Does Obama think he can execute a "capitulation disguised as compromise" platform w/o us noticing?

[rudy23]

It's really starting to look to me like he expects us to buy into his "post-partisan" utopian rhetoric, and it's REALLY starting to look like he's expecting to play us for fools for the next 4 years.

Does he really think the party of critical thinkers is going to vote for him in '12, just because we don't have another choice? He should ask Al Gore what he thinks of that strategy.

[ellacott]

1. Al Gore?

[rudy23]

10. Gore took the left for granted, and it cost him the presidency.

There will be a Nader in '12, if Obama keeps this up.

[BzaDem]

102. Democrats that vote for Nader thinking it will help progressives

are neither Democrats nor Progressives. A better word for them is "Republican."

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Gore lacked Clinton's skills

Obama, on the other hand, could very well be the second coming of Clinton.

[Captain Hilts]

4. I've said it from the get-go, Obama reminds me of Clinton. nt

[kenfrequed]

29. dear gods

No, I certainly hope friggin not. Clinton sealed the deal on Nafta and ended up being a strong proponent of the WTO. He helped shred welfare and ran around babbling about "...the end of big government as we know it."

After the results of 'deregulation gone wild on spring break' I really think we have to rethink such stupid economic policy.

Leaning towards teh re-Schmuck-wits party has been a total unmitigated disaster for our party, our economy, and our nation. Failing to bring the bring the progressive platform to the people in favor of chasing some campaign contribution spraying mythical dragon named 'the center,' has killed the philosphical underpinnings of liberalism and abandoned the economic populism that inspires the great masses of voters; leaving these voters to run to other pseudo-populist arguments rooted in religious scapegoating and false conscious empathy for the 'poor widdle wich people'

Clinton pt deux? Dear gods, for the sake of the republic I certainly hope not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. What happened in 1996 after all of the horrible thing you described?

Clinton beat Dole by almost 10%

[kenfrequed]

40. Yes...

We totally trounced that old angry creepy looking guy that couldn't stop talking about himself in the third person. Awesome. We beat him by a huge margin and STILL ran like gangbusters to the right. Whoopie! hooray!

You know with a victory like that you would have thought he actually would have...oh I dunno...done something vaugely progressive? But I guess winning and voting like a republican trumps actually having a political party with a distinct and strong message for us working people.

[depakid]

55. On the other hand, Dems lost Congress to batshit crazy Republicans for 12 years

largely due to the perception that Democrats stood for (and would fight for) nothing, while Republicans would go to the mat on issue after issue even though a substantial majority of the electorate didn't agree with their positions.

Americans tend to respect fighters- and hold poor opinions of those who repeatedly capitulate or "compromise" their core beliefs and values away.

[SarahB]

86. Here Here!

:thumbsup:

[truedelphi]

37. I'm still hoping, toop. But when you check out Geithner and Rubin and Summers,

It doesn't seem that Obama has many advisers speaking "progressive-eze" to him lately.

We progressives only voted him in, many of us voting for him after months and years of walking the streets for him. So why should we complain??

[snake in the grass]

89. Yes, you are right.

There has never been a worse president in recent or distant memory than Clinton. None. Not a single one. Clinton single-handedly destroyed the republic not to mention he is the root cause of dandruff and in-grown toenails.

[tom_paine]

92. Way to foolishly and excessively misinterpret the poster. Straw man?

It is possible to both think that Bill Clinton was a fine president, yet still see what he did seemed right in the long-term, but actually was a disaster in the long term, for both party and country.

But, hey, why bother with nuanced analyses and critical thinking when cable TV shows us every day 1000 times a day that such foolishness is the realm of liberal intellectual weaklings?

Why bother with nuanced analysis, when you implied Either Clinton was great in everything or the worst ever, sentiment outlines the ONLY TWO BELIEFS IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE, according to you.

And we wonder why the Republic is dying? Because far too many of us, even here at DU, one of the smartest and most conscious groups of people around, can only now think in "CableTVThink".

Wake you mind up and TURN OFF THE CABLE TV INFOGANDA AND IDIOT ROUNDTABLES!

Remember, that there are OTHER answers to questions besides "yes or no" "0 or 1". I know it's hard. You likely, like all the rest of us (and I include myself in the passel of emotionally-driven, weak-minded, short-sighted fools that pass for humanity...it is only our areas of foolishness that differ, not the fact that we are all fools), have a lifetime of training by TV watching that has dumbed and numbed your mind, making critical anaylses impossible with such a mind.

On Cable TV Infoganda, yours WOULD be considered a "good argument" and a "proper response".

:rofl: (what a sad joke TV "News" has become - what a sad joke our National Mentality has become, after 20 years of being dumbed down a roundtable discussion on CNNFOXGEMSNBCCBSABC more accurately resembles a bunch of shit-throwing chimpanzees who are literally WRONG about EVERYTHING, especially these last eight years WRONG about EVERYTHING)

Turn of the TV and remember how to critically think. Maybe then you can come up with a better reply than something Billo the Clown might say in blanket defense of Bushies.

[snake in the grass]

100. Thank you...

...for perhaps the most amusing post I have read in awhile. Your analysis was hard-hitting and to the point. Your preaching was passionate and informed. Unfortunately for you (but great for me) I don't own a TV and haven't watched anything for about 4 years now. Yes, I am a true subversive because I hate that monkey box. It's always amusing when my internet provider calls to sell me cable. They just can't believe I don't own a TV and that I hate it. Yes sir, it's really hatred. I even tell them they should throw theirs out and read a book instead.

It's called sarcasm and I didn't intend for it to be taken seriously. Besides, everybody knows Rush Limbaugh is the cause of dandruff and in-grown toenails! I used it because I'm sick and tired of the crap talk about Clinton as though he were evil incarnate. Was he perfect? Hell no! But in my 43 years of existence he was the best POTUS we have had. Some of the arguments here are so irrational they could have come from freepers. Democrats really love to eat their own and I suspect Obama will be vilified by this time next year by the same people who sputter in rage when they think of anything Clinton. It's hard to get anything done when you are fighting off enemies from both sides.

Mr. Paine, I have read and enjoyed many of your posts, but as far as this one goes I would suggest you save your sermon for someone else. You unknowingly missed the mark entirely.

Respectfully,

Snake

[ananda]

3. As I said before..

The rightwing has Dem leaders by the balls,
with only a handful of exceptions and Obama
is not an exception.

[Oregone]

5. Has them by the balls?

That would suggest that 1) they are doing things that they don't also agree with, and 2) Harry Reid and his buddies all have balls.

[Greyhound]

6. LOL!

:kick:

[pampango]

7. If he expects us to "buy into his "post-partisan" utopian rhetoric", I don't see how this

is "play(ing) us for fools for the next 4 years." I suppose that you had an expectation that he would say one thing (post-partisan, blah, blah, blah) to get elected, then govern differently (now we stick it to the other side). (We have had 8 years of "compassionate conservatism").

To the extent that his actions, statements and appointments as president-elect have been consistent with his "post-partisan utopian rhetoric", he is not playing us for fools. He is doing what he said he would do.

[gravity]

8. Critical thinkers like post-partisan solutions

They can fairly assess both sides of an issue

[rudy23]

9. What about when one side of the issue is batty?

That's the Middle Ground Fallacy in action. Critical thinkers recognize this and call it out.

If you said 200 + 200 was 400, and I said it was 0, do you think it would be a good compromise then, if we met in the middle and agreed that 200 + 200 = 200?

Also, critical thinkers recognize the improbability of a "post-partisan" society, and certainly not one that will ever factor in the viewpoints of those of us on the left side of the spectrum.

[gravity]

12. Well critical thinkers will see that

post partisan does not mean the average of both sides.

[rudy23]

19. That is my main hope & concern here.

I truly hope you are right.

[bvar22]

34. "Critical Thinking" and "Centrism" do not mix.

Critical Thinkers have a strong respect for History.
They constantly ask:

* "How did we get here?"

* "What mistakes were made and Who made them?"

* "How can we correct these mistakes?"

* "Where are we heading?" "Do we really want to go there?"

"Pragmatic Centrism" is a dogmatic ideology without the nuisance of IDEALS.
"Movement" is sanctified without a thought given to "Direction".

Being Half-Republican (Centrist) is NOT something I will accept.
There are lines I will not cross.
There are ISSUES for which I will continue to fight.
There are some things I will NOT compromise, and honoring a Right Wing BIGOT at the inauguration is one of them.

[anaxarchos]

13. "Critical thinkers" start with the assumption that they...

... can not possibly "fairly assess both sides of an issue" because there is simply too much baggage. They start by being critical of their own views instead of abstracting themselves from life in such a lofty way (it particularly helps if they stop referring to themselves as "critical thinkers"). The next step is probably not falling for oxymorons which play to ones own affectations. One such is "post-partisan". How is that possible? What changed to end "partisanship"? Or were those that came before that much more stupid then "we" are?

[gravity]

24. I agree, except with the post-partisan

Practically, is just recognizing the valid points from all sides, instead of sticking to a particular ideology.

Of course people will have biases, and that they can still be partisans on a philosophical level, but that is a different discussion.

[anaxarchos]

28. Ummm...

How is it that nobody "recognized" the "valid points from all sides" before you (or before Obama or before Eric Schmidt)? Why did they stick to a "particular ideology"? Is it simply "bias" and if so, how are you exempt? Is it simple self-declaration?

Forgive me, but there is nothing there. Without an anchor in reality (what changed?), it is just an affectation... or demagogy.

