If comments here in OS are any indication of the general mood in the country, it appears as though a significant number of “liberals” and progressives are actually going to carry through on their threats to damage Barack Obama so much that loss of the White House to a Republican in 2012 will be assured. They (granted, not all of them, but a significant number of them) are determined to “teach him a lesson.” In their opinion, he has not kept faith with them—he has not stuck to principle; he has made concessions to the conservative obstructionists; he has made "unacceptable" compromises. Apparently, they don’t want him doing these things, so they are going to teach him a lesson.
Sorry if this sounds condescending, but my reaction is: What an ingenious plan!
They feel they are not getting what they want from Obama…he has not been liberal enough; not done enough to advance the liberal agenda, so they are going to help defeat him and take their chances with the candidate the Tea Party is going to select.
As I said, “What an ingenious plan!” The Tea Party and conservatives in general think liberals are clueless…and liberals come up with an imaginative and inspired plan like this to show they are not! Wow!
Another way of looking at things, folks—and the way I see them, is to suppose Obama is doing what must be done to govern at all. That simply makes more sense to me than supposing he is a traitor to progressive initiatives…or that he is naïve or stupid.
Grover Norquist, GOP anti-tax firebrand, bragged that “We will make it that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.” Man…did he ever call it! And I think he is getting help from the liberals.
I think it is evident that the GOP has succeeded in painting progressives as unreasonable--and I think Obama is intelligent and realistic enough to recognize that. He knows the extreme right will grind this country into the ground to insure that a Democrat will not govern as a Democrat—so he has to be pragmatic; get done what he can get done; save as much of the country and its progressive programs as possible from these idiots; and hoard his stack of chips for use later, much later, in the game.
Unfortunately, he is getting no help from a huge segment of his constituency…in fact, he actually is being savaged by them with as much ferocity as the conservatives are showing. They are not getting what they want when they want it…so they are throwing a hissy fit and promising to withhold their votes or even vote for the opposition.
Sorry so many liberals cannot see things in a way that gives the man the benefit of the doubt. The rock and the hard place on either side of Obama are so evident to me, I cannot help but wonder why these good people are not able to see them—or at least acknowledge they might be there. None of us actually knows for sure about Obama’s motives—all we can do is to guess about them. I see him as a competent guy trying to get as much as possible out of a dish of crud. I may be wrong and those of you who see him as spineless and incompetent may be right. But what is the point of guessing in that direction if the result is a victory for the forces of darkness?
Anyway, as things seem to be going, Obama will be defeated; one of the Republican dwarves will be elected in his place; and we will all see how this brilliant plan of lesson-teaching plays out.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
spdeveer
nilesite
ordinaryjoe
Joanne Harper
Dudley Dolittle
baltimore aureole
Salon.com
Comments
As posted on LibbyLiberalsNYC blog:
"To further explain my disdain for apisa, let me just illustrate (and You can see this all over my blog and most of my comments). Almost the entirety of my blog is annotated, and usually double-checked for accuracy.
I like FACTS - frank likes mindless slogans.
frank most recent slogan is "doing the best he can with the cards he's been dealt."
When frank can rationalize that stupid comment with this fact:
"What is shocking is that the bulk of the drone explosion has occurred under Obama — the very president who cast himself as the antithesis of George W. Bush who promised he would never condone un-American Bush era policies such as the unlawful detainment and waterboarding of enemy combatants.
But in just two years Obama authorized nearly four times as many drone strikes as Bush did during his entire two terms in office. This, despite the fact the former constitutional law professor is likely cognizant the drone attacks violate international law.
And what could be more morally reprehensible, not to mention cowardly, than death-from-the-sky extrajudicial target killings of suspected militants by remote unmanned aerial vehicles? Drones play cop, judge, jury and executioner in one fell swoop at the click of a button by an operator sitting in a safe undisclosed location in front of a Nintendo-like monitor screen.
According to a an Oxford Research Group report the U.S. has flouted international law by failing to identify drone casualties, violating universal human rights including freedom from being arbitrarily deprived of one’s life and not providing compensation for possible wrongful deaths.
According to Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann in Foreign Affairs, about 15 to 20 percent of those killed by drones are non-combatants."
http://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/obamas-drone-surge-in-pakistan-doing-more-damage-than-good/
I hold obama's feet to the fire, and until frank has any sort of reasonable answer to this FACT, I'll continue to hold his to the fire.
I'd rather be banned from OS, than allow frank's mealy-mouthed lies to go unanswered."
Exactly how is four times as many drone strikes in two years (compared to eight years of bush the lesser) on nuclear armed unstable Pakistan doing the best with the cards he's been dealt?
I'm disappointed but when I'm feeling bitter, I think of the other candidates. Neither Hillary nor McCain would have been any better.
1. We have not achieved pure social justice. Not even close. It would be one thing if American civil society had achieved some broadly recognized form of justice, by which any deviation could be demonstrated as descent from the summit, but as I see it, we are not there yet.
2. Voters elect public servants, not martyrs. To make political change, some people are going to have to die. It was always thus. Until we reach that demonstrable pure justice, it likely will always be thus. Politics is not moral or ideological purity. That is faith or religion. That sort of thing has its merits but should not be confused with politics. The ideologically pure want to make martyrs of their leaders so that they, the ideologues can have more influence than a ballot. Too bad. This is a democratic republic in pursuit of being a more perfect/just society. This is not a church or cult. I wont surrender my vote to your fanatical idealism, and I wont surrender my party/candidate to your lust for control that your free vote does not satisfy.
3. Ideologically pure Presidents don't exist in American history. Why is this requirement so important in 2012? The Unites States government is set up in 3 separate, equal parts, which work as checks and balances against one another. This is basic stuff that we all know. This design presumes that there will be competing forces and compromises. History has shown that this has occurred since the Declaration of Independence. If it were designed for ideological purity, it would not be designed this way at all. There would not be parties. There would not be courts. The legislature would just be a body of scribes which would do the bidding of the High Priest. Maoist China, Iran, and the Taliban come to mind, among others. This is the result of demanding ideological purity. The GOP demographic is dying out. As it dies, it is radicalizing. As it becomes more radical, it becomes the Taliban Tards that we see currently. It may serve emotionally to oppose them in like manner, but it is not good politics, and it will not lead to a just society. It did not work with the Khmer Rouge. It did not work with the Round Heads in England. It did not work with the Reign of Terror in France. It did not work with the Nazis in Germany. It did not work here in the Reconstruction era, and it wont work now.
4. Governments kill people. One result of political action in the normal course of this is that someone gets killed. That is not a desire, but that is a real matter of fact. A just society, in the best case, will try to select those to be killed in the most equitable manner. This sounds extreme, but it is just the extreme extent of rationing resources and opportunity. Some will die of being in the wrong group. Some will die of poverty, illness and exposure. Some will die by bomb blast or bullet as a result of military action. In the best case, those outside of society will be where justice protects less than within. That sets up the delineation of where the just society is. Justice is a commodity in very short supply. Justice will not extend beyond the borders of the society in equal parts to the manner in which it is distributed within. That is a practical reality. If you attempt to require that your executive distribute justice in the same manner in which he does it within the borders, he will never be the chief executive, or will not be there long. That is also a practical reality. Ideally, injustice will be brought to a minimum or extinguished within and without society, but the dynamics such that they are will force it to happen domestically first, then internationally. Just like an emergency on an airline, you must affix your oxygen mask first, then your neighbor's. If you try to be "fair" and do it in reverse order, you will likely die. Stop expecting the President to affix someone else's mask first. The situation is an emergency.
I have seen irrational expectations come to blows with reality before…but this thing with Obama is beyond comprehension. He has been obstructed in so many ways it seems a miracle that he has gotten anything done. Frankly, during the last primary session, my thoughts were that if a Democrat finally got the office, that Democrat would face opposition and obstruction that would make the shit thrown Bill Clinton’s way seem like soft balls.
He has stood up to the obstruction…and has proceeded in ways that may seem counter-intuitive, but my guess is the guy always has his eyes on the prize. “The prize”, by the way, is a better America…with a better chance that progressive initiatives will be more widely accepted.
Bill Beck…thank you for your comments. You covered lots of ground…and hit so many nails on the head, I lost count. In another thread, you mentioned the need occasionally to head south, when the goal is actually north. You said that same thing in a different way in your comments about “ideological purity.” I hope sense finally prevails among those so thoroughly disappointed. I hope they re-check their priorities and expectations. More realism is what I hope they find. If they don’t, they are going to concede all hope for our country’s future. We’ll see if they wake up. Thanks for sounding such a loud alarm bell.
Am I head over heals about Obama, no, not in the least, but with the G.O.P. having more or less dominated the White House since the seventies, we need to have Obama back for another term so that we can break the idea that America is a "center-right" nation, which it is not. Obama may not be perfect, but at the same time the "professional left" has to come to terms with the fact that we just can't keep on spending like there's no tomorrow, nor can we gut the military so as to maintain entitlements.
You say:
"it appears as though a significant number of “liberals” and progressives are actually going to carry through on their threats to damage Barack Obama so much that loss of the White House to a Republican in 2012 will be assured"
First of all, I think the vast majority of OS people here are PINO "progressives in name only" and will not rally to dent the morally-compassless Obama momentum but I will do and say all I can to inspire them to do just that.
Secondly, I see the plan. Blame the messengers for decency and justice as saddling America with the worst of two evils if Obama loses. I don't think Obama should only be dumped as a candidate. I think he should be impeached. He is a gamesman not a statesman. Or was. But now he is much worse. He has broken the law. Denying that is massive denial, Frank.
That massive factor aside. [!]
How long will Obama get to be indulged to talk the talk without ever seriously walking the walk? Cash for clunkers? Suicide condolence lettes? A small list of goods. A profound list of betrayals. "Look how hard he is trying." Obama gives away the store before anyone even asks for it or expects it. I see him as a Trojan Horse for the oligarchs. And as an African American he got to neuter the will of the liberals at the beginning especially and he will use his race to help the oligarchs and militarists to rape Africa, too.
How many benefits of the doubt will he be showered with? He doesn't talk the talk so great any more either. We went from someone posturing as MLK to someone who thinks we should vote for him on the basis that he is not Michelle Bachmann. How far he has fallen, and look at that emotional voting blackmail.
Obama hasn't jumped the shark for you, Frank? Someone who treats the US Constitution and Law as a suggestion box to be ignored from annoying employees, not the law of the land. But the other two branches of govt. are so corrupt, who is gonna make him?
You call Obama "pragmatic"? Still the old "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?" There is right and wrong, Frank. And the illusions about the three branches of government are dropping for many of us. They are on the side of WRONG.
I worked for the Green Party in NYC the last election. Stood on street corners. Now Cuomo ran against that nutjob Palidino. But Cuomo is a corporate crony but he has on that Dem mantle and the progressives in name only remember his daddy as a liberal and also look at the nutjob Pallidino. He is really sticking it to the poor and needy in NYC and yet a national mag recently is touting him as Prez potential. Another Obama-type covert sell-out with p-r appeal. Blecccccchhh.
I talked about the values of the Green Party while flyering election day and before. The few people who were willing to engage with me snorted out mostly in disgust, "YOU CAN'T WIN!" "Why would I vote for a non-winner?" Sometimes I got to say, "well if enough people vote for "justice" and "integrity" and "peace" ... we can win." "Not in a million years!" The hell with principles and values. The GAME is all.
Immediate gratification. Winning vs. losing. That was the frame. Not justice. Not integrity. Not peace.
Oh yeah and the Green Party is asking hard questions of Israel so that is the political kiss of death considering that lobby in this country and the puppets in Congress. The secret is not trying to win a rigged game. The secret is not playing into that game.
We need a counterculture for sanity and decency in this country. It is a marathon, not a sprint. And Obama, he chose to side with evil. Pragmatic of him you say? Then you are enabling him enabling evil.
Gotta go. My take.
libby
You are passionate in your position. I disagree with you in spades. I will back the man...I will not do it as the lesser of two evils...and I fear with all my heart what will happen if the person who opposes him actually wins. That person, Libby, will be one selected and acceptable to the most extreme nut-cases of the right.
Do what you have to do. I will do what I see as the right thing for my country.
What a disgusting thing to write to me.
it's bio: "On a political continuum with Extreme Liberal at 1 and Extreme Conservative at 10, I can be found at position “P.”
"P" - take your pick: pernicious, pre-pubescent, penile, psychotic, patronizing, pitiful, pissant, puerile -- ALL are fitting.
I would have hoped you would see my remark as a joke. It was meant that way. I don't think you are a person who would resort to violence any more than I am. Sorry you didn't get the joke. I apologize.
And while I can understand that someone can be anywhere from disappointed in to appalled by Obama, I don't understand the endgame of a 3rd party vote. How many Republican presidencies must be accepted until you think you've got an electable progressive alternative who won't disappoint?
Cherry picking is wrong, markinjapan, give me time and I'll out source your sourcing, but hey...if sourcing worked for P's then...we'd not be about to lose a dern good man, oh, did I offend?
Was I mealy-mouth? I dare you go to my blog site.
Apisa, great work. Now, we or you have to do that thing...show times when O is being pragmatic (since its not clear to others...how that is possible I don't know).
I worry about our nation. I dread another 8 years under a Repro that is controlled by handlers like Bush II. Eeeeeeekkkkkk!
Apisa, great work. Now, we or you have to do that thing...show times when O is being pragmatic (since its not clear to others...how that is possible I don't know).
