Got my mind wandering.
Apparently some chappie has a book out, California After Arnold, or some such. And apparently he had the opportunity to give a copy to Arnold at some social doo or other. Word has it that Arnold poked him in the chest and whined that nobody knew what sort of pressure he was under.
I thought Arnold was not a girly-man. I thought he was some tough steely eyed movie mogul. Well boo hoo hoo.
Which all puts me in mind of the classic reactionary crap of denigrating the professional politician (Democrat) and the good people who serve America after having made a bucket of dough in the REAL WORLD (Rethuglicans).
Nothing like a Rethuglican to tell you that Government is not the answer. (Especially not when one hires Rethugs to run the damned thing.)
So my fertile mind carried on thinking: what sort of person allows himself to become a politician? Damned if I know.
But my Assemblyman just got himself out of his job. And there are at leaset three guys looking to take the gig. For no reason that is transparent to me, all three of them have seen fit to consult with me as to their ambitions. Each of them forgot more last night than I know about it all, but they have all consulted with me. And two have asked for my endorsement. That and five bucks will get you a nice cup of coffee at Starbucks. With fucking sprinkles.
Now, should you ever get the opportunity to ask a guy (or gal) who, at about 35 years of age, is looking to get elected to medium-high office for the first time, you will, against my warnings here, be impelled to ask him, why do you want this gig? Dog help you, you will be told that the candidate wants to help people.
Please try not to laugh in their faces. These people want the gig because it is a career booster, back in the private sector. Not to be all cynical and stuff, but trust me, I was there.
And now I am thinking about Pelosi and Reid and Obama and Clinton (either one). These are what you gotta call high-end politicians. How much good do you want to believe that they mean or meant to do? I’m down with the idea that their intentions were or are largely honorable.
What I am thinking here, is that lots of people seem to hold Obama in a very high esteem. And I can see that. At the very minimum, a Western nation has for the first time elected a brown man to the chief executive. 2700 years of Western Civilization, and somebody finally hired a dark guy to run the joint. I am glad to have lived to see it.
But I will say of it, that Obama is just a politician. He does not walk on water. I have reasonable hopes for the next eight years. But his administration has ratified most of the elements of the Unitary Executive, and Obama himself missed the chance to vote against Teleco immuinty, which I took rather hard.
Yet I voted for him. I’ll be damned if I vote Green anytime soon. And I have not seen a Rethug who has captured my respect since, well, ever.
How’s that for stream of consciousness?
K7, I have had many of the same musings– thank you for articulating them and bringing them up.
They way I see it, politicians are to a certain extent egocentric.They’d almost have to be to get out there and raise money and stay in the spotlight. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, just the nature of the beast, I’d say. And more so if they want to become President!
That said, they are still capable of good leadership and even altruistic aims. But way too many are in it out of the need for fame and power– Lieberman comes instantly to mind. And yeah, Obama is a politician too–not merely a politician, but let’s face it.
One day, I’d like to spend some time researching how the Parties choose their candidates. Talk about the sausage factory! it might turn me off to politics, but I’ll risk it.
It never fails to amaze me that in country as vast as yours, with a population of over 303 million, 201 million eligible voter and about 160 million registered voters, one group or the other would be selfish enough to believe that the President is exclusive to their needs and forget the he is the President of your entire country.
This instant gratification pursuit after only 11 months in office is something that I find hard to get my head around and I’ve noticed it a lot with my American friends in the past, not just in politics but in their lives too. Maybe it’s time for some people to slow down their complaining and endless whining, so they don’t miss all the scenery on the way to their destination.
I don’t find human selfishness amazing.
It is generosity that is man-bites-dog.
I don’t know that selfishness is the sharpest word for what you are saying. Perhaps self-absorption. Narcissism?
Yeah. Hard to picture how the executive of a govt of a nation of a third of a billion is going to cater to anybody completely at all.
You can please some of the people some of the time. Otherwise, just do what you know to be right.
Yes maybe self-absorption was the word that I was looking for and please remember that I see the situation from far away and with different eyes.
