If DU is so anti-Obama, then why no discussion of the China bill?

[Enrique]

if people were so consumed with finding every little thing to criticize Obama over, then why would they have missed this perfect opportunity to demagogue against Obama?

The truth is imo the opposite: in Obama's presidency, stories like this are LESS likely to be discussed, because of which side Obama's on. People are RELUCTANT to oppose him. That's why the wars are hardly ever discussed anymore, that's why civil liberties are hardly discussed anymore. People either don't want to criticize Obama, or they're tired of criticizing him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-other-big-jobs-fight/2011/03/03/gIQArfTX7K_blog.html

The battle over the American Jobs Act has sucked up all the oxygen, but there’s another jobs fight you really should be keeping an eye on: The battle over the measure to punish China for currency ma­nipu­la­tion.

It’s a really interesting story, and it’s going to heat up in a big way next week. A lot is riding on the outcome — according to one estimate it could create over 1 million jobs. House Dem leaders like Nancy Pelosi are pushing hard for it, and passage could help shore up vulnerable Democratic Senators in swing states that have hemorraged manufacturing jobs to China.

It’s also creating an interesting tension with the White House, which seems to be cool to the idea, partly for reasons involving diplomacy and trade. This could put Obama at odds with Congressional Democrats, as well as liberal bloggers and unions, over a key jobs creation measure — one that has considerable populist appeal amid public anger over unemployment — just at a moment when Obama is striking a more populist tone heading into 2012.

Earlier this week, Harry Reid announced that he would hold a vote next week on the bill — which would slap tariffs on China for allegedly depressing the value of the yuan to keep wages low — before holding one on Obama’s jobs measure. The China bill has growing bipartisan support — Republicans whose states have suffered outsourcing like it — so it’s expected to pass the Senate.

(...)

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Unrec.

:hi:

[ProSense]

3. Hmmmm?

If DU is so anti-Obama, then why no discussion of the China bill?

The truth is imo the opposite: in Obama's presidency, stories like this are LESS likely to be discussed, because of which side Obama's on. People are RELUCTANT to oppose him. That's why the wars are hardly ever discussed anymore, that's why civil liberties are hardly discussed anymore. People either don't want to criticize Obama, or they're tired of criticizing him.

Senator Sherrod Brown calls for action on currency manipulation after deal reached to extend TAA

Also responded with information on the subject of trade agreements here.

[Enrique]

6. the funny thing about that thread

it's in GDP, as in "presidential", and yet it doesn't mention the President's stance on the China bill. Suddenly you don't want to talk about Obama?

[ProSense]

9. I see

"the funny thing about that thread it's in GDP, as in "presidential", and yet it doesn't mention the President's stance on the China bill. Suddenly you don't want to talk about Obama?"

...your point, it's not to discuss policy, but to create a straw man: GDP vs. another forum.

Who said I don't want to talk about Obama?

[Autumn]

4. Recommended

I agree.

People are RELUCTANT to oppose him. That's why the wars are hardly ever discussed anymore, that's why civil liberties are hardly discussed anymore. People either don't want to criticize Obama, or they're tired of criticizing him.

[ProSense]

7. Actually,

"People are RELUCTANT to oppose him. That's why the wars are hardly ever discussed anymore, that's why civil liberties are hardly discussed anymore. People either don't want to criticize Obama, or they're tired of criticizing him."

Here's a response to a civil liberties discussion.

The claim that it isn't discussed is a straw man, and the notion that some may disagree with a POV because they're "RELUCTANT to oppose him" is absolute nonsense.

[Enrique]

10. and I seem to see Jonathan Turley on TV less

it seems he was always on MSNBC criticizing Bush, but is it my imagination or have they pretty much dropped him?

[ProSense]

18. So

" I seem to see Jonathan Turley on TV less it seems he was always on MSNBC criticizing Bush, but is it my imagination or have they pretty much dropped him?

...what's your opinion of Turley's point in the thread linked to? Maybe you should join the discussion since you're yearning for more on this topic.

[yurbud]

12. maybe the progressives here are being more pragmatic that the centrists claim:

we are pushing Obama where he might move. And because of the economy, pain at home is trumping pain we inflict on other countries.

Dale Carnegie said something to the effect of my stubbed toe is more interesting than your severed limb is to me.

[dkf]

5. This is the first I've heard of it. Funny how we dont focus on the bigger picture stuff.

[Enrique]

8. I just learned of it in this other thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2028478

and in that column, Meyerson, who is not afraid of criticizing Obama, only mentions him at the very end, almost in passing.

And the OP does not excerpt the Obama part and does not mention Obama. And so far no commenters have mentioned Obama.

And the Dems who are supporting the bill, as far as I know none of them have criticized Obama for failing to push it.

So, to sum up, everyone's not out to get Obama.

[dkf]

11. I thought this was one of the most fascinating pieces I've seen lately.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/declassified-huntsman-clarifies-chinas-gold-ambition

Makes you wonder what the underlying agreements are between us and China.

[Supersedeas]

37. thanks for the link

[ProSense]

16. But

I just learned of it in this other thread...and in that column, Meyerson, who is not afraid of criticizing Obama, only mentions him at the very end, almost in passing.

