About the "its only been 60 days, give Obama a break" argument:

[Political Heretic]

I concede there is a fair point to be made in this statement. Ah ha! Not expecting that, were ya? :)

The President and his administration have a huge mess to clean up from the utter catastrophic failure of the previous administration. In fact I'm not sure if any president in modern times has come into office so handicapped by the legacy of a predecessor. This is a big and important point. It is entirely possible for someone already perhaps skeptical of a President Obama to really not give the administration a fair shake to attempt to deal with and sort out the mess that we are in.

And I'll grant you, there are some out there who really do want Obama to fail, in the sense that they dislike him so much that they can't believe anything good could actually happen and can't stand to be wrong. I do believe there is a much smaller number of these people representing themselves here are DU and a lot of more rational, more careful and intellectually responsible critics get unfairly swept up in the generalizations. But I grant that there some hard headed "haters" out there.

Okay, so have I mentioned that I do have respect for the fair point that its only been 60 days and the President can't save America in two months?

Alright, now having said that:

There's something I'd like you to understand about the point of more reasonable skeptics and/or critics or people like me who like to describe ourselves as people who support Obama and are also critical of some of the decisions that have been made. For me, its not so much about the speed at which Obama is moving (i.e. why hasn't he fixed everything yet) rather it is about the direction in which Obama has moved on certain issues. Does that difference make sense?

So for example:

I believe there is/was a better way to address this financial crisis other than the by-wall street for-wall street way that was chosen. I understand some of the reasons why this path was chosen, and I even understand that they weren't all clandestine and mustache-twisty...

Nevertheless, and I feel like it was the wrong choice. And I feel like, even if it ultimately works to smooth out and stabilize our economy (and I hope that it does), we will have missed a golden opportunity to reform and revolutionize a highly corrupt system in ways that would have had far greater, longer, richer lasting changes for future generations.

See, I do believe there was a better way to approach this, although it would have required standing up to the elite establishment and accepting that the foundations of our corporate capitalist system are faulty, and fail our people. New foundations for sustainable, participatory markets must be created, and a new rulebook must be written. It doesn't have to be "socialism" or "communism." It just needed to be a renunciation of plunder capitalism and a commitment to a sustainable, inclusive market model.

It would have created a fight, it would have been difficult and it might possibly have even put reelection in jeopardy if the elite threatened the President for not doing their bidding. I know some feel that's not a risk worth taking. But I'm a dreamer - the dream of what might have been/what might be (its not too late) if Obama took that path is so rich in my mind that I can't help but support it.

So, I hope the administration's plan stabilizes things, but sadly that just means we'll be right back in the same broken system we were in before the current recession, where wages were decoupled with productivity, majority standards of livings were in decline, and real wages were stagnant for the middle class and declining for the working poor - all while the wealthiest top percent of Americans saw exponential wealth gains. In other words, back then things were "so good" they really weren't that good at all.

We'll be back to the system that gave us this:


Per Capita Income: U.S. Second
Income Inequality: U.S. First (meaning worst)
Overall Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Child Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Elderly Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Infant Mortality Rate: U.S. First (meaning worst)
Leisure Time: U.S. Last (meaning worst)
Maternity Leave: U.S. Last (meaning worst)


And I believe that we had / have an opportunity (with a little courage and bold leadership in the face of Wall street pressure) to chart a new way. Now that would be Change that would bring a tear to me eye! :)

I hope this explains where people like me, who are speaking out a bit about our concerns - particularly when it comes to plans for handling the economic crisis - are coming from. It's not coming from a place of "obama hate."

[Adelante]

1. Reasonable skeptics are not the problem

The problem (for me) are those who would make a career of posting every last negative article they can find, in an endless stream, in order to weaken Obama's strength with the goal of bringing his administration down. They walk among us reasonable skeptics, unfortunately.

[Political Heretic]

2. *Nod* We do all tend to get lumped together in the same group, though.

For example I regularly get flamed up one side and down the other for posting just like I did here - trying to see both sides, but carefully explaining my concerns....

[Adelante]

3. Trying to see both sides

Bad, bad :spank:

:D

[Political Heretic]

4. It does appear no one gets as interested in boring attempts at rationality.....

Or my title sucks.

Or I'm a poor writer.

Or full of myself... or all of these or any combination.

