a corporate bias, like the BBC. We need real health care reform. We need guaranteed housing. We need to bust up the giant corporate behemoths. We need robust organized labor, a living wage, etc. We need a redistribution of wealth so that the poor and the middle class make economic progress again. Basically we need to end the Age of Reagan and get back to Jeffersonian principles.

But none of that will mean a damn thing if Pennsylvania becomes beach front property in a couple of decades, or tropical diseases resistant to antibiotics break out in the south or the Midwest becomes a desert. If you don’t plug the leak in your life boat it doesn’t matter whether you repair your fishing net. That is why climate change is the transcendant issue.

Your problem is that you seem to believe that the only test of leadership is solving the climate crisis.

Also, you seem to think Naomi Klein's opinion is relevant here.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

53. Let the readers decide whether logical fallacies have occurred.

I chose in my original response to the OP to focus on climate change because I agree with the distinguished climate scientist James Hansen (among others) that this is the most important issue of our time. I clearly responded to your assertion concerning the "only test of leadership," stating I did not believe that. I distinguished between your characterization ("only") and my characterization ("transcendent"). I referred to a plethora of other issues I consider to have great importance.

Let each reader decide whether your assertion is a logically fallacious straw man argument.

You dismiss my links to Naomi Klein, implying that her opinion is irrelevant. You chose not to rebut her statement of facts, argumentation or conclusions.

Let each reader decide whether your technique is a logically fallacious ad hominem argument.

I learned more about international climate change efforts both from reading your link and reviewing my links. I hope you and others also learned something from the exchange. Feel free to have the last word, if you feel so inclined.

Over and out.

[swilton]

48. Agree with you Admiral

Obama's opportunities on mitigating environmental disasters have been unprecedented. Yet to make a historical turnaround on critical issues such as climate change and other issues (corporate power, foreign policy, health care) has been done before in America's history - The essence of American greatness has been to step up to the plate to face the challenges of World War II for example. Obama was given a huge mandate to meet these challenges - unfortunately he has not stepped up to the plate and not lived up to the promises contained in his eloquent speaches.

[krkaufman]

51. OK, but the one problem with this approach...

alternative courses are of academic, rather than vital interest

... is that, using your terminology, every human lives an academic life. (i.e. the immediate, tangible suffering brought about by Right Wing regimes makes, for them, the issue of climate change somewhat moot)

[Admiral Loinpresser]

57. I admit that the statement is dicey.

I believe we have to walk and chew gum at the same time, i.e. address other major humanitarian concerns, fight the right wing, etc. My point was that if world civilization is gone the suffering that will have entailed will greatly diminish any other right actions we took on other issues.

[Scurrilous]

25. K & R

:thumbsup:

[johnnyplankton]

26. I was thinking much the same the other day...

It' hard to fight all the battles, with so many corrupt conservo-dems in the Senate. But he certainly is winning this one hugely.

[KakistocracyHater]

29. that's much better news but it shows how important it is to get a media

network up & running, if need be financed by a group until such time it is able to stand on its own. The Left gave up much too soon when it tried, I have only to look at Fox News & what their timeline shows, concerning financing.

There should be a weekly simple list of actual things passed into law & acted on; not about the future, but now. It should be available conspicously onsite, or emailed by voluntary sign-up.

[Hekate]

31. KRB. Bush cronyism set FDA back a century--Obama's appointments are hauling it into the 21st

If God forbid pets start dropping dead again, I don't think the current FDA will let it slide and just bury the issue. Real science is happening, real investigations, and at FEMA -- real professionals.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[JDPriestly]

34. Thanks. I'd also like information on how some of the other

regulatory agencies are doing now as well as some of the other departments.

Have things improved at the Labor Department? How about the Energy Department?

In spite of the fact that we are not as out of Iraq as we pretend and that Afghanistan is not going well, our relationships with foreign governments seems to have improved drastically.

Obama is really messing things up in the Education Department, the majority of things economic (except the appointment of Elizabeth Warren), but of course the real test is what is happening in these other areas. I know that Obama has improved the functioning of all matters affecting the environment.

