We sure like tearing each other down, don't we?

[Roadless]

At least the Republicans can play team ball when they regain power after eight years of losses.... Us? We rip at each others throats within two months.

When I see Paul Krugman basically acting as point man in tearing down the Obama admin, it makes me sick. Two months.

Two months.

This administration will not be able to repair the eight years of incompetence by GWB in two months. They will not make all the right moves or put smiles on everyone's faces. But it's an improvement, and it's a start. And back in January of 2005, that felt like a million miles away.

Let's give them some time to even do something before we start ripping apart ideas with analysis paralysis.

All this bitching from our side of the aisle at *each other* reminds me of this line from Pink Floyd's "Dogs":


And after a while, you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.

[Deja Q]

1. Oh, but we've been at each others' necks long before Obama was elected...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. Imagine ........

We won.

Didn't we?

Yeah, things aren't just the way these amateurs think they should be after - what is it? - sixty-eight days?

I mean, it's not like the global banking system is underwater, or the economy is crushed, or that there are any other really big things going on. The fact remains that Obama/Biden haven't set our country right yet, and for that, they must be condemned.

Imagine how much better McCain/Palin might have handled this.....................

:sarcasm: <--------------- an essential insertion here, given the humorlessness of some of these naysayers ........................

[DainBramaged]

62. Good call

[Webster Green]

3. Repukes are lockstep drones..

I'm not interested in copying their behavior. :wtf:

[Tim01]

6. Just to make sure I understand.

The infighting will cause a loss to the republicans.
You would prefer to loose to the republicans and have them in power, instead of being a team player?

Or do you have another alternative which is likely to actually happen?

[Webster Green]

17. Your post makes no sense.

"The infighting will cause a loss to the republicans."

Huh? :shrug:

We need to hold our leaders accountable, and not be afraid to criticize their decisions, regardless of their party affiliation.

[walldude]

49. Well if being a team player means

Obama right or wrong, or my Party right or wrong, or my country right or wrong, then yeah you can count me out as a "team player".

[paulsby]

8. that's crap

just like it's crap that we should be.

there was IMMENSE dissent and disagreement amongst repubs about all sorts of decisions made by bush.

there is and should be disagreement and dissent about what obama does.

i have yet to see this "lockstep " stuff that is claimed.

but then i read libertarian (reason), repub (national review), and democrat (the nation) periodicals to see the variety of opinion.

i think obama has done a good job so far, but people are expecting WAY too much too soon

[Webster Green]

16. If there was immense dissent, I sure don't remember it..

Are you series? :shrug:

I agree with the rest of what you said though. :smoke:

[paulsby]

18. i certainly do

i have never thought this "the repubs march in lockstep meme" was supported by evidence.

maybe it's because people here rely on freepers for what repubs think. i've never even been to that website.

the republican "flagship" is historically the national review, and there was always immense dissent and disagreement on all sorts of issues (read the corner, for instance), just as there is here.

i think the "they march in lockstep" meme is harmful, just like any false belief. it's easy to discount repubs and say "oh, they all march in lockstep" kind of like saying "they are all idiots" but it's illogical and not helpful because it ignores reality.

there are many different groups in the repubs (paleocons, neocons, libertariancons, religious conservatives, areligious conservatives, south park conservatives, crunchy cons, etc.) and understanding the diversity is important imo.

but about the only rw source i hear mentioned here is freerep***** and if everybody there marches in lockstep, that is hardly a typical sample.

[Webster Green]

27. I don't go to the freeper site, nor do I read the National Review..

But I remember the repuke antics (and votes) in the halls of congress, and it was decidedly lockstep.

They gave the fucking war-chimp everything he wanted, each and every time.

What did I miss? When did they dissent? :shrug:

[paulsby]

38. oh, we are talking two different things

i wasn't talking about republican POLITICIANS. i was talking about republicans.