Still there K and K? My powers been out all day, big storm in the mountains here…
I find this phenomenon of people thinking the President is just for their side, is a product of the Bush era. Sure it was there, but after such a disaster, you were either with him or against him, he left no middle ground.
And now, the repulikkkans have so completely closed the gate to middle ground, I’m concerned we’ll have a long road getting it back.
I want a 2 party system, I’m pissed they won’t do their jobs and negotiate.
And to address this article
Why do they want to be politicians and yet say they want smaller government?
If they’re so against government, what are they doing being politicians? Seems like they’d be cutting themselves out of a job sort of??? And I don’t see how they think they are doing their job, sitting on their asses saying no.
Obviously they purport to be interested in seeing the bureaucracy shrink.
That’s a valid point. But the counterpoint to that view is that if the previous administration’s behavior taught us anything, it is that we should be very skeptical of the actions of our leaders, and the justifications and rationales they give for them. Unlike Britney Spears speaking about Bush and saying, “I think we should just trust our president”.
Why, for example, won’t the Obama administration sign on to the landmine ban agreement, which even without the US signature saves thousands of lives per year? To protect South Korea? The thugs who rule North Korea don’t want to really invade South Korea, they just want to use it as a way to hold their people in thrall. They don’t even know how to run their OWN country, much less take over and run another. Their main interest is most likely to keep a steady supply of caviar, champagne and women flowing into their lives. And if landmines were eliminated, the agricultural output of Vietnam and Cambodia would greatly increase, bringing revenue to impoverished people in those countries which have suffered so much.
I don’t see it as selfish to raise objections to decisions such as that.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the objections, I’m against the expectations where none were offered in the first place. Some people seemed to think there was more and heard words that were never uttered by candidate Obama. I remember he said that things would take time, that it wouldn’t be easy and that he couldn’t do it alone, words conveniently forgotten by the crowds who cheered him as he won the GE. Where are these people now as he tries to change your country brick by brick, where is the help they promised?
I’m used to the tsukai and tsuteru (use and throw away) mentality here in Japan but thought after 8 years of Bush, the American people were ready to rebuild, I’m more than a little disappointed.
Yeah, I hear that. We all need to stay focused on that early spirit, that we were taking our country back and not a minute too soon. I can understand your disappointment.
The President still has until 2012 to try to keep his campaign promises to the people who voted for him, by no means an easy task with the mentality he is fighting every day in Washington. I’m sure he battles obstruction every step of the way, you have suffered 8 years of pure hell and I believe that this man needs time to be decanted, like a good quality wine or at least be given the chance to grow into the man I believe that he is.
Ok by the way, what did Bush promise?
The Republicans don’t stand a chance at the moment of finding a single new idea or a single viable contender for the next GE but their offspring are already tainted, a good example would be Liz Cheney, carrying on the moldy aspirations of her father, having moldy “old school” boys paying for their propaganda and I feel that Dems should be very careful to stop the public infighting on major issues like HCR, I find it extremely negative for the party as a whole.
From the London Review of Books,: “Obama’s Delusion” by David Bromwich
Delays in the passage, first, of Obama
“Ideally, he would like to inspire everyone and to offend no one.” I think you just described all politicians.
As for the threats. I heard the head of SS testify to Congress that that is not true, but that it is running the same as for Worthless.
I agree with nearly the entire article but I find the conclusion unsupported, uninformed and presumptuous.
It is a huge jump and frankly, a bit naive for Bromwich to claim that Obama’s motivation to work for bipartisanship on both bills is identical, a reflection of him being delusional and not using his intellect.
Personally, I think Obama should have jettisoned attempts at bipartisanship after what happened with the stimulus bill.
However, as Bromwich seems not to be aware, many people voted for Obama because he vowed to help end the divisiveness in DC. Had he been as disingenuous about that promise as Bromwich suggests he should have been, it would have not shown greater use of intellect but greater use of manipulation.
As to the HC bill, here too I have criticism for Obama for not coming out strong and forcefully from the beginning for the plan he wanted which included a Public Option. He seems to have purposely taken the absolute opposite path as Hillary did which doomed Health Care Reform in the ’90’s.
Obama thought letting Congress do all the work on the bill put his neck and thumbprint less on the bill and that would be a good thing in trying to get it passed.
The pursuit of bipartisanship here is not as delusional, unintelligent and oblivious as Bromwich mistakenly assumes.
It has been discussed quite a bit that the Dems and Obama want to protect themselves from the downside, if the public turns against the health care reform as ineffective after its passage, by being able to call it bipartisan. For this, they need at least one Republican to sign on.
I don’t agree with such games in politics or business, using CYA as part of a business plan often corrupts whatever is trying to be accomplished. But it is the real world of politics and Bromwich is the one who seems less informed of the way things are.
IMO, it is way off base and not very insightful to have come to the simplistic conclusion that Obama sought bipartisanship in both cases as proof of delusion and a lack of intellect.
That said, I like saying the name, “Bromwich”.
Ponder this: perhaps President Obama’s reasoning for “letting Congress do all the work on the bill” has been far less about “his neck and thumbprint”, but far more about exposing the character of the folks we sent there to represent us.
Well, that is nice and all. But the reason is that his political power will suffer if he is too closely tied to a failure, while he will get all the credit he could use if it succeeds.
Mr. Bromwich seems to be assuming a lot and not basing his knowledge on facts concerning actions taken by the President so far. We can all assume and presume that we have a handle on the reason why a person does this or that, we are often quite mistaken, so unless Mr. Bromwich has a direct line to the WH, his article is just based on personal presumptions and therefore holds no merit for me, in fact he sounds just like all the other Obama bashers before him and those still waiting in line behind him.
I just did a brief check on Mr. Bromwich to find out that he’s a contributor at HP, well what do you know or maybe I’m just being a little presumptuous?
Obama aside, I have been reasonably impressed with many of the people working on health care in the midst of the greatest hysterical meltdown I can remember seeing since Selma brought out the dogs. My largest fury, however, is not with the RW – I’d expected that – but with the “progressives” who are recapitulating the arrogant elitism (is that redundant?) of 1980 when students, with no skin in the game, refused to vote at all, saying Carter and Reagan were equally awful. Well, not if you were living in poverty, they weren’t. Not if you were Black, they weren’t. Not if you were a union person they weren’t. Not if you were an ordinary shlub trying to have a job they weren’t. Carter sucked. Reagan was evil. BIG difference.
I spent all day yesterday being hijacked into a totally phony “debate” about which was more moral – single payer health coverage or the bills being worked out in Congress. Well, duh. I’ve supported single payer since Hector was a pup, but it’s NOT what’s on the floor. I found myself being labelled as anti-single payer because my work is to help my organization’s members learn to articulate what they believe is the BEST POLICY in any bill we face. So I got to be the straw man for a bunch of wimpy so-called “progressives” who are “too good” to deal with Congress when what is on the floor is not single payer. Well, tell than to my uninsured friends with health problems. Very first thing any plan will do is cover them immediately. So I get to tell THEM that the elitists WITH health coverage are opposing reform because it’s no ideologically pure? Because it’s not – yet – single payer?
We can blame our elected leaders only so far. KevenSeven if you’re in CA, our legislators are roped and hog tied by wave after wave of ill-considered propositions we (some people) voted in in a fit of pique. They did not read them and did not realize that beyond the first three lines lay hideously complicated processes that have rendered the CA legislature absolutely unworkable.
Obama is facing the crisis of legitimacy that the previous Rethug dominated processes have created. This government has been hijacked by RW corporate and religious conservatives, but they do have a presence. He is balancing everyone’s rights, and to do this well takes time. I love seeing Congress finally take the gloves off on the financial sector, and yes, DADT, DOMA, etc. will all have to be changed not by him but by Congress. But he HAS made change.
Too bad the ideological purists on the left are too smug and too vested in complaining to see how far we already have come. Whining progressives may well be why we don’t have more progress. “Too good to get my hands dirty with politics” is a recipe for failure. I’m sick of it and sick of my fomer allies. Progress comes when WE make it. Period.
C’Lady, You really are a Choice Lady. So many good points you made and I appreciate them immensely because you are out in the trenches–fighting the good fight.
