Why does it have to take a statement from the President for people to become active?

[vaberella]

There is something inherently wrong with our society when it has to take a statement from our President for people to crash Congress servers. I mean several weeks of inaction by Congress caused by Republicans and bullying by Republicans, along with several statements by the President for people to get his back! We're a free society. It took a lot of years of abuse for the Civil Rights to be a coordinated affair that erupted into a massive movement by all marginalized communities to make change. We didn't need a President to tell us to do something to do something.

From the bloody moment Obama became President he said, "This is not about me, it's about you." We have a responsibility and a stake in how our country governs. This is why I do blame the American citizens who voted for Teabaggers and Republicans to fuck up on the nation. I don't blame Obama, he didn't vote for those son's of bitches. I don't even blame those Teabaggers and Republicans---because they fuckin' sat on a podium and told the American people before they voted that this is EXACTLY what they were planning to do. This is exactly what they're fight was about. This is exactly what they wanted. And yet the American people said, "Yes. Yes this is exactly what I wanted." Now they realized how wrong they were. How racist, sexist, ineffectual, and destructive these people are.

But they caused this war to go awry. I appreciate the dislike of the Bluedogs---shit I hate them too. But I would never have replaced them with Teabaggers. In any event---it shouldn't have to take this from the President to get us active.

It should never have been the case. Wisconsin was great. They were in the right---Wisconsin said fuck it, we made a mistake, we're going to fix it and they didn't need the President. They saw there was a problem. I think we're a nation that has become complacent in our needs and a bit lazy about it. It's not just about going to the ballot box. It's not just going to our Reps in the House and Senate and even local government. It's about getting others to be active, to be knowledgeable, to be aware of what's going on and participate actively and recognize a poison when it's in our system.

I appreciate the President's actions. Some may say this is what they always wanted. I saw town hall after town hall after town hall of Obama asking for people to become active. To actually get moving. And none of this has ever happened. It seems it had to take an event where people see how the hands of the President are tied; where they see how far some people will go not only to destroy the President, but also the nation in order to take out the President---do people get this active.

In future...I hope it doesn't have to take anything like weeks of shitty bargaining, shitty actions by Repubs and Teabaggers to get us to realize who the fuck is on our side and who the hell isn't. Obama supposedly did tell Cantor that he would take this to the American people...I'm glad he finally got through this time. Because the first few times it didn't seem to get anyone moving than Dems. Finally with this break down in the servers---people are finally really getting serious about what's going on.

But it's also disappointing that it takes so much for us to get our President's back. Damn disappointing.

[yurbud]

1. uh, when Obama offers to cut social security and medicare, he doesn't deserve our back.

Obama doesn't seem to understand (or care) about not just negotiating, but take positions that people can understand and support.

Serial concessions that Republicans refuse to accept might in some abstract sense make the Republicans look bad, but to most people, it will look like the GOP is driving a hard bargain with a limp noodle. Every concession signals to the GOP that they can get still more, so they hold out for more and more.

[vaberella]

2. In actuality no one has even confirmed that...but many have claimed it.

A sad meme---based on the special interpretive skill of the few. Sadly this actions should have been taken since the time Paul Ryan was pimping his statements. But they weren't. You seem to gladly forget this fact. The Teabaggers and Repubs were at it for months and nothing was really done except by a few. Very few. I even mentioned them in my post.

Additionally, I'm trying to figure out why now people have Obama's back since---the meme you're preaching about Obama selling out the people has been around for a little over a month by Repubs and Liberal Dems alike. Why weren't the servers dying out then? No, it's not until the President seemed angry and showed his emotions for the 8th time or so that people felt the need to respond and actively do what he said and in effect taking his back.

Your claim is weak---because the facts of the situation seems to nullify your statements.

[Mass]

12. So, you would prefer for people to wait until he does it before saying they oppose it.

This is the point. You get active on issues, not as a fan club. Saying "Do not touch on social security and Medicare Medicaid" is more important than saying "do not touch on Obama" (or anybody else for the matter). Obama did not come and say he would not after the media reported he would. It should have been enough for people to call the president for clarification.

[vaberella]

16. In actuality I would like some facts than suppositions sold as facts as you put forth.

This is why you give me this silly response which is not a quot of what he plans to do. Which you claimed he would do. It's lame.

[Mass]

18. It is not a silly response. It is the definition of activism.

(and BTW, I am a big fan of president Obama. I just do not believe that I have to agree with everything or wait he speaks to say what I think. Actually, your post is contradictory. You say we should not wait until he speaks, but if we do and say "Do not touch social security and Medicare", you think we are attacking him).