[Webster Green]

61. I'm talking about both.

And I'm sticking to my story. You can defend them if you like. To me they are scum. :mad:

[paulsby]

63. that's not what i am doing

i am describing them.

telling falsehoods about one's opponents doesn't help anybody.

believing falsehoods is simply a tactically unsound practice.

history is full of examples of people misunderstanding the opposition, and thus being less effective at fighting them.

sun tzu knew what's up.

understand yourself, and your opponent.

[Webster Green]

70. Oh, I understand them alright..

They're fucking neanderthals. Defend them all you like, but you will never change my mind.

I would rather believe my own eyes and ears. Mm-kay? :wtf:

[paulsby]

78. do you have an issue with reading comprehension?

apparently so.

i am not "defending them". i am saying i prefer to actually (lord forbid) understand my opponent.

you, otoh, prefer to believe myths and lies that make you feel comfortable.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anigbrowl]

53. You are not paying attention

Bush didn't get what he wanted on a variety of topics. Immigration was one example. I agree that they don't march in lockstep, that's just a meaningless stereotype that both parties make of each others' supporters. Go on some Republican equivalent of DU and they blather on about how conformist the lefties are. It's not an informative or meaningful stereotype.

[Webster Green]

60. I don't care to visit repuke websites..

I came to my conclusions that they are lock-stepping drones based on what I saw happening on C-Span.

Perhaps you can nit-pick me and come up with a couple of exceptions to their overwhelming support of the war-chimp, but generally speaking what I'm saying is closer to the truth than what you are saying. (IMO)

Guess we'll have to disagree. :smoke:

[paulsby]

64. c-span

doesn't represent republicans. it shows a representation of republican POLITICIANS.

here's a little hint.

understand your opponent.

that is how one wins battles. understanding oneself and one's opponent.

[Webster Green]

67. Jeezus...

What a pantload! :rofl:

[anigbrowl]

71. This thread is useless without pictures

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anigbrowl]

66. Well, then you're forming an opinion without the facts

That's up to you. I think it's kind of pointless to come to conclusions about what goes on in the GOP if you refuse to even look into it. You don't have to agree with them, nor is it like their ideas are going to infect you if you read what they're saying to each other.

[Webster Green]

68. Heh!

You listen to 'em :rofl:

[paulsby]

65. excellent point. nt

[Webster Green]

69. Where?

Sounds like BS to me. :wtf:

[paulsby]

77. try reading comprehension hth nt

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. Not to bitch or anything...

It's "aisle", not "isle", as in small island...

OK...done :hi:

[scarletwoman]

5. Another fucking whiner. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE TIME, IT'S ABOUT THE DIRECTION!

Tell me, if I wait another month, will he become less of a corporatist? Will he fire Geithner and Larry Summers? Will he change his mind and ditch Tom "Monsanto" Vilsack? Will he start sticking up for single payer health care? Will he stop defending outsourcing of American jobs?

How long should I wait for him to change the direction he's going?

sw

[FLAprogressive]

9. Too bad we can't K&R posts....cause that was a great one!

[empyreanisles]

21. He deserves a honeymoon of at least 6 months given our issues. I am serious.

I can't believe some of you people. Get off your high horses.

[Roadless]

23. absolutely.

nm

[scarletwoman]

28. No, you're not serious, your answer doesn't address a single thing that I said.

I'm not the one on the high horse, I'm the one down here on the ground trying to fight for the working class.

You don't want to fight, fine. You go ahead and just sit around and "hope".

[Missy Vixen]

46. How many more will lose their jobs in the next six months?

How many more will lose their homes in the next six months? That homeowner arrangement isn't moving especially quickly.

How many more will either incur hospital bills that will bankrupt their families, or even better yet, DIE because they have no health insurance in the next six months?

How many will still go hungry over the next six months due to the combo of no job, no funds, food banks getting shelled all over the country and states cutting unemployment? (SEE FLORIDA, for instance.)

I could go on. Tell me: How do you intend to tell those who are already desperate that they have to wait an additional six months for President Obama to stop playing patty-cake with those who don't have our best interests at heart, and never have?

[empyreanisles]

48. I don't know. These are uncharted waters and he is doing his best.

I want to end all of the talk of him being failure. Its too early to see how things are going to turn out.

[Missy Vixen]

51. In the meantime, PEOPLE ARE DROWNING in those "uncharted waters"!

There isn't six months to fix some of this crap. There isn't even six weeks.

>Its too early to see how things are going to turn out.<

Those of us who didn't treat President Obama like a rock star before the choice was made were "PUMA's", "DLC," etcetera. Now, we've had abundant proof that he has no intention of keeping his promises re: health care, job creation due to stimulus, etcetera, and it's just "too soon"? When will it be time?

How many more will have to freaking drown before some of you GET IT?

[anigbrowl]

54. You're so right. someone should wave a magic wand and make it all better.

Because the solutions to complex problems are always simple and obvious.

[Roadless]

74. Two months.

Seriously. There's no special magical fairy dust to sprinkle over the problem.

[Skittles]

30. you know

pretty soon it will be, "HE HASN'T EVEN COMPLETED HIS FIRST TERM YET!!!"

[scarletwoman]

34. Yeah, while in the meantime, our descendents will be destined to a life of permanent serfhood

to the almighty corporations.

If we can't stop it now, we'll never stop it.

sw

[emilyg]

36. good post.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. Thank you for stating my feelings about this so succinctly.

[Roadless]

40. Let's just go back to Bush

How about Palin in 2012, with Jeb as veep?

Keep it up.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Roadless]

50. I'm not happy with any of that....

...but that doesn't mean I need to a be a dick to my fellow progressives on a message board. See your post as an eloquent example of that.

[scarletwoman]

52. I'm sick of the strawman argument that criticism of Obama is wrong because of some time frame.

Over and over the DUers who are not happy with Obama's policies and personnel choices explain that it's NOT about wanting him to accomplish things faster, it's about what he's already done.

And then up pops another thread complaining that critics "aren't giving Obama enough time." And another bunch of sycophants chime in, "right on!" And then the critics explain AGAIN that their criticism has nothing to do with that, and on and on it goes.

It's not "tearing Obama down" to point out that the already ample evidence of Obama's favoritism toward the corporate status quo is very disheartening and disappointing. Why shouldn't people complain about it?

It's posts like your OP that get people on edge -- making completely false characterizations of the nature of the criticism and the motivations of the critics. And far too many who cheer such posts on veer awfully close to an absolutist stance that essentially condemns the very act of questioning.

So, yeah, I'm out of patience with such nonsense. I care about my country and the future of my children, and I'm going to keep fighting against corporate control and the impoverishment of the working class. And if Obama isn't on board with that fight then I'll fight him, too.

sw

[anigbrowl]

55. I really don't give a shit what you think of Obama's direction

Frankly, I don't think you're qualified to assess it - not because of any failing on your part, but just insofar as I haven't noticed any particular skill in divining the future from your corner. Most of us are content to assess the Oabama administration based on the results it delivers, and results take time to become apparent.

So I'm afraid I'm out of patience with your nonsense. I don't see any serious evidence for your propositions that Obama is going to further impoverish the working class, nor do I think it's realistic to expect Instant Reform within weeks of an inauguration. Part of Obama's responsibility is to preserve sufficient stability for the country to keep running. People go on about things like 'why aren't ________ and _______ in jail', while seemingly unaware of the fact that AG holder was only formally confirmed the other day.

Sorry, but I think your frequent declarations of outrage and fighting spirit are just an oppositional pose - I haven't seen any pragmatic concrete suggestions on how to get any closer to your stated goals, just hand-waving and demands for instant fixes.

[scarletwoman]

58. Show me where, in any of my posts, that I have demanded "instant reform".

Nor have I ever posted anything in ANY thread about "why isn't so-and-so in jail?"

So you're out of patience with MY nonsense? Since most of what you ascribe to me is nothing that I have ever said, knock yourself out.