One of the lines in Obama’s acceptance speech reminded me of something similar to FDR’s technique.
Obama said, to a big applause, change does does not come FROM Washington, Change comes TO Washington. I need your help.
FDR wold say about some of his proposals, if he felt he didn’t have enough support from the voters, they will have to make me do it. He knew he had support, he wanted MORE support.
some voters seem to live in a world where each problem should be fixed by the end of the hour long episode. Hell, The senate can go in an hour long quorum call. Progress is incremental, the step at a time thing. Radicalism can have many unwanted effects difficult to fix. Progress is not accomplished with some banana republic coup.
bitohistory – you obviously know more than a BIT o’history! I tried to make this point, even recalling that the Revolution of 1776 would have been 1773 had the farmers in western areas of the colonies been on board, but they saw no need for three more years!
I greatly resent the idea that if you’re aware of our national tendency to make haste slowly, you’re some kind of sell-out! I am too damned old and have fought too many good fights to be slammed by people who rule from armchairs. And that, I find, is where my critics lie – they have no skin in the game, sacrifice NOTHING, declaim but don’t work for what they believe. So where is their voice telling Obama what to change and how much they want it? Pure lazy.
It’s so easy to criticize, so hard to fight for what your want. But if so-called progressives start pitting themselves against those of us in the trenches, we are doomed.
I SO appreciate the thoughtful assessments of policies and practices I read here. You kept me sane yesterday. Otherwise I might have bitten someone!
C’Lady, I started in grade school working in civic activities. My parents were active in Union, political and charity WORK. I learned at an early age it takes work. Campaigns are fun! When you win it is work!
the frustrations are always there at every corner you turn. “I want this.” “No, do that.” “You’re not doing….”
Short story: I was working on a workers comp. bill in the state leg. They were try to do some real damage to an all ready bad law. I went to my home local, told them the skinny and told them that I needed to have letters sent to their Sate Reps & Senators. Everyone was rah! rah! After the meeting, 2/3’s did not know what district they were in or who to write!
I was supposed to be up to “The Capital” and empty handed? I was going to fight this bill with out ammunition? It can get frustrating. (and I loved it! ~smile~)
I have seen too much in life to be a cynic. Even about politicians. They are like any other group of people in a job. Some do it for the money. Some do it to define themselves. And some for the love of the work. In the case of politicians — there are those who are true public servants. And that’s why they choose governance as a profession.
I am dismayed by the “left’s” reaction to this president. Apparently people thought they were electing Malcolm X. And apparently that’s who the right thinks they’re looking at whenever Mr. Obama appears on the scene. I’m at a loss to understand how so many people failed to recognize this man for who he is — no different from what he was on the campaign trail.
What can I say…
When you’re right, you’re right.
Hey, Jason Riteman was interviewed today by Larry Mantle of KPCC. Larry, as I trust you know, is very good. And I was delighted with Jason. He was remarkably un-affected. Like you could actually stand to have his ego in the room with you.
I am pretty sure you could find it if you wanted to!
It’s the expectation thing — not his — but ours (figuratively not literally).
What is maddening is this whole damned “I didn’t get my pony!” thing. Drives me nuts.
I knew Obama was a relatively average politician long ago. And I am comfortable with that. If he is more honest that Bill Clinton, then I am good to go.
Oh, one thing that I might have clarified is that this business of my state’s pols all looking to see how this will improve their earning power a decade hence, is the whole bullshit idea of term limits.
Now, if someone was to suggest that my state’s legislators should be restricted to no more than 20 years in office, hey, I could see that.
But six years? What utter crap.
Mexico has term limits. The legislators in Mexico are limited to ONE term. And we all know how well governed Mexico is. Cough.
I rather see a mandatory retirement age. But a 20-year cap doesn’t sound so bad.
What age? A year after Ted Kennedy managed to live?
What a fucking bummer that he died when he did. What a complete fucking bummer. He and I exchanged nods once.
Yes, it’s sad he’s gone just when he was needed. Just when he could see his work come to a close.
I think 65 is old enough to retire from public office. I really do. Maybe 70. But times change. And our leadership needs to change with the times.
Got you with that one, didn’t I?
A tragedy that he is not here, now. Key-rist, we need the leadership.
Another knock on Obama, I suppose.
Now that I think of it, perhaps part of the failure of HillaryCare was the animosity between the Clintons and Ted. Ted detested the Clintons, apparently.
I did not know that.
Yep, that would have made things uncomfortable.
I have a long list of times I exchanged a smile or nod with someone famous or semi famous.
Buy me a drink and I’ll tell you about Dustin Hoffman.
And I’ll tell you about Muhammad Ali. We can name drop for shots.
The whole point is that one made contact without taking more than 20 seconds of the other’s time.
The time I met Bob Dole does not count.
And I extended my left had to shake. Normally an insult. He appreciated it, especially as I had not hesitated.
Thirty fucking years ago. I am just on the verge of falling into the damned grave.
Wow, I have to really think about this one. Famous people I have met:
Red Skelton, David Seville, Sam Peckinpaugh,Daryl Lamonica, Tom Seaver, Mike Connors, Steve Miller, Al Franken, Jon Tester, Maria Cantwell,Patty Murray,Barbara Boxer, Ron White, Brian Schweitzer,Brian Schweitzer’s dog Jag, Joe Sample, Gary Locke, John Garamendi, Frosty Wetherling (sp?), Don Coryle, Marty Schottenheimer (sp?), Bill Walton, Henry Ellard, Bill Clinton, Brian Billick, Alex Ovechkin, Marian Gaborik, Sandra Bullock and Aiden Quinn.
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
OK, Bill Clinton just stuck his thumb directly at me as he walked past, that’s all.
Al Franken and Alex Ovechkin are the best stories of the bunch.
I’ve only met a few but my wife has anyone I’ve known beat. Her father worked at CBS and is one of those preacher types who still talks on the radio in NC.
She had lunch with Oprah and Barbara Walters on separate occasions. She met Nelson Mandella (went to BU with his daughter), Pat Robinson, Jessie Jackson and Jr., Stokely Carmichael (yes her parents were black panthers at one time), Dick Gregory, Sheman Hemlsy, Shaq, she went on a date with Alonzo Mourning in high school, she worked for Lt. Gov. Beyers in VA and obviously knew Gov Wilder, Ricky Rudd (through his mom), Jim Bakker and Tammy Fay, Falwell, the Gov of NC we both met at her mother’s funeral, etc… I never can remember them all.
The funniest story she told me is when Dick Gregory and Jessie Jackson got in a fight when Gregory called Jackson “a bubble eyed n**** from the hoods of Chicago”.
Tough to top Mandella.
Did not know Gregory was so smart.
I have a few creeps
on my list but most are fun.
(both of them Senator and Musician),
Mike Ditka &
Ah, but the game is who did you connect with in 10 seconds or less?
I don’t know how to play that game. 🙂
I spent two hours with Al Franken and Ron White. Most of the other people were pretty brief.
Nellie, I think you’d be at far less of a loss if you refrained from attaching straw men attributes to those who view this young presidency differently than you do. I think very few were expecting anything like Malcolm X. Furthermore, I think candidate Obama would have eloquently trounced some of president Obama’s courses of action. It would hardly take a golden tongued speaker to chastise the president for declining to sign an international agreement to ban landmines, to name one.
You’re assuming that I’m applying the same standard to all people who disagree with the president — which is itself a straw man.
I do understand disagreement with this president. I have my own disagreements, as I’ve stated before. What I object to is the lack of knowledge that seems to accompany a lot of the criticism. The projection and pouting. There is a reason for the land mine decision — whether people agree with it or not. There’s a reason for the telecom decision — whether people agree with it or not.
Just as there are reasons for decisions that are my pet peeves — choosing Larry Summers, pushing clean coal, staying in Afghanistan.
What I’m objecting to is the lack of discussion and the comparisons to Bush that make no sense. The petulance that brings nothing with it. The unwillingness to work for what people would rather see instead. As well as a happy willingness to ignore important changes that have taken place and are in the works. Those are not straw men.
And don’t think just because people label themselves “progressive” that they are immune to racial stereotyping and attitudes. There is some of that at play also.
The statement “Apparently people thought they were electing Malcolm X” IS a straw man. It delegitimizes peoples’ real frustration with this administration. Who ARE these people that thought they were getting a radical? You yourself mention three issues of contention that hardly seem radical. Landmines is another. You are essentially agreeing with a Bush policy when you defend this administration’s course of action. Obama the candidate made it clear he was going to bring the country back into the fold of civilized nations, and there he is, standing with Russia and China and against the 100+ signatories. A policy and a course of action remains the same, and has the same effects, no matter who is the one deciding upon it.
I must have hit a nerve with my remark about Malcolm. In my response to you I spent a good deal of time legitimizing disagreements with the president rather than delegitimizing them — as you seem to be determined to believe.
What I do delegitimize — to repeat myself — is the laziness and lack of maturity with which many people (which does not mean all people) object to the president’s policies. You are ignoring my real concerns, and instead have set up your own straw man of an argument.
Just to cite an example of what I’m talking about, Obama the candidate also made it clear that he was going to escalate in Afghanistan — which most “progressives” have conveniently forgotten. Instead, I hear progressives saying that Obama has betrayed his promise. No such thing.
And FYI, I don’t think of Malcolm as a radical. Malcolm went through a transformation. Indeed, he was murdered because he abandoned his radical philosophy. At the time of his death, Malcolm was a pacifist.
The Malcom X comment did not hit a nerve.
But I am put off by your comments regarding those who disagree with you about the president. Speaking only for myself, I find them to be often condescending, and a little cavalier in terms of characterization. For example, suggesting racism as a motivation for disgruntlement with the president. Racism is such a loaded pejorative that it should never be used in general terms, I feel. I assume you are not accusing Michael Moore, Naomi Klein,Matt Taibbi, et al, of it, but as they have been critics of Obama from the left, how is one to parse them out of your generalization? Furthermore, why always quotations around “left” and “progressives”? People can most certainly be left and progressive and still express profound disappointment with this administration.
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I’m saying, and so it’s very difficult to have this conversation.
When I hear people say that Obama is the same as Bush, or that he hasn’t kept his promises when we are not even one quarter through his first term — I find it hard to take them seriously.
When I hear people proclaim that they’re not going to vote for him again rather than talking about how to push for the policies they want, I find that defeatist.
And that’s all I can say. We’re talking at cross purposes here.
As for racism — maybe it’s a loaded pejorative to you, but as a person of color, I have a lot of experience with the attitude, and call it as I see it. Do not over-generalize my comments. They do not apply to everyone. As I have stated repeatedly.
And I’ll add one last thing — instead of going after me and my attitude (or what you perceive to be my attitude) — why don’t you cite something from these sources you respect to refute what I’m saying. I don’t call you condescending. I argue what I believe. You might do the same.
Certainly not “deliberately” misunderstanding. But to the extent that it appears that way to you, I apologize, and will reflect on both your words and my own.
Yes, WTS. Why not debate the points she is making, rather than the tone of her voice?
I argued against her rhetorical style, which, to me, included sweeping generalizations and straw men argumentation (at least the original post I commented on). I’m sure you will agree it is appropriate to take issue with that, regardless of whether or not you think I’m right about what she wrote.
Why not argue substance rather than style. When you argue style, you make assumptions about my attitude that are mistaken.
From my original post: “I
I do disagree with that point, that he is “no different”. Although I dislike the use of the word “betrayal” in the title, I think this article from FDL puts it far more eloquently than I could.
Then I go back to my original point. He ran as a centrist. I was an Edwards supporter. When Edwards dropped out, I had a hard time choosing between Clinton and Obama because they were both centrists.
I don’t understand why so many people took Obama for a liberal. He didn’t run as one. His voting record wasn’t liberal. That’s my point. And I’m sticking to it.