[gravity]

38. You are making this too philosophical

I am talking about being pragmatic. If you want to call that an ideology, then go ahead.

[anaxarchos]

42. How did we get from...

..."critical thinking" to being "too philosophical"?

Let's be clear. You are partisan as shit and you call those views "pragmatism", or "post-partisan", or whatever else you like, just as the other "post-partisans" do. It's called "old wine in new bottles". It is an attempt to give an ordinary subjective position, some kind of objective veneer. You simply stand against the OP for your own, partisan, reasons.

By the way, "pragmatism" leads to an even deeper hole.

[gravity]

46. How do you know what my views on policy are?

In what ways are they partisan?

[Two Americas]

20. there are not "two sides"

There is no philosophy or ideas from the other side. It is a power and a money grab, and it uses bigotry and hatred to gain support from the general public. The "ideas" - the ones Rahm was talking about when he said "we welcome the ideas and concepts of the Republicans in the administration" are just sales and marketing pitches intentionally intended and crafted to mislead the public and sabotage the national political discussion.

There would be no "partisanship" were we not obligated to defend ourselves, were we not under assault from the wealthy and powerful few. Disappearing partisanship disappears us. The right wingers have no need for partisanship. They already hold the power and wealth. They don't need politics or government, either.

The whole point of partisanship, of politics and government, is so that the left out and left behind have some voice, some way to gain a share of power and resources.

Promoting post partisanship is contradictory to democracy, justice, self-government and equality and incompatible with the traditional principles and ideals of the organized Labor movement, the political Left, and the Democratic party.

Including people is one thing. Including the ideas and concepts of those who would exclude most of us from protection of our rights and from access to power and resources is not "inclusiveness."

Inviting the fox into the hen house is not "including all voices," it is putting most voices at grave risk,

[rudy23]

23. Thank you for articulating this.

I hope this isn't the last time you make this point in a public forum. Keep those typing fingers loose, you'll probably have to bust this out often as this post-partisan fallacy is rammed down our throats (hope I'm wrong).

[gravity]

25. They are usually more than two sides

and the republicans can have good ideas. I think the party has gone to far with its ideas, but many are based on reason and good intentions.

[Two Americas]

36. "Republican" means "ideas"

To be a Republican is to have certain ideas.

I reject those ideas. I can't believe that anyone here would not. I don't care of they are "based on reason and good intentions" - although, I think that is questionable.

The public has rejected those ideas.

If the only thing you see wrong with the Republican ideas is that they have "gone too far" with them, you may want to join the Republican party and reform it, then. I don't mean that as an insult. But promoting the notion here that Republicans have good ideas, but they just went too far, is going to meet with strong opposition.

Argue those good ideas that you think the Republicans have, since you must agree with them if you think they are good ideas. Saying that you are a Democrat, but that you think the Republicans have good ideas is self-contradictory and is deceptive and not very honest.

Nothing wrong with being a Republican. I disagree with them, but I don't hate them. I work with many Republicans. But there is definitely something wrong with claiming to be a Democrat, and then using that to surreptitiously promote the ideas of the Republicans.

[kenfrequed]

44. Why don't you elaborate a bit...

Which inherantly Republican ideas are good?


Lets start with economics-since so many DLC scum like to tout being 'fiscally conservative'

Deregulation? Screaming, horrible, titanic, disasterous failure. Read a paper and see how the economy is doing. Also see PG&E, Enron, Worldcom...need I go on?

Tax breaks (especially for the 'most productive-wealthy)? Mega-failure. We now have an economic system where the divide between haves and have-nots is higher than during the gilded age that preceeded the great depression. We are awesomely marching backwards towards feudalism.

small government? Small enough to fail to protect us from corporations looking to loot and pillage our pensions, poison our children, monopolize every resource, and ship our jobs to some far flung slave labor hell hole?

Social security? Fortunately they didn't gamble my grandmothers money on the stock market as they intended.

Welfare? Well screwing single mothers has resulted in the worst of both worlds. A total lack of parenting present AND NO decrease (actually an increase) in child poverty. Whoopie!!!

to be continued....

[gravity]

49. On some areas of the economy free markets work best

and regulation can create unintended consequences that actually cause more harm than good. If you want an extreme example, look at communists countries.

There are merits to free trade, labor unions can get too powerful, and tax breaks can be good if done productively.

I just think the republicans took their ideas too far, and caused more harm than good.

I just don't think it is constructive to think that republicans are wrong all the time and Democrats are right, because sometimes compromise solutions can work best.

Take welfare for example. I think welfare is good overall, but sometimes people can abuse the system (a valid republican concern). That is why I think we should design welfare system that gives money in the people who need, while preventing those who don't need it from receiving the money, which will involve pragmatic solutions to carry out.

[Two Americas]

57. you need to work within the other party

I am not trying to insult you.