As for impoverishing the working class, if you don't think that using trillions of our treasury dollars to prop up the corporate status quo isn't a loser for the working class, then fine.

Obama on his online "Town Hall" just declared that we don't "need" our outsourced jobs to come back. We'll have shiny new 21st century jobs to replace them. Funny thing, Bill Clinton said the very same thing in the 90s. That turned out well, don't you think?

And don't forget that single payer health care is "off the table". Oh, and "reforming" Social Security is headed FOR the table.

Look, our government is run by the Owner Class, and that includes Obama. That's the way it is. Look at who's on his economic team -- the same Wall Street loving neolibs that pushed for all the deregulation that helped create this mess in the first place.

If we the people are going to fight the depradations of the Owner Class, we need to stop making excuses for the politicians who cater to them. And that includes Obama.

sw

[Raineyb]

81. So what are you saying?

That she should sit by quietly while the DLCers and their masters get their way? We the people don't have their money we only have our voices. We need to make them heard loudly so our politicians know which direction to go in. Otherwise the monied interests get their way and we get screwed.

Your dichotomy of either shut up or take back Bush is an idiotic straw man but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend you already knew that.

Regards

[Vanje]

42. Yes! nt

[anaxarchos]

47. Well said...

Obama has had enough time to escalate the Afghan War, back-track on his promises to pull out of Iraq, commit to a significant "residual force" in Iraq for the foreseeable future, waffle on Bush prosecutions, waffle on the rollback of Bush "executive power", staffed the economic and "Defense" sections of the the executive with some of the worst tools around, proposed a weak stimulus program, proposed a wall-street-friendly bank bailout plan and tried to upend a single-payer option for health care.

Frankly, he has done plenty. Does he undo all of that in the next 120 days? "Hell, I was just kidding..."

The OP has confused politics with American Idol. The OP believes that party loyalty or "competence" or personal traits trump the interests of those who support the Democratic Party. The OP is wrong. It is not political parties which decide policy for people. It is the other way around. The Republicans are just now going through this abject lesson for anyone who thinks that current Obama poll numbers make him exempt.

[mike_c]

7. straw man....

Krugman isn't "tearing down Obama" for failing to solve the financial crisis in two months. He's criticizing him for choosing an approach that he, and numerous other economists, do not believe will EVER repair the financial system or for which the costs will outweigh the benefits.

Some of us add to that the criticism that Obama's attempt to "fix" the financial crisis is misguided from the beginning because it seeks to broadly restore the same institutions that caused the problem in the first place.

Neither of these criticisms have anything to do with expecting Obama to solve the crisis in the first two months of his administration. Instead, they express a lack of confidence in the choices he has made toward beginning to solve it.

[FLAprogressive]

10. Bot meme #1 - he's haven't had enough time.

[empyreanisles]

20. He hasn't. Really, he hasn't. Jesus what is with this hate for Obama?

[Roadless]

22. Nader voters?

I often wonder.....

[Webster Green]

31. I voted for Nader once..

I also voted for Kucinich and then Obama. All of those votes were well thought out (IMO) and I have no regrets about any of them.

I'll vote for whomever the fuck I want, if that's OK with you. :wtf:

[JDPriestly]

11. Obama needs a new economic team. He should listen to Krugman

Krugman is offering better advice to Obama than Geithner is. Who in the world advised Obama to appoint Geithner? That person certainly was not a good, liberal Democrat.

[G_j]

12. Krugman, a life long economist, passionately disagrees

that's life. I suppose he could lie and say he agrees, or shut up.

If I agree with him or not, seeing as this seems to be his life's passion, and that he does appear to sincerely care about America's future,
I think he should do neither.

[LWolf]

13. I don't see the "each other" part.

I see the left tearing down the corporate center-right agenda of the new administration.

As they should. We should not go quietly into that nightmare of corporatism.