I don't think that Obama should have kept the same military leadership or national security leadership that Bush had. He should have added more of his own appointments to posts in those areas. He still has time to make some important changes.

[FrenchieCat]

38. The FTC seem to be doing much better job than ever before.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x462725

[gateley]

36. Yes, like night and day -- in other areas, too, but this is a great example. nt

[greenman3610]

40. the courts, the courts, the courts...

[babylonsister]

42. Most excellent post! Thank you, jonathan_seer, and welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Enthusiast]

43. This enforcement and protection

of the consumer is part of the 'too much government interference' in business the Republicans want to stop.

[Scuba]

44. A copy should be given to all campaign staff workers.

[groundloop]

45. Good view of the big picture

Good post jonathon. Things are vastly improved under President Obama, yet many people tend to focus on one or two pet issues where they didn't get everything they wanted (which is just the way it is in a democracy). I'm disappointed that we didn't get single payer healthcare, but I think much of the blame for that belongs with the dysfunctional Senate - yet the bill we finally got does make many improvements to our healthcare. I tend to agree with others in that I feel the President Obama should have stayed in campaign mode to some extent and done more bragging about his accomplishments. But in any case our country is so much better off than under Bush, I'm terrified to think of what will happen if repubs regain even one house of congress.

[salib]

47. All the more reason to have Obama

In the Whitehouse. Or most any Dem. The agencies are always better with someone who believes that Govt can do something in charge.

Unfortunately, it is beside the point. Obama is not rung foe re-election. Congress is. We need to get behind our Congress critters. If we want to talk the Admin them we should talk about how that will impact the next Congress, not the agencies.

[krkaufman]

49. Well that was a little misleading.

The ABC news story/link was a simple toy recall, expressing none of the comparative information laid out in the post.

[MadMaddie]

50. You are absolutely correct!

I also think that another accomplishment of this administration is that they don't get a bullhorn everytime they do something well. Now this is positive and negative, they do need to let Americans know of the successess in a better way than they are doing it but they don't need to go overboard. It's a balancing act.

They are making the government agencies work like they are supposed to work.

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. So the administration is to speak in calm, rational tones

while the other side uses the bullhorn?

If OUR side doesn't talk about the good we are doing, who the hell will? We HAVE to counter the propaganda network of Fox & Friends.

I really believe that the people coming down on the left for criticizing our shortcomings are doing so only because the critics is all we are hearing. We are getting a LOT of really good stuff done, and we have a LONG way to go, but the stick their fingers in their ears types don't want to hear about what isn't done, and celebrate the most half-assed accomplishments as great triumphs.

Not getting a bullhorn is NOT an accomplishment - it is another failure, a political miscalculation.

[lonestarnot]

52. K & R!

[Daemonaquila]

54. I was with you until your conclusion.

Look, I totally give him props on starting on the road back to basic, reasonable regulation. However, you're doing exactly the same things you're saying the Repukes do, only in reverse. Just as it makes no sense to judge a person only on what he has failed to deliver, it also makes no sense to judge a person only on what he succeeded in. Politicians' records must be judged on many things - their successes, failures, brave words, quick backpedaling, etc. Obama is not measuring up. He's a hell of a lot better than Bush, but "I'm not Bush!" has never been a useful slogan to run on. I'll stick to unmasking the right wing lies. I won't be a cheerleader for a tepid administration, whose feet the Democratic base should hold to the fire.

[hulka38]

55. That's good - K&R

[Turbineguy]

56. Bush was interested in destroying government.

An agency that does not function is not needed and can therefore be eliminated.

[glitch]

59. K & R for an excellent point and post, and belated welcome to DU! nt

[mariawr]

60. Womderful post. Please, more! nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. Give Obama credit? On DU? Surely you jest! Thanks so much for this! n/t

[h9socialist]

65. Thank You!

[rury]

71. Thank you for noticing what President Obama has

done and giving the man his well-deserved props!!

OBAMA 2012