You are expressing the traditional Republican point of view. That is OK, there will always be those among us who have those views. I accept that. There is room for that.

Anti-regulation - yes, I know, couched as "sometimes they go too far" but that is what the Republicans used to say, too.

Organized Labor - they go too far. Yes, I know, couched as "don't get me wrong they have their place, but..." That is what the Republicans have been saying as long as I have been alive.

Free trade - that means domination of capital, since wealthy people and investors are free to move across borders, but workers are trapped. That is the Republican point of view you are expressing.

Welfare - some people abuse the system. That is the Republican point of view.

Many here use "Republican" as a smear, as an attack, as an insult. I am not, I do not. You seem like a sane and reasonable person. We desperately need sane people in the opposition party. Not everyone is cut out to be a Democrat. That is OK. No hard feelings, no hatred, not attacks on you from me.

Give this some consideration. If you are a young person, the opportunity right now in the Republican party is historically unprecedented. Sane and reasonable people could do a lot of good over there right now. It would be a good thing for your ideas, and a good thing for all of us if sane and reasonable people such as yourself went to work in the Republican party.

[gravity]

60. Fuck that

I feel the same way on the issues as Obama, and the Republican party is completely backwards. The funny thing is any reasonable policy that the Republicans ever had has been taken up by members of the DLC, and now only thing left is crazy folks.

I support universal health care and policies that help the midlde class, as well as every single social issue on the left, like any other Democrat. I also support free markets whenever I can, but still think we need more regulation at the same time.

[Two Americas]

61. I see

"...any reasonable policy that the Republicans ever had has been taken up by members of the DLC."

I agree. The Democrats have adopted all of the policies of the Republicans. You have a point. Why would anyone join the Republican party, when the Democrats have the same policies without the crazy people?

[gravity]

62. Because I agree with the Democratic ideals

I am just pragmatic in achieving them.

[Two Americas]

63. explain them

What are the "Democratic ideals" in your view?

[gravity]

64. Here are some

Gay marriage, universal health care, pro-choice, progressive taxation, minimum wage, and policies that help create a strong middle class in this country.

Yeah, I should be in the Republican party.

[Two Americas]

65. thanks

There were once moderate Republicans who held similar views. You are taking what I said as an insult, I fear.

So why do you peddle the themes that Reagan introduced into the political discussion -

- Unions went too far

- Welfare cheaters are a problem

- Free markets are desirable

- Regulation can create unintended consequences that actually cause more harm than good

- Look at communist countries

- Tax breaks can be good

[gravity]

66. Ha, I still take that as an insult

Just because I think they have some valid points, doesn't mean that I am anything like a republican.

Unions can go to far, but they still should have rights

Welfare cheaters are a problem, but the program is good overall,

Free markets good, but we need regulation

Tax breaks can be good, but they can be bad.

It really just depends on the situation.

[kenfrequed]

70. Absurd.

I am sorry but it took me a time to come back to evaluate what I posted here but let us be real.

Unions: As weak as they have been since the National Labor Relations Act. And fewer in number than any point in American history. So yes, we must certainly keep them under control. Never mind the fact that you can plot a parallel with declining average wages, declining numbers of people in the midddle class, and declining percentages of the workforce that are members of a union. And shockingly most Americans would prefer to be in a union if given the choice.

Welfare Cheats: Every bit the bloody absurd myth today as it was when Ronald Reagan babbled about his supposed Welfare Queens. Most people on Welfare would prefer not to be. Most people on "Welfare" end up being single parents and their poor children. Well we certainly don't want them abusing the systems so its on your feet Tiny Tim and give us yer damned crutch too you worthless little beggar.

Free markets: Really these do not exist. Never have and never will. People that want them really usually just are making demands that other nations eliminate all laws protecting their citizens from the rapacious and hungry multinationals. I could recommend half a dozen books on the topic that deal seriously with the matter. Suffice to say: "Free markets" do not creature Free socieities. "Free markets" are not fair markets.

Tax breaks good/bad: The tax burden must be re-evaluated utterly. The tax on wealth and high income earners is lower than it has been since before the great depression. It is lower than that liberal Ronald Reagan, those pinkos Ford and Nixon, and that flaming red radical communist Eisenhower. At this point we cannot tax break our way out recession. It is idiocy.

We must increase taxes on the high income earners and spend the money responsibly to create healthcare for all and to re-invest in infrastructure and creating stable government jobs. The free market just has no interest in creating long term jobs, the only thing the free market is really good for is making money for the few. It has always been that way.

[Two Americas]

71. thanks

Good post.

[gravity]

72. OMFG, Why don't you use that criticism towards Barack Obama

Because I agree with him on most issues.

[kenfrequed]

75. Ah

I see, so my positions are wrong because you percieve that they argue with Barack Obama? Is that what you mean? Perhaps you should, once more, elaborate on what you mean by this so I do not look foolish by confusing your meaning.

[gravity]

76. I think you are overreacting personally

I am just saying my positions aren't any different than Obama's. You have the right to disagree with them, but my views are similar to many Democrats in office.

[kenfrequed]

82. Uhm

I am still unclear here. Possibly because I am simple, but it seemed as though you were setting me up in opposition to Obama. Considering I backed him in the Caucuses here in Minnesota and voted for him I find that sort of positioning irritating and of a kind of bandwaggoning "us vs them" bullshit far more common on far less progressive boards.

And I am also a bit puzzled by anyone saying that "...my positions aren't any different than Obama's." Really? You have no difference in opinion on anything? I don't even know how that is possible. One of the greatest American Senators during my short life on this mudball has been Paul Wellstone and I know with certainty that I disagreed with him on a small handful of votes.

[gravity]

87. I don't have anything to disagree with Obama yet

Seriously, he is everything I ever wanted in a Democrat and I share his ideals almost 100%. It's not his actual policy positions per se, but the way he handles himself and thinks about the problems in this country.

I am waiting for him to implement some policy or makes a mistake before making judgment.

[kenfrequed]

88. I cannot understand it.

I just can't. So you now say you agree with him on 100% of his ideals? But you don't really have a strong grasp of his policy positions so you are just going to wait and see? Unless someone brings up a position or an appointment that they find objectionable? Of course if its moderate republicanism (which got us into this mess in the first place) then that objection is what? Silly?

I am sorry I just don't understand how a progressive democrat and a good citizen can do any less than ask questions of power. Brining truth to power is something that defines the progressive movement as much as standing up for the little guy.

[gravity]

90. I ask questions, but don't see anything necessarily wrong with his appointments

I actually love his economic team, and I think that is going to transfer into some really good legislation. I mean these guys are smarter than me on the issues, so I am giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.

I don't make judgments with Obama's foreign policy either, because I am not an expert in that subject and don't understand the nuances of the challenges in the country. I don't have authority to judge here. I do like it that Obama is surrounding himself with smart people again, so I think he will be successful on there too. That is something I would do in his shoes.

What I am tying to say, is that I just like the way Obama thinks about the issues, and governs in a similar style to how I think one should run. He understands his own ignorance of the world, so surrounds himself with the best people available, so I trust that he will make the right judgments most of the time.

Bush and a lot of other politicians just have an ideology and agenda that they push without carefully analyzing the facts and getting advice from other experts in the field on opposing views.

[Two Americas]

101. not about you

Voting is not shopping, and democracy is not about personal desires.

I think that for many people this election has become highly personal - it answers emotional longings. How they feel about the whole thing is paramount. When anyone expresses any critical analysis of any kind, it breaks the magic spell for them - inteeferes with their desired emotional state of "hope" and "belief."

[gravity]

103. You can criticize him all you want

I just don't pre-judge politicians on their stated ideologies, I judge on how they will actually handle unique situations when they arise.

I realize that all politicians BS to a certain extent to get elected and play politics, including Obama. I am not delusional, but give them the benefit of the doubt if they are acting in good faith, until they do something stupid.

Obama hasn't done anything stupid yet, so I am really impressed with him.

[Two Americas]

104. whi cares about that?

Let's talk hockey, and we can talk about who is performing well and who we are impressed with.

This is politics. Whether or not you are impressed with a politician has nothing to do with what the rest of us are saying.

What possible harm could there be in not giving politicians the benefit of the doubt? How do we know whether or not they are acting in good faith?

In politics, where we are going is much more important than how competent the politicians at are getting there. The Bush administration was phenomenally competent and advanced the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few quite well.

[gravity]

105. I care

about how politicians influence how the rest of you are saying, because it is important in moving your agenda. It is like a game, and Obama is the master.

I also like focusing on the nuances of policies, but I can't judge Obama on that yet.

And I give politicians the benefit of the doubt only when they are intelligent, competent and acting in good faith. If they do something stupid, and admit it, I let it go. If they pretend they didn't make one, I don't trust them anymore.

[Two Americas]

106. I don't want a master

I am not looking for a master to submit to. Not looking for a father figure, or almighty leader. I think the people come first, not the politicians and their agendas, and I think that the people should not be seen as an obstacle or an interference for any politician's agenda.

I don't look at politicians as though they were personal friends or family members, so this business of trusting them, or forgiving them and the like does not apply.

[Donnachaidh]

84. Bravo!

too many Republican myths are being spouted as centrist Democratic ideals on this forum. Your clarification is perfect!

[glitch]

95. This deserves its own thread. nt

[arthritisR_US]

108. it sure does! n/t

[anonymous171]

11. Keep the pressure on, but don't despair.

Otherwise you will become irrelevant.