Here at DU, I see those still left of center doing the same to the new administration's center-right policies. Not to those who disagree. And not to the administration as a whole. Although I have to admit that the people Obama has chosen to lead leave a bad taste, for the most part.

I see those that don't like criticism of the new administration going all out to tear down dissent. Not by attacking the message, but by going after the messenger with unadulterated hatred. Not all Obama fans, of course, but a very present and loud core.

I haven't seen the "haters" meme so much since a year ago, when it was the "hillary haters."

I have been called, in the last two days on DU, "Rush," "The Enemy," a "DINO," a "Naderhumper," a "mindless hypocrite," "pissy," lol, and more. I haven't called Obama supporters anything but wrong in their support of bad policy.

For me it's not about attacking Obama, but his bad policies. It's not about eviscerating my fellow DUers, but about expressing my displeasure with the direction the new administration is headed on many issues. Not on all.

I have also had a few positive things to say in the last couple of days, but those have gone unremarked by the Obama attack dogs. I've begun to wonder if some aren't operating under the slogan "If you can't bash what the leftist has to say, don't say anything at all."

I don't need to tear down fellow DUers. I do need to tear down destructive national policy.

That's just me.

[lunatica]

14. Use some critical thinking and just think about what you're saying

Where do you see Democrats 'tearing each other down'? Is disagreeing with Obama on some of the things he's doing considered 'tearing him down'? You seem to like the Republican's lockstep approach where they claim to agree with every last crime the Bush Cabal committed. Why is that?

Some of us disagree that putting the criminals in charge of the henhouse they've destroyed is the answer to our economic disaster. You may want to never question anything Obama does, but that doesn't mean he would even want that. Obviously he can take dissent since he's built so much of it right into his administration. The biggest favor we can do for him is to let him know how we feel. And many of us are very dismayed at his approach to the economic desimation this country is in because it seems he's working more for the corporations and powers that got us here than for us.

Are you just willing to be blindly trusting no matter what? It seems that way.

[Raine]

15. It's favorite sport

among some. x(

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. Two months?

There was lots of Dem on Dem bashing during the primary season.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning authority and policies and methods of implementation. Ever.

[annabanana]

24. What you mean "we", kimosabe?

[Threedifferentones]

25. You know, I think people are missing the biggest difference

between most of those who are criticizing Obama, and most of those who refuse to hear it.

The "damage" referenced in the OP was unfortunately not only done by GWB, and not only by the republicans. Though things were more obviously corrupt under GWB than Clinton, the Dems have nevertheless been quite moderate for decades. In other words, our Democratic leaders have done their fair share of keeping the rich rich and the status quo intact.

So, many of us feel frustrated because sometimes it seems that Dems are even more insidious than repubs. At least the repubs are obviously corrupt liars. Democrats try to play it both ways, like Al Gore bitching about global warming while his mansion in Belle Meade sucked up power.

Those of us who are most critical of Obama vainly hoped he would truly be a "maverick," someone who would fundamentally shake up our social order. That is what we need, we do not need to stabilize the same old thing, throwing a new face on a system that is just waiting to fuck us over.

Of course, to even attempt such a shake up, Obama would need to tell not only the repubs but many Dems in Washington to STFU. The fact of the matter is that all the people who control our laws are getting rich.

And that, in case you have not figured it out, is the difference between the two camps. One really believes democrats are fighting for "we the people." The other sees that Democrats are, as a whole at the Federal level, quite complacent and corrupt. So long as we have a political system where our choices boil down to choosing the lesser of two evils, I just do not think we can see real change. Obama, like every other president, is bound by the political climate around him, and for decades both parties have been perfectly content to get rich at our expense. They will not let him change things, and he knows it, that may well be why he is not trying.

How can Obama challenge, let alone change, this status quo if he does not even admit it exists? How can anyone blame an economic system which has existed for decades solely on the past eight years? How can anyone blame solely GWB and the repubs when the democrats have held substantial legislative power all this time?

[G_j]

32. great post

very accurate IMO

[leftstreet]

75. Excellent observations

:thumbsup:

[Autumn]

84. Exactly so

I expect to get screwed by republicans, not by my own party.

[JNelson6563]

26. I know, it sucks

Barbituate left, baby.

[Skittles]

29. get over yourself

Krugman is DOING HIS JOB - pointing out what he considers to be potentially HUGE PROBLEMS. What to you suggest - that he "wait and see what happens"? What fucking crap,

[scarletwoman]

33. Thank you. What you said: "What fucking crap!"

[Roadless]

39. This is the kind of anger I;m talking about

It does no one any good. I'm on your side.

[Raineyb]

83. He's got every right to his anger.

And anyone advocating the STFU method of "supporting" Obama certainly has a different agenda than I do.

Regards

[Bluebear]

73. +1

[sendero]

35. What if it has nothing to do with Obama..

.. but it's a simple matter of thinking his economic policies WON'T WORK and unjustly reward the bad actors?

Does everyone have to sit down and shut up just because the man failing this time is a Dem?

[omega minimo]

43. call bullshit. what are you fishing for?

[Canuckistanian]

44. Where did you get THAT idea?

DU is famous for it's circular firing squad.

Ready...Aim.....

[Laelth]

45. No slandering Pink Floyd!

"Dogs" is, quite obviously, a song about your average middle-management Republican.

:dem:

-Laelth

[santamargarita]

56. Republicans are lazy bastards that can't think for themselves

:puke:

[bridgit]

57. The Lone Ranger and Tonto were riding down the Navajo Trail

When a band of Indians found em
Proceeded to surround em and
The Lone Ranger turned kinda pale

Tonto, our lives are in danger
We got to get away if we can
Tonto just looked at Lone Ranger
What you mean, we, white man

Tell me what you mean
(We, white man)
Tell me what you mean (we)
Tell me what you mean
(We, white man)
Tell me what you mean (we)

You in heap big trouble
But it don`t involve me, white man
No, it don`t involve me
It do not involve me, white man
It do not involve me

The Lone Ranger said, Tonto
Why talk about the shade of my hide
After all we been through
It would make me mighty blue
If you don`t remain by my side

We`ll steal away said the Ranger
Grab an Injun by the hand
Tonto said, turn me loose, stranger
Lyrics courtesy Top40db.
What you mean, we, white man

You in heap big trouble
But it don`t involve me, white man
No, it don`t involve me
It don`t involve me, white man
No, it don`t involve me

The Lone Ranger cried, Tonto
Stick with me and I`ll double your pay
We can do a switch about
You give me your pony, Scout
And ride Silver, hi-ho away

But hurry up said the masked man
To get away, we`re gonna have to race
Tonto took Silver and laughed
And said what you mean, we, paleface

Tell me what you mean
(We, paleface)
Tell me what you mean (we)
Tell me what you mean
(We, paleface)
Tell me what you mean (we)

You in heap big trouble
But it don`t involve me, paleface
No, it don`t involve me
It don`t involve me, paleface
No, it don`t involve me

It don`t involve me, paleface
It don`t involve me
(Hi ho, Silver away)
What you talking bout, we, paleface
What you talking bout, we

(That`s your problem, paleface)
What you talking bout, we, paleface
What you talking bout, we

It don`t involve me, paleface
It don`t involve me
It don`t involve me, paleface
It don`t involve me........
http://www.top40db.net/Lyrics/?SongID=74348

[burythehatchet]

59. WHO THE FU@K LEFT THE GD:P CAGE UNLOCKED??

[leftstreet]

76. Yeah, I thought this stuff was supposed to be posted in GD:STFU

:D

[Baikonour]

82. Krugman is the top economist in the world. When he sees...

The economic world around him collapsing, and the people in charge taking wrong steps to fix the problem, what do you expect him to do?

Some of you need to take off the blinders and realize Obama is not going to be perfect in everything. If you can't deal with that, then maybe politics ain't for you.