And the OP does not excerpt the Obama part and does not mention Obama. And so far no commenters have mentioned Obama.

And the Dems who are supporting the bill, as far as I know none of them have criticized Obama for failing to push it.

..why would you assume that a piece that doesn't mention Obama equals "People are RELUCTANT to oppose him"?

People who support Obama aren't in hiding, neither are those who oppose him.

The VP made a widely reported trip to Asia in August: Biden: China didn't need reassurance on U.S. economy

White House says reviewing China bill, shares goal

[OHdem10]

13. Many of us have railing against these Trade Agreements for

over a year.

How often have we posted on Globalization, the race to
the bottom, how FREE MARKET TRADE POLICIES have gutted
the Mfg. Sector in this country. This accounts for much
of the job loss. Dylan Ratigan has done program after
program on how our Trade Policies extract the wealth from
this country. Until that Trade Deficit with China is
corrected we have a structural problem in our economy
which has us headed to Third World Status as a nation.

Since we no longer have a Democracy, but rather have rule
by Corporatism, both parties will genuflect to Wall St and
pass Trade Policies throwing the American People under the
bus.

Are we seeing the budding of change erupting down on Wall St?
Just asking.

[yurbud]

14. I can't believe this is unrec'd to ZERO. It's an important story with huge implications.

[frazzled]

15. The unrecs are probably because

Instead of simply presenting this as a story or topic for discussion, the OP had to throw in a gratuitous and contentious side issue regarding the love vs. hate relationship with the president on this board.

Therefore, it becomes not a thread about the merits or demerits of this bill or policy, but about the internecine DU wars. Epic fail in my book. And it's how most policy issues are presented here lately: as weaponry in the war against the presidency.

[AtomicKitten]

19. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. Lord, I wish I could rec your post. I immediately unrec'd it for that very reason. (nt)

[SidDithers]

26. Me too...nt

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

27. Nailed it.

[Amonester]

28. + 2

And to think they 'may be thinking' their failed attempts aren't 'transparent' before they post them...

Do they really think we're not seeing through their intentions?

[yurbud]

29. that would be a childish and catty to sink a serious policy news story because the right wing

of the Democratic Party had their feelings hurt; or more likely, they really didn't want the policy story to float to the surface.

[vaberella]

30. Hardly.

No one sinking it. It's still on the first page. If people stopped posting they'd be sinking. I didn't realize so many people determined what was important to them based on recs and unrecs---and if that's the case we got a lot of superficial people here.

[boppers]

33. You must be new here. ;)

It's flat out amazing the level of Sturm and Drang an almost entirely useless "feature" gets.

[yurbud]

36. recs and unrecs determine how prominent the post is and therefore how many people see it

on the other hand, still discussing it, whether supportively or dismissively keeps it at the top of this forum, so we are both helping it at the moment.

[vaberella]

38. I don't think so---since I barely glance at that. I focus entirely on the title.

If the title catches my attention I read it.

[boppers]

32. +1

Trade policy is important, and often discussed, but the OP started out with several false premises, and then used the same false premises as a foundation to generate other false premises.

[Mimosa]

17. I recc'ed this.

ProSense, if you've a bud behind the scenes they'd be able to tell you I have often K&Red your OPs. :)

But not the health care stuff. The botched ACA of 2010 has harmed me personally.


I've noticed that Obama and his administration keep most quiet about the most important issues they are working on.

Unless we can bring jobs back to America we will sink to second world status at best. U.S. quality of life is already far lower than that enjoyed by Europeans and Canadians.

[boppers]

34. "we will sink to second world status"? Why is that in future tense?

I assume you are not saying we are joining the soviet bloc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World

...so you're going with the three worlds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds_Theory

"U.S. quality of life is already far lower than that enjoyed by Europeans and Canadians."

So, why future tense?

[YellowCosmicSun]

21. says the non-Democrat.

[Enrique]

22. oh no

please, whatever you do, don't call me a "non-Democrat". :cry:

[YellowCosmicSun]

23. at least you're honest about it.

[treestar]

24. Since everything is such an opportunity

Probably because it is harder to understand.

[Enrique]

25. it wouldn't be "hard to understand" if it were reversed

if Obama was on the right side and Reid and Pelosi were on the wrong side, we'd have a deluge of posts calling for the heads of those two Dem leaders that don't enjoy Obama's special regard.

[ellisonz]

31. I'm all for free and fair trade. China does not practice either.

I don't view this as a jobs bill. I view it as a matter of international law. Something which this administration seems to take rather seriously compared to the last one...

I just wish we would sign on to the ICC - that would be revolutionary.

[boppers]

35. I'm old enough to remember when the "yellow enemy" was Japan.

They were "taking all our jobs".
They were "skirting US law".
They had "cheap and inferior products".
Regional economic issues were blamed on "imports".

Well, as least the nation being targeted changed. I suppose when China's economy crashes like Japan's did, we'll find a new direction to point fingers, probably at whoever is making more money than US at the time.

[ProSense]

39. Krugman

weighs in.