[nichomachus]

14. What do you mean 2012?

I think the Democratic party is going to take a serious shitter in the 2010 elections.

1. Many of the people who voted for Obama came out only because he was on the ticket. They won't be there in 2010.

2. The right-wing Christian nutbags aren't going to vote for Dem congresspeople, no matter how hard Obama panders to them.

3. And, he's going out of his way to piss off a lot of the people who worked for him and donated.

Add to that the fact that the economy probably won't correct until late in 2010 -- or later -- and I think you're going to see a bloodbath in November of that year.

Obama will probably spend his last two years as president with a GOP Congress.

[leftchick]

48. fool me once shame on me....

I doubt anything will change in 2010. We will once again be presented with purty words and the lesser of two corporate evils. If our economy is still functioning. Those many people will be even more desperate in 2010 and will once again vote against their interests because, hey, there are no choices!

[Juche]

15. I'm going to wait and see

When Obama opted out of public financing because he realized he would raise more money privately that was a rejection of capitulation. I enjoyed that. The RW bitched and moaned for months saying he went back on his promise, but he did it anyway.

So I have some hope he will lead as a progressive and force healthcare reform, college tax credits and EFCA through somehow or another (if we get those programs, they will build a grassroots progressive movement for decades).

If he does give in, it'll be the biggest disappointment in a century. Everything is being handed to him on a silver platter, all he has to do is pursue a progressive agenda.

On another note I listen to Limbaugh sometimes and love it when he says 'Obama is not some nice post partisan politician. He is from Chicago, he is going to play hardball'. Limbaugh isn't too bright (his attempts at explaining Powell's behavior prove that) but hopefully he is right on this, that Obama is going to take Chicago cutthroat politics with him to the white house.

[BeFree]

18. A progressive agenda...

...is a given. Anyone who thinks Obama is gonna have an agenda that "stays the course" is f'n stupid.

He's all progress, all the time that it's possible. Just imagine if he'd appointed all gays to his cabinet.
If he had, the RW would be raising hell and working to "stay the course". As it is he's lulling them to sleep.
Again, anyone who thinks Obama is not gonna pursue a progressive agenda is an idiot.

[Juche]

21. Fuck you

The last time a democrat had a chance to pursue a progressive agenda was Clinton in 1993-1994. He had majorities in both houses, got some things done and then in 1994 the GOP revolution occurred. As a result there is likely fear of pushing too hard for progressive agendas for fear it'll empower the GOP.

Anyone who doesn't know history is a fucking idiot.

[BeFree]

22. Juche

Are you an idiot? Did I call you an idiot? Must have, eh?

This is 14 years later. The pukes just pissed all over themselves and they're gonna be a long time cleaning it up. So if you feel that we will fail, then you are one of those we are most worried about, Y'know one of those that will abandon us as we set a new course.

No fear here for a progressive agenda, but I guess your peeing all over yourself?

[county worker]

26. There are always those who feel the need to feel victimized no matter what happens.

They will never be pleased. No matter how f..king left the country turns it isn't left enough for them.

I will wait and see what happens. The 90's with it growth in jobs and prosperity wasn't good enough for them so I won't expect Obama to be able to please them either.

One thing they seem to forget is they are a minority voters yet Obama must cater to them or they will go and play somewhere else. Where the hell that is I don't know.

[BeFree]

31. Yep

Even tho the majority of the left is always right there are those extremists that get confused with where they stand. And where they end up standng usually gets them left standing by the side of the road as the progress bus goes by.

Gawd, ya gotta love them but sometimes they make it damn hard.

[Two Americas]

109. please point them out for us

Who are "those extremists that get confused with where they stand?"

Hannah Bell? kenfrequed? leftofthedial? anaxarchos? Me?

Or are you smearing "them" - whoever may disagree with you? Pretty cowardly and deceptive.

Where are these leftists, supposedly "extremists," who are "confused with where they stand?" In what way are they confused about where they stand?

We have two contradictory smears co-existing here. "Them" - those leftists - are both rigidly adhering to "ideology," we are to believe, AND "confused as to where they stand."

I would suggest that the difficulty you are having, the thing that makes it difficult for you to "love them" is because you are confused as to where you stand.

As the economy collapses, and as conditions deteriorate for millions of people and more and more people are suffering, the public is moving dramatically to the Left. I don't know where your "progress bus" is headed exactly, but I know where the people are going, and listening to you I fear than millions will be "left standing by the side of the road" by your "progress bus." I will stay with them and stand with them - by choice.

[Hannah Bell]

43. There are always those who feel the need to say "Don't play victim" every time someone complains

about anything. It's a right-wing meme.

Obama's appointments thus far don't include ANYONE even vaguely "left," & having a fundie give the invocation is a big slap in the face. Politically stupid, too, since it won't earn him any brownie points from fundies.

The country has been moving steadily right-ward since Nixon - the 70s - & you're babbling about "no matter how left we go, it just won't be good enough...."

No one's going to move left unless we make them, & dissent is how we make them.

[county worker]

47. There isn' t one action taken by his administration and yet you know what it will be like.

That's like crying wolf.

[Hannah Bell]

50. appointments are "actions".

We judge the merits of appointments, & what they're liable to do, by their track records & their associations.

Obama's made not ONE that's even vaguely "left", despite running a vaguely left/populist campaign, & his call for "change".

Same retreaded party, wall street, corporate hacks; & carrying on from bush with the fundies.

[county worker]

51. I just feel that some really good changes are going to come down the pike.

I'm not too worried by any selection until I see the results. What could potentially be doesn't interest me.

I'm still pumped by the win last month.

[Hannah Bell]

52. good for you. others feel differently.

[county worker]

54. Of course they do. I'm hoping and thinking that they will be pleasantly surprised.

[Hannah Bell]

69. the appointments thus far don't support your hope. nor your assertions

about people enjoying "victimhood" - that right-wing meme you used.

[kenfrequed]

83. "feel?"

I think I am going to base my opinions on actions and policy, not merely on how I feel. A good many people feel they are going to win the lottery some day. And repukes bank an awful lot on manipulating the feelings of people in order to win elections.

[rudy23]

96. Exactly. We need to do our part in the grand negotiation for whose views are carried out.

We have to stand firm, and have the courage to dissent with a president who we support overall.

[Two Americas]

73. oh be quiet

Obama just named Solis, and I am gratified about that. She is one of the strongest Labor advocates in Congress. Why am I gratified with that? For me? No. What do I get out of that? For you, and for all working people.

If we weren't here, and if we never spoke out, YOU would be the loser. You do work for a living, do you not?

On the Left we support what is best for YOU and for all of the people. We are not looking for Obama to please us, we are looking for him to save your ass. You may think you have a better idea as to how to save your ass - playing the "moderate" and bashing the crap out of your friends and allies, whether you are able to recognize that or not - but don't question our motives, our sincerity, nor our integrity.

[gravity]

74. self delete

[Two Americas]

77. heh

I am really trying gravity, and do not mean to bash you.

Keep talking. I appreciate the discussion, and bear you no ill will. When you said you didn't want to be a Republican, I accepted and respected that, yes? When you explained why you consider yourself a Democrat, I pointed out that Republicans once took similar positions. There may be a little more to being a Democrat.

Those points you made happen to be the Reagan program A-Z. They seemed so absurd and obviously preposterous 30 years ago, but they have been pounded into people's heads for 30 years and now to many people they seem reasonable. It is not surprising that many of us think they warrant consideration - we can;t escape them anymore. I am just pointing that out. I am attacking those ideas, not attacking you.

[gravity]

78. Ha, I changed my mind and decided not to go there for now

It was a knee jerk reaction.

I agree that we should increase protections of workers, but I don't think unions might not be the best way to go, and that government regulation/services could be better.

So lets just leave it at that

[Two Americas]

81. no problem

Thanks.

[Juche]

39. that was rude on my part

I felt you were calling me an idiot for questioning Obama's principles so I responded rudely. I shouldn't have written that, at the very least I could've brought it up w/o being rude. Sorry.

[RufusTFirefly]

30. And you draw this conclusion based on what evidence?

Or is your assertion simply faith-based?

Rahm Emmanuel
Larry Summers
Robert Gates for cryin' out loud

And get this, when Obama said that he would be willing to meet without preconditions with leaders of Iran, North Korea, and three other countries, guess who ridiculed that policy, calling it "irresponsible and frankly naïve"? Why, his new Secretary of State, of course!

And when world leaders met to discuss the economic meltdown largely precipitated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate, who did Obama send as an economic envoy? Why Jim Leach, one of the bill's original co-sponsors, of course!

Oh yeah. This is going to be all progress, all the time. I can hardly wait. Please pass the "clean coal." This oughta be good.

[BeFree]

33. Heh

I didn't say we were gonna make it all the way to the stars.

But to get to there from here ya gotta use folks who know the ropes.

Look, I am as pissed as anyone. At this point you dance with what brung ya. Lets make the best of it instead of sitting around being negative and shit. That's my MO.

[Hannah Bell]

53. yes, leave us not be "negative," "be free".

[kenfrequed]

85. Hmm

Hope I'm not an idiot. But putting a bunch of Clintonoid free trade and industry insider hacks into important cabinet positions doesnt even have the aroma of pseudo-change to me.