Actually, when the American people participate in a way you disagree with, you call them Obama's haters.

[boppers]

3. "Why does it have to take a statement from the President for people to become active?"

To crash a few servers?

Nobody will remember it in a week.

Count on it.

People with jobs, families, children, legal issues, revenue issues.... yeah, emailing/faxing a congressman is kind of low on the list of "SHIT THEY MUST DO RIGHT NOW".

People rarely think in terms of long-term outcomes.

If they did, there would be many fewer teen pregnancies, many more vaccinations, many less bad housing loans, much less obesity and smoking, more language courses, more global trade, less stock market trading, and the boomers wouldn't have happened.

The human mind is wired for short-term thinking, in general. People (especially US Americans) don't think in terms of a 200 year mindset. They're worried about their lives, today.

[lunatica]

4. A great majority of Americans aren't political junkies or current on what's happening

with the government. Most people actually have lives and interests that have nothing to do with politics or watching Congress make asses of themselves and they trust that their government is running things correctly.

That's why it takes Presidents to get citizens to act in their own interests.

[boston bean]

5. The spending cuts in entitlements are not in our interest.

He allowed them to hinge raising the ceiling on a grand bargain.

Which he is still pushing for btw.

I've asked people to call congress, the president, etc. And got laughed off DU. i'm not the president, but still why weren't as many people on DU willing to call a week ago, to demand hands of SS and Medicare, if it works so well.

Many were telling others, STFU, you don't know what he is really doing. Do you have more insight now?

[Recursion]

6. Even here, on a board largely of activists, you see people asking for a "leader" from above

We accuse the right of this but I really think it's a bigger problem on our side: we wait for a hero figure to come in rather than digging in and doing the low-level grunt work the right has been doing for 3 decades now.

Back In The Old Days (tm) this board used to have a lot of talk about specific races, local issues that could decide elections, etc. I don't really see that much anymore; I see a bunch of people pissed off to learn that getting the White House isn't remotely enough to actually accomplish what we want and taking that out on the person in it.

[KurtNYC]

7. I think I disagree with your characterization of events

It concerns me that the President does not ask for action from his base more often. It gives the impression that he does not want us to pay attention. When he asks for it, he gets it. It seems like he has enormous power but refuses to us it toward progressive ends.

[vaberella]

15. Do you not listen to the myriad of townhalls and announcements?

He's always asking for the American people to participate. Why would he do a town-hall if he wasn't asking us to be active? That's what that is about. Because he doesn't go on prime-time all the time doesn't mean he hasn't gotten out the message. Because his townhalls which happen like once a week aren't broadcasted doesn't mean he's not asking us to be active.

Please don't give me such a pathetic excuse. We should actually realize that our help is needed even if he doesn't ask. You and I have been watching has been going on for weeks. You don't need the President to call on you to work to help him. You should know that we need to help him because there are people in government, put in place either by our own inactivity or through the stupidity of others who want to see him fail. We need to be on guard and try to help fight for what's right.

[flamingdem]

8. We have to get rid of the "Chill out I"ve got this covered" idea, he needs help! nt

[LiberalFighter]

9. Congressional members don't have the pulpit.

They wouldn't be given prime time coverage as the President.

[vaberella]

13. They don't need prime time. They have the fuckin' district!!!! n/t

[elleng]

10. Whatever the reason, he did the right thing by going on prime.time tv

to explain and discuss.

[polichick]

17. Should have done it weeks ago, told Congress he'd veto anything but a clean bill...

...and not wasted one minute of his time with the sociopaths on the other side.

He could have written the narrative - it should've been on jobs all along.

[Mass]

11. We're not there to have the president's back. He is there to have ours.

And no, it does not take a president's appeal to become active. But being active does not mean being a lapdog. We are not his fan club. And having the president use the bully pulpit helps, even if he should have been more forceful.

[vaberella]

14. Hello. You lost the meaning in my post to whine to me.

The point is this. We want the President to have our back. Fine. But we don't give him the back up. The back up is made up of Congress which is my point. And Congress is to work WITH him. However, there is Congress who is not working with him. And who put those congressmen and women in power. The President didn't do that. The President isn't supposed to be bargaining the way he is to get shit done for the nation. WE, the American people, voted these assholes in power to be combative.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it so difficult to realize that there is a conflict here between the President and Congress because Congress can't do the right thing. Do you think the President can do it on his own or even has to do this on his own when these assholes are supposed to be directly representing us to him?

Why can't you understand this?