FDR had an 83% dem congress, LBJ had a 69-ish% congress Obama has MAYBE a 58% dem congress...

[uponit7771]

...but the expectations from Obama is that he meet or exceed those so called "progressive" presidents agenda?


Really?!


Your take?

TIA

[JamesA1102]

1. Don't confuse the demagogues with facts. nt

[ncteechur]

28. Maybe FDR would have had the balls to say what Gibbs said.

[Windy]

2. Measures passed in the house are sent to DIE in the Senate. Anyone paying attention

knows this. The problem is, a lot of my dem brothers and sisters are obviously not paying attention. Can't explain the ignorance of the facts any other way.

[EC]

3. My thoughts exactly

instead of complaining we should have been working to give him a higher majority and to rid him of Nelson, Bayhe and Lincoln.

[Spitzbub]

15. Excuse me, it is the White House that shields and defers to Lincoln and Nelson.

Those monsters came straight out of Dr. Rahm's laboratory. The left and labor challenged Lincoln, you'll recall, and was whipped about the ears for it. From where? Oh yeah, the White House.

[EC]

24. I'm not entirely sure of that...Obama has to back the

incumbents...and it's been light backing. I mean like robo-call type stuff...

[dsc]

4. many of FDR's Dems were racist demagogues

There wasn't a single Republican in the states of the old Confederacy during his terms and that was 22 Senators, not a one of whom would be considered progressive.

[EFerrari]

6. And LBJ was still dealing with unreconstructed Southern Democrats. n/t

[dsc]

18. true they were pieces of work

[Wilms]

5. Obama's torture scorecard - A tortured record

Can't claim they didn't say anything nice about his tortured torture record.

* Banned the use of torture in interrogations.

* Ordered closure of CIA-administered secret prisons.

* Ordered release of some torture memos written by previous administration officials.

* Failed to keep a commitment to close the Guantánamo prison camp by January 23, 2010.

* Is weighing a Department of Justice recommendation to continue holding detainees indefinitely, without charge, and with no opportunity to challenge their detention.

* Continues to capture and send individuals to a secret prison facility in Afghanistan, refusing the prisoners any right to challenge their detention and blocking the International Committee of the Red Cross from monitoring their condition and treatment.

* Opposed or blocked legal actions aimed at gaining release of torture evidence, including a public commitment to release photographs of U.S. personnel engaging in torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.

* Worked to deny restorative justice to victims and survivors of U.S. torture, by arguing that perpetrators are shielded from civil remedies by the state secrets doctrine.

* Has delayed or is now withholding release of internal investigative reports on potential war crimes by former high U.S. government officials.

* Ignored Nuremberg precedents regarding the responsibility of policymakers for crimes by lesser officials carrying out their instructions.

* Threatened to end intelligence cooperation with Britain if an investigation there into torture of British nationals at Guantánamo and other U.S. facilities proceeds.

* Failed to direct an adequate investigation into the death of Guantánamo detainee Mohammed al-Hanashi, an elected leader among the detainees, whom the U.S. military claims killed himself days after finally winning the right to be represented by legal counsel.

* Opposed efforts to establish an independent public commission to investigate charges of torture and war crimes by U.S. officials, intelligence operatives and contractors.

* Evaded direct inquiries about the effort to quash war crimes investigations by officials in Spain.

* Decided to continue "extraordinary rendition," or sending prisoners to be interrogated in countries where torture has been routine. Many of those flights have been conducted by North Carolina-based planes and pilots (Aero Contractors of Smithfield).

* Covered up suspicious deaths of detainees, apparently involving torture, at a secret CIA black site, "Camp No," at Guantánamo, and opposed lawsuit (Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld) by family members of detainees who died.

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/obamas-torture-scorecard/Content?oid=1300103

[uponit7771]

9. Great, in that area he does suckith but be damned if I throw the man to the wolves as the far left..

...has done

[Wilms]

12. I haven't thrown him to the wolves. I defend him against every "teabagged" charge.

But I call him out for shit like torture, wiretapping, et. al.. I am pleased to know it bugs you too.

[uponit7771]

13. I'm talking about the far left and the professional bitchers on TV, IMHO Gibbs is right on, they do

...little to get Obama the congressional resources needed but do a lot of bitching about what he has to yet do.


I believe if Obama had FDR's congress that not only would we have no torture but Bush would be in jail....right hot damn now...

[Wilms]

25. I disagree. How has Congress forced Obama to continue those policies? n/t

[still_one]

7. No, the expectations are that he would LISTEN to the progressives and work with them, not ignore

them.

So if the polls are correct and the Democrats lose the majority in Congress, will the Democrats fight as hard as the republicans are fighting? I have my doubts.

It became clear very early on that the republicans were NOT going to work with the Democrats in Congress. Obama wasted so much time trying to accomodate them, that he ignored the progressives

[uponit7771]

14. Great, he can listen all day....that doesn't mean he can controll congress's actions or MAKE them...

...vote his way.

That's what's crazy no doubt

[hughee99]

8. I'm not sure that straw man will keep the birds away. n/t

[uponit7771]

11. The far lefts expectations aren't to lofty given what Obama has to deal with? TIA

[hughee99]

20. Is there a difference between having high expectations

and expecting him to "out-progressive" FDR and LBJ? Are all of the issues the result of repukes thwarting Obama's every attempt?

[4lbs]

21. Yes, because even though FDR had a 83% progressive Congress, he still compromised on

Social Security, to the detriment of women and minorities. Evidently, he couldn't use the bully pulpit to convince the Southern Democrats (the ConservaDems of the 1930s) to let everyone in the country enroll. Only white males were allowed to enroll.

FDR would have been labeled a sellout and a "corporatist" by today's standards, because Social Security was initially a really weak and half-assed piece of watered down legislation. The NAACP even bashed it in the press because it excluded minorities.

It took almost 15 years to let women and minorities enroll.

[LostInAnomie]

10. You're right.

Don't expect the howlers to admit it though.

[Stargleamer]

16. Yes, there were racist Democrats. . .

but Republicans were much more reasonable as a whole both when FDR and LBJ were presidents. I think they're pretty much all like the junior Bush nowadays.

Carter on the other hand, had a perfect chance to try to pass universal healthcare given the Democratic majorities he had, but choose to do nothing as one would expect given his conservative leanings.

[Spitzbub]

17. FDR also had balls and, not coincidentally, a base that turned out at the midterms

You guys have a good time with that in November

[one_voice]

19. You guys??

????

[onenote]

22. you mean the base that turned out in 1938 when the Democrats lost 72 seats?

[4lbs]

26. FDR had the balls to compromise on Social Security.

Look at how weak Social Security was when it was first passed. If something like that was proposed today by President Obama, it would hardly be described by Progressives as a great piece of legislation. Instead, Progressive blogs, media, and what-not would scream that it didn't do enough.

[Goldstein1984]

23. Maybe if Obama said the things FDR and LBJ said

then he might also end up with 69% to 83% of Congress.

Leadership isn't about position, it's about gaining a following. It's about serving the interests of those you presume to lead. Maybe that's the problem...why fewer and fewer are following.

He forgot the poor after the election. A Democratically-controlled House and Senate continue to vote to fund illegal wars. The poor are joining the military to feed their families. These economically-induced patriots are being sent by a Democratic President, as they were sent by the Republican President, to fight for the interests of the Ruling Class.

Why would the poor and those who truly care about them be loyal Democrats?

[MadHound]

27. No, we don't expect him to "meet or exceed" those presidents.

But it would be nice if he and the Congressional Dems would actually stand up for those issues that have mass public support, like the public option, rather than caving. That would be nice, but it's not going to happen.