Since you seem to favor so many allusions and similes in some of your other posts here is one of my favorites:

"If you are driving on the right side of the road barreling down on a tree you gotta do more than straighten the wheel, you gotta take a hard left and get your ass back on the damned road"

[DireStrike]

67. Limbaugh doesn't care if he is right or wrong

Simply stating that "opinion" that is almost impossible to hold works to move the "center" further right. He would be saying Obama was a far leftist if he started having stump speeches about dismantling the federal government, cutting all taxes on people who earn more than $100,000 , and gassing the (insert scapegoat minority here).

[K Gardner]

16. Oh for the love of Mary !! Get a grip.

[jberryhill]

17. his "post-partisan" utopian rhetoric

Maybe it wasn't rhetoric.

Let me get this clear - you voted for him, on the expectation he was bullshitting you?

I think you out-cynic'ed yourself there.

[stillcool]

27. I don't think he's too concerned..

with 2012..other than maybe keeping this country intact till then, or maybe till next year.

[anonymous171]

35. If he does, then we shall remind him why he can't.

[Hannah Bell]

41. sure does. works for congress, why not for him?

[leftchick]

45. I believe it goes without saying

hope and change were bullshit.

[Pastiche423]

56. Yes maam, I believe you are, indeed, correct!

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

59. Why wouldn't he?

It worked throughout the primary and general elections; it's not like his agenda has changed.

:shrug:

[earth mom]

68. Obama is way overconfident that's for sure and he is alienating great amounts of people.

But to say that Gore would behave as Obama is ridiculous. The election of 2000 was stolen from Gore. We have no idea what he would have done had he been able to take his rightful office. But I bet Gore would have put the environment front and center and wouldn't have been ass kissing the "clean coal" industry or any part of corporate america that is actively exploiting and destroying the environment.

But you can't say the same of Obama.

[natrat]

94. sad because gore seemed like a good guy,no clue about obama

[rudy23]

98. That's another one of my main concerns--Obama's overconfidence

He seems too sure that he can quell our differences with his speeches and general leadership ability.

I have faith in his leadership skills, I just think he's starting to overstep his bounds as far as what he thinks we will swallow, and what he thinks he can control about our political discourse.

[QC]

79. An awful lot of people here have fallen for it.

Some of them were, at one time, pretty shrewd when it came to politics. Strange.

[Fearless]

80. Yup, the fringe is out tonight!

'Scuse me...

:tinfoilhat:

[StreetKnowledge]

91. Is anybody really surprised by that?

America is headed into the gutter, riding the wave of assholes like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and the millions of dimwits who actually listen to those racist, homophobic, lying pigs and agree with them. The Democrats needed a spine to take on Gingrich and his Contract with America, and their spine turned out to be made of melted butter. Not even the President took on that fool.

Hence, by the time 2000 came around, they figured they could get away with anything. They jacked an election from Al Gore - I think we all know he REALLY won in Florida - and they then spent six years lying, stealing, warmongering, under-regulating and overspending us into the gutter. And when we finally toss these fools, out comes Harry Reid showing he has no spine and Pelosi showing her own career is more important than her morals.

Then we get Obama, who many of us really believe will make things better. But he puts forth lots of right-wing bozos for cabinet members (Gates keeping his job? Are you effing kidding me?) and then to cap it all off, he has a homophobic, racist son of a bitch deliver his invocation! Change my balls.

Welcome to idiot America, go Green Day said. Because the Democrats need to either grow a backbone or go join the GOP. How hard is that?

[tom_paine]

93. It's not that he doesn't notice. It's just that the Bushie False Reality Bubble might (and I stress

MIGHT - since he has not spent one day in office and thus these are only disturbing signs right now)

have taught him that we "new Jews" don't matter. The Bushie False Reality Bubble, as much or more to alter the perceptions of our Democratic Leaders as to propagandize the populace, teaches by millions of repetitions and other false-reality generating apparatus (the Astroturf Organization, Poll Freeping, and dozens of other methods) that the New Jews are to be taken for granted and then ignored and villainized as soon as possible after using us like condoms.

I don't want to believe it. And I won't believe it, until I watch Obama govern for awhile.

But the signs are not good, NOT good AT ALL.

If Obama chooses to do the "capitulation disguised as compromise" thing, and that option is looking more likely every day, then we are just marking time until the Old American Republic, now back on life support, finally expires under the next Bushie installed on the throne.

[mmonk]

97. I'm not going to judge before he is on the job. However, what you have described

is the party MO.

[tomp]

99. all this was signaled with the embrace of powell.

i knew at that moment who obama was and i immediately became an opponent. obama is a deceiver on a grand scale.

obama also doesn't seem to care about the reaction of the left. these choices he is making signal a monumental disregard for a sizable portion of the party and independents. i predict he will become even bolder in his rightward moves, especially in foreign policy, and that disregard will turn to frank antipathy.

[leftofthedial]

107. I for one am beginning to doubt his word.

I never liked him much before the general election, but I didn't peg him as a full-on liar.

Now? I'm really beginning to wonder.