[Starry Messenger]

5. Sorry, PH

You didn't use the word "fuck" in the title. Doing so is a guaranteed eyeball grabber. :D kpete just racked up 135 views in 10 minutes in GD and he spelled it "fvck" in his title.

Nice post, though. :) I rec'd it.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. .......

kpete is a 'she'. :hi:

[Starry Messenger]

10. Oops, too late to edit.

:( I will note for next time. Thank you!

[OwnedByFerrets]

7. You do seem to take quite a few punches....

I'm glad you can roll wid um.

[Andy823]

6. I agree.

There are a lot of people here that seem to post nothing but those kind of articles you mentioned. People have a right to disagree, that's the american way, and they have a right to speak out about how they feel, but constant negative posts do not show me that a person is open minded!

As the OP stated, many people disagree on things that have gone down since the president took office, and they should be able to express their views, but as the OP also stated, things are not easy for Obama, and Bush and his gang of crooks left this country in the worst mess since the great depression, and I honestly think that they did a lot of the damage in the last few months of being in power in order to make sure that Obama could not do the things he wanted to once he took office. Now he has to decide on the best route to fix this country, and I am sure he has heard many different ideas, but he has to take the advice of people who have experience in these matters, even though some of the country are not going to agree with the way things go. There is no way in the world that he ca please everyone, no matter what party they belong to, it just isn't going to happen!

We all "think" we know what should have been done, and we all "think" are way is the right way, or we accept what someone else says and side with them on the issues. Only time will tell if Obama made the right choice, but after only a few months in office, I think it's a bit early to pass to harsh of a judgement on him. We need to give it some time to see if it works. Bush took 8 years to create the mess, Obama deserves a chance. We don't have to agree with 100% of what he does, but we don't have to post 100% negative post about him either.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. "..... those who make a career of posting ..... "

That's very true. The problem is that the reasonable skeptics are almost universally lumped in with 'those who make a career' by some who jump down the throat of anyone posting even one hint of negativity toward Obama.

Some of this is due to them being as hardened in their view as the haters might be in theirs.

Some of this is due to broad brush thinking and a desire to be seen as a DU badass so as to gain the adoration of their respective possees. <----- maybe the worst kind

Some of this is due to left over anger from the last eight years.

Some of this is carryover from the primaries (I saw the word "PUMA" as recently as this morning).

No doubt I have missed a number of "Some of this is due to"s.




Also, I doubt that anyone who posts to an internet message board actually thinks they can say things that might eventually bring down a US presidential administration. In fact, to say that gives them too much power. More likely they just enjoy sophomorically poking sticks in the eyes of those they deem assholes of one sort or another.

[AZBlue]

16. Wouldn't a "reasonable" skeptic have something positive to say every now and then?

When I don't see that, I know what the real motive is behind the post.

As for PUMA being used - well see, they're back, their other website closed last week and some very known and undoubtable PUMAs are back and flaming away, ruining otherwise logical and needed debates and discussions here.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Unless one were to read every post of every poster, one might well miss the positive stuff.

Or one might have an eye that just seems to pick up on the negative ........ or one might just be so blinded to all but one's own POV that the positive is almost not even seen.

Or the reasonable skeptic ought to be as you describe.

[Political Heretic]

21. You might ask directly, seeing as how you could be missing posts

In my case for example, I blitzed internet boards with my overwhelming support for the ARR Act. And even more important that saying something positive is showing the ability to have your mind changed by new evidence....

I can't conclusively say my mind is "changed" right now, but after hearing Obama's plans for Afghanistan, as a person who felt Obama has always been wrong about his ideas on the "war on terror" his plan is impressively nuanced and goes far beyond a simple "military" solution .... really gave me a lot to think about and is certainly not as bad as I feared. I'm still on the fence about what I think about it, and that's big seeing as how I felt long before I even voted for him that he was wrong on Afghanistan.

[AZBlue]

23. I wasn't referring to you specifically, it was a general question.

[Political Heretic]

24. Oh I know.... I just meant in general too :)

Cheers.

[AZBlue]

25. Actually, I've seen your posts and they are fair, as is this one.

You are considering all sides and applying logic and reason to the situation - you're not just having a reactionary faux outrage moment! :thumbsup:

[CakeGrrl]

14. Actually, the REAL problem IMO, which will never be solved, is that

True detractors will never admit to being so. They need to keep flying under the radar and disguise their compulsive criticism as their right and duty to dissent...not that it's not easy to pick them out if you understand the pattern and history of the posts.