First of all, thank you for the compliment.
What is now called “Obamacare”…the most significant move in safety net legislation since LBJ, came into being without the government-sponsored or single pay system he advocated during his campaign…and it was a PRAGMATIC move to abandon some of his promises in order to get anything. Yes, it is not all one would hope for…but it is a significant PRAGMATIC step in the correct direction.
Obama managed to get extended unemployment benefits for people experiencing long term unemployment through congress, but in order to do so, he had abandon the roll back of W’s tax cuts that benefited the most wealthy citizens. That was a PRAGMATIC compromise. It is not all we could hope for…but it is a significant PRAGMATIC step in the correct direction.
Many of his international decisions have been made in efforts not to cripple the Democrats chances of leading…because any disaster that might occur due to a precipitous withdrawal in certain areas would be blamed on poor military leadership qualities in him and in Democrats in general. The general public has always questioned the Democratic Party’s willingness to defend our country…always rated the Republicans higher in this regard. His moves in these areas have been PRAGMATIC.
There are many, many other examples, Mango, but these folk are not really looking for examples. They want to hate and vilify Obama…and any examples of pragmatism on his part will just be in the way…something to brush aside. You can hear the hatred in their voices…not only of Obama, but of anyone willing to give Obama any benefit of the doubt. They cannot say “We disagree”…they have to accuse people who feel other than them of being stupid, naïve, moronic, and all the other descriptive words you’ve heard used.
We don’t have to dispute the facts. He has done what he has done…and not done what he has not done. None of that is being contested…nor should it need to be. My statement that I think he is doing the best he can within the political climate in which he is working…stands without need for contesting any of that stuff. It is an opinion—and decent, intelligent, reasonable people can agree or disagree with it…and many such people have in both directions. Their opinions that he is a traitor to progressivism…or that he is not doing the best he can…or that someone else would have done better—are also just opinions…with decent, intelligent, reasonable people agreeing and disagreeing. (By the way, mostly, they do not name anyone who would have done better…and if someone else were in Obama’s place and not any further along toward what their irrational expectations say should be in place, they would be suggesting that Obama would have done better than that person.)
But listen to the tone of much of the arguments, Mango, and you will see everything about what motivates some of these people as you need. They are, many of them, angry, hateful people screeching rather than arguing. All you can do is to pity them as a return gesture.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for posting also, Abrawang and Walter. We'll talk more in other threads.
Write some more. Please.
Thank you for your details. I had not thought of them all. I do like the simularities between him and Tiddy Roosevelt. I'll have to look up LBJ. Kennedy was my next great president then FDR (a rereading of his biographies).
I think Obama is caught in a Jimmy Carter vise, but his hostages are America's 0.00 to 199,99.00 incomes.
Over here people love Obama and speak with great reverence. They don't approve of the wars, but then again war/conflicts are against their Constitution.
Following orders without question really works for those inside the circle (pep rallies), but those of us who remain objective and are willing to be self critical just aren't wired that way.
We will always be the minority because when it's an "Us against "Them" thing; the herd divides into two groups.
The stragglers who see that both sides are blind to their own propaganda are often vilified by those who they are closer too, because of not being on 100%.
The other side of course is not threatened at all by the rational minority close to the opposition, so they say little. Unless of course it's their stragglers pointing out their hypocrisy.
So you will accuse me of being a GOP sympathizer and I will say you are an unthinking follower of a Party that claims to be Liberal, but (the majority) are not.
My accusation is easier to prove.
At this juncture, the point really should be to position him to beat the Republican nominee (I'm betting it's Romney) in 2012. What we may demand of him in a second term and what he feels free to do in that term, is probably a darn sight more than what he's been able to do, while hamstrung, these past 29 months.
At this juncture, the point really should be to position him to beat the Republican nominee (I'm betting it's Romney) in 2012. What we may demand of him in a second term and what he feels free to do in that term, is probably a darn sight more than what he's been able to do, while hamstrung, these past 29 months.
Compromise is an absolute necessity in politics...and today, in this toxic environment...it is beyond necessity.
I think these people truly realize that...but are so disappointed that a more decent agenda cannot be enacted in our country...they feel a need to blame someone. So why not Obama?
I doubt anyone else could have gotten much more from the obstructionists...and I can think of many ways for someone else to have ended up with lots less.
I will be writing another perspective of this...probably tomorrow or the next day. Hope you are able to participate. I like your reasoning.
Art...thank you for posting. I have responded in a personal message to you.
At this juncture, the point really should be to position him to beat the Republican nominee (I'm betting it's Romney) in 2012. What we may demand of him in a second term and what he feels free to do in that term, is probably a darn sight more than what he's been able to do, while hamstrung, these past 29 months.
Since this is open dialogues I have re-posted your message here and my response...
"I think the country will suffer unimaginable harm if the GOP gets the White House back at this moment in time.
I will do everything I can to try to get people to see things that way...and I guess I will have to live with the consequences of folk like you who are so bothered by what I am saying.
At some point, an election will occur. I suspect Obama will be defeated...and a Republican will take the office. All of America will have to live with the consequences of that.
f."
My response was...
"Wow. You seem to not want input about your blog. If you don't like it if someone is "bothered" by your postings, perhaps they shouldn't be done in a public forum. But that is just my opinion. Some people get upset when others disagree with them in open dialogues (although I can't understand that).
Personally, the only time I really get upset with another person's input is when they say something discriminatory on one of my articles or threads.
I don't go looking for trouble and would never go to a website that I didn't think wanted to discuss points, whether with or against the author.
You seem to have a few problems in miscommunication your intents (that whole thing with another person about meeting in public because of your "joke" about getting shot).
If your response was misinterpreted by me, perhaps its something in your writing that is causing this.
Either way, I won't trouble you again either by your wishes and/or inability to communicate clearly.
Shalom "
And since this is your blog, you will of course have the last word for the above stated reasons AND it is good manners.
As a pragmatist, I have absolutely no problem at all threatening to boycott my money, volunteer time, and even vote if necessary if President Obama doesn't show a change in his style and direction from what he's demonstrated since taking office. Frankly speaking, 200,000 people signing the Progressive Action petition saying that they're on an election strike is a damn good tactic -- especially since Obama seems so intent on snuggling up to the plutocrats to shower dollar$ on his re-election campaign.
Certainly if Obama continues on this course, he'll deserve to lose. After all, it's axiomatic in American politics: Why vote for a false Republican when you can vote for a real one? Particularly if another more major economic downturn is in the cards for the 2013-14 period worldwide. If the Repugs were to actually control all the government, they could get the full credit for the economic debacle.
Using the word "principle" to frank is futile, as he thinks it means the head of school.
he thinks morals are a genus of wild mushrooms.
I responded, I think respectfully, in a PM to avoid any further diversions in the thread. I even mentioned in the thread that I was doing so. Sorry if you thought I was being underhanded. I welcome…and have invited…people who disagree with me to my threads, so that is not a problem at all.
Ya' now, Harry, I can't thank You enough for stopping by at this late hour of the day. Were it not for the few who choose to visit, I swear I'd go insane with this "he's doing the best he can with the cards he's been dealt" crap.
The guy inherited two wars, had a democratic majority, and now we're embroiled in six, that we know of. Suddenly social security and medicaid are, both on the table, as far as this idiot is concerned.
Vet's have a six month (average) waiting time before their PTSD claims can even be heard.
Arlington cemetery has misplaced bodies and double bodies under single headstones.
He's authorized four times as many drone strikes in two years than bush the lesser did in eight. He's pushing nuclear armed destabilized into a corner.
He's increased the military budget, and although, theoretically we don't torture anymore, we outsource torture and renditions out.
We accept targeted assassinations despite the Geneva Conventions.
He defies his own lawyers who tell him the war powers act does not allow his continued participation in Libya.
We can't pay the interest on our debt. Gold and silver skyrocket because trust in the dollar has never been so low, and I could go on and on. He appoints corporatists who helped cause the mess to high level positions.
Thank G-d, there are those like You who can help me combat the idiotic refrain of "doing the best he can.".
When a child acts up, do we reward bad behavior with a chocolate bar???
Einstein had you pegged perfectly when he defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results.
The hatred from Mark is really hard to understand. The anger is so unnecessary.
I am not an Obama fan for the most part, but I do think he will be re-elected and I do think any president has a certain thing called political reality with which he has to deal.
Thanks for trying to respond to some of your "letter-writers" in a reasonable way.
And, I did figure the "shot" line was a joke. Nevertheless, you were kind to clarify. Some people are so passionate, or perhaps angry, that they overreact.
Again, thanks for your tone. You don't deserve, it appears from THIS post, the name calling.
I certainly hope you are right that Obama will be re-elected, but I personally feel he has precious little chance, despite what some polls seem to say.
I will vote for him enthusiastically...not as the lesser of two perceived evils. I will vote for him because I think he is doing as good a job as anyone could be doing right now.
Anyway...if I am right and he loses, however, what follows should be extremely interesting. We'll see how all the people complaining now will handle that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html?_r=1&emc=eta1