It’s a point worth sticking to! But I continue to disagree with you, and feel that I DO understand why people had higher hopes, and so suffer a greater letdown. Perhaps his slogans should have been, “Slow, Incremental Change that sometimes doesn’t even SEEM like change, that we can continue to believe in for a long time until it manifests towards the midpoint of my term!” and “Yes, We CAN, but we won’t, always…” although I think I can understand the rationale behind not doing so.
A lot of people confuse Obama with liberalism because the reactionary assholes insist that he is a commie.
Our political discourse has so been debased by the rethugs, that most Americans have no damned idea what a liberal is.
But Obama is not nor has ever been a lberal
I exist, only to serve.
If these people are disappointed with the Admin as it has turned out, then if they were not expecting a radically liberal admin, then what have they to be upset about?
I guess it would depend on your definition of the words “radically liberal”.
You certainly have not clarified the question.
What do you or anyone know now about Obama that you did not know before Nov 2008?
I’m not the best person to ask. I was, and continue to be a Kucinich supporter and did not have extremely high hopes for this president to begin with. I like some of what he has done and oppose other actions he has taken, like the no strings giveaway to financial institutions, but I am not exasperated with those who feel misled, who were caught up in the rhetoric and the massive populist support that carried him into office and felt that change would be more dramatic (and more sharply punctuate the difference between now and the last eight years), as you and Nellie seem to be. I understand where they are coming from.
I went through a period of disappointment with Obama when he took office and didn’t try to make the huge changes to financial regulation and health care that I had hoped he would.
I don’t like his supporting the Telecom Immunity bill nor his not pursuing criminal investigations of those in the Bush Admin who likely violated the Constitution and committed war crimes. I am not happy with 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan nor the tepid approach to gay rights and DADT.
There’s more too but with all that said, I have the understanding of politics and apprecition for what Obama has accomplished to not condemn his presidency in full for positions I oppose.
Those people claiming they won’t vote for him in 2012 or saying they can no longer support him do sound short-sighted and unenlightened to me.
Do any of them think a President Romney will be more in tune with the majority of their positions?
I don’t get the approach of just abandoning Obama instead of lobbying him to change his policies. He has shown to be flexible, it’s a hell of a lot more constructive to go that route.
nellie the biggest thing that gets me is people obviously did not listen to candidate Obama.
He said he was going to focus on Afghanistan and send more troops but purist call it a sellout.
He said he would get the uninsured the coverage federal workers got and now that’s not enough even though with the age 55 Medicare buy in it’s actually more.
He said he would depoliticize the Justice Department. He never said he would prosecute Bush.
He never said he was going to take down capitalism or break up the banks.
He is a politician, duh and he was coy on many tough issues he knew he would face that are vastly different viewed as a candidate than as C-in-C. Especially on matters of national security ALL presidents tend to be authoritative. FDR broke the law to fund the allies before we entered WWII. Truman dropped the bomb and entered Korea. Eisenhower built up the MIC he eventually warned us about. JFK got our feet wet in Vietnam and we all know what LBJ did. And that’s what began the trajectory American might has taken. The first thing we needed to do was get back to adding real diplomacy to foreign policy and that’s what is being done now.
I keep track of the biggest promises he has not kept yet too like those he made to the LGBT community. But to say he has inexplicable strayed from what he was as candidate is overstating reality in the vast majority of what he is trying to accomplish.
Well said, KQ, as usual.
And I’m giving this administration some time to get to DOMA and DADT — to get these wrongheaded policies corrected in congress so they can’t be whimsically reinstated by executive fiat.
Pepe and Nellie – I agree with Nellie. My faith organization was decisively NO on 8, and we work long and hard for GLBTQ rights. And we recognize how essential it is that CONGRESS and/or the courts weigh in on these two issues. An Executive Order is pretty worthless indeed. Shifting this nation away from the Imperial Presidency is, KQuark, precisely what I also so admire about Obama. We’ve had years of the hare. Chaos has ensued. Now we have the tortise. Slow and steady wins the race.
Well said, KQ.
My biggest disappointment with Obama so far has been his lukewarm support for gay rights, yet he did sign the bill expanding hate crimes to include gays.
One has to accept, I suppose, that he is ready to do the right thing without leading the charge, not on everything.