And no one will ever concede that Republicans generally get it correct in standing united when it comes down to them vs. the Dems. They may be dead wrong in ideology, but when they decide they have their guy (or woman), they align and stay on-message in their support.

Their problem now is that they don't yet have that rallying point. But when they do, you'll know it.

And with all the comments proclaiming that someone can't believe the MSM did this or that, after all the skewed coverage we've seen since the Clinton years, it's easy to believe that a lot of these same people don't realize that the MSM is all too happy to aid and abet any news of Democratic dissent (Paul Krugman gets a mag cover - since when?), infighting, or scandal while they do the absolute minimum to play up any such Republican problems.

As for the threads, it's a neverending cycle of "Why I support the President" followed by "I reserve the right to criticize" with the occasional snarky/sarcastic threads thumbing their nose at one or the other. Lather, rinse, repeat. :crazy:

[jonestonesusa]

18. I don't know...are we hear to analyze posters or discuss the issues?

I think that an individual post or thread can stand or fall on its own merits. Yes, I think Republicans have gotten better media coverage overall in the last 25 years, but not so much since the Palin/McCain disaster, MoveOn, Iraq, and the big fat failure of the Bush administration. At some point, we have to move away from the us/them framework and continuous campaigning and use public debates to develop better policies, even if it's debate within the party. WRT Paul Krugman, he is a celebrity economist that figures prominently in mainstream journalism, no surprise that his opinions get play, and it's up to the Obama administration to build a case for their approach to bailouts and stimulus - how well have they done that? The challenge for all of us is to look at issues and have a strong debate, to resist the impulse to treat legitimate criticism as a political threat.

[Political Heretic]

20. This goes both ways.

"A"'s will never admit to being "A" But "E"'s will never admit to being "E"s either.

Both poles are toxic.

[AZBlue]

15. If only I could recommend a post within a thread!

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I think you've said this very well ..... and exactly that same stance can be applied to .....

.... healthcare, and


.... afghanistan, and


.... gay rights, and


.... any other hot button issue.

[rhett o rick]

12. I agree completely with you PH. But I am getting tired of all the threads

arguing this issue back and forth. First of all we are liberal Democrats and we are going to keep an eye on Pres Obama. We can't be stopped with a thread or 100 threads. Most of us are rational and reasonable when we question the direction Pres Obama might take. Of course there will be rude and irrational posts, please ignore them. They just want attention.

As far as expecting miracles from Pres Obama, that isn't reasonable either. Wall Street can't be cleaned up in a day, or week or probably year. If he gets too radical in his muckraking, he will be in severe danger. The powers that runs this country are way more powerful than Pres. Obama.

Personally, I don't think the President or we have a chance against the powers. Bad analogy time: GWB was swimming with the tide of corruption. President Obama at least is swimming against the tide. Does he have enough strength to beat the tide??

I will continue to back him all the way, but as a card carrying secular progressive, I will also be critical of his choices and actions. It's my job.

[CTyankee]

13. And FDR saved capitalism. But we got Social Security.

My point is that sweeping socialist reform isn't going to happen. What I hope will happen is decent health care for everyone, regulatory reform on Wall Street, a more progressive tax system, better education for our children and large scale environmental improvements,esp. with energy.

I think we'd get a LOT more if we didn't have such retrograde Republicans in Congress but we do. We can't just sit around bitching. If we're not on Obama's side, we're pretty much sidelined and alienated. maybe some folks want to feel like that and that's fine for them. I'd like to still try to get the best system I can get.

P.S. Oh, might I add that I admit to the possibility that Obama might know more than I do about politics and the situation in the country today...

[Political Heretic]

19. What you called for in your post .... is sweeping reform.

What I called for.... isn't "socialist." We need to rescue our bleeding nation from plunder capitalism and instead embrace a practical vision for sustainable free markets and a participatory economy.

PS - I believe people on the ground are the most qualified talk about politics and situation in the country today...

[NYC_SKP]

22. It takes effort and time to slow down a ship, longer to bring it to a stop.

And longer still to turn it around and proceed in an opposite direction.

This is an important point apparently lost on many critics.

Without Obama all the things you cite would be getting worse and worse. Just keeping them from becoming so is a magnificent effort, and to head in the right direction takes much more.

Obama has done one hell of a lot in this short time.

:patriot: