Anyone else disappointed in Obama?

DiscussieProgressive & Liberal!

Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.

Anyone else disappointed in Obama?

Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.

1vincentvan
jun 25, 2009, 10:53 pm

Well, here goes. I feel as if I am some sort of traitor, but I can't shake my nagging disappointment in Barack Obama. He has tranformed himself from a visionary person on the leading edge to a seasoned, slick, career politician in record time!! Just look at a few examples...Guantanamo..it may never close. Gays/Lesbians in the military, the Bush doctrine show no sign of being eliminated. Iraq..we'll be there a long time. Open Government..that ain't happening...and the list goes on. I just can't lose the suspicion that Obama cares more about Obama then anything he may have said while campaigning..He is distinctly middle of the road, and far from being the liberal I had hoped for. Though, it goes without saying that he is in a different universe than G. W. Bush, though that doesn't take much.

2Jesse_wiedinmyer
jun 25, 2009, 10:55 pm

I had a few friends who'd reached that point about three months before the election.

3FicusFan
jun 25, 2009, 11:06 pm

Gotta agree, he seems to be a Dem in Republican clothes.

I am upset about the lack of a commission to air the skulldugery of the past. I can understand not wanting to seem partisan by going after them in court. But we need all the sins brought out into the light, so that their lies, and their legacy building goes no where. Otherwise their actions are nothing but business a usual and it becomes the benchmark of what is acceptable.

4Jesse_wiedinmyer
Bewerkt: jun 25, 2009, 11:19 pm

Why would the Dems want to air skullduggery? They controlled congress while a good portion of that happened.

5Jesse_wiedinmyer
jun 25, 2009, 11:20 pm

In the words of Homer Simpson - it takes two to lie, one to lie and one to listen.

6FicusFan
jun 25, 2009, 11:24 pm

No it is the Republicans that are guilty of it. Lying to go to war, forcing the CIA to lie, leaking Plame to the press. All the chicanery in the Justice Department which not only broke laws by mixing politics and the law, but is now getting federal prosecutions bounced for prosecutorial misconduct. The list goes on and on. The Dems were only in control at the end. It was 6-7 years of Republicans treating the state as their own private goody bag.

7Jesse_wiedinmyer
jun 25, 2009, 11:27 pm

Given that initial support for the invasion was 75% in polling, I think that's an abnegation of responsibilty.

8FicusFan
jun 25, 2009, 11:31 pm

The support was based on lies and media manipulation orchestrated by the Republicans. Anyone who disagreed was unpatriotic, was supporting the terrorists. A lot of people didn't live up to their responsibility, but that doesn't change that it all started with lies and there are hundreds of thousands or more dead because of it.

9lorax
jun 26, 2009, 12:43 am

He's so obsessed with consensus and with reaching across the aisle that he's slapping progressives in the face. Not supporting even a partial repeal of DOMA (just federal recognition of existing same-sex marriages) is a huge slap in the face.

10monarchi
jun 26, 2009, 4:16 am

Obama's never been a progressive. Anyone who paid full attention in the run-up to the election – and especially those of us who had him as a Senator before that – know that while he's smart, generally fair-minded, and a solid Democrat, he wasn't about to start any revolutions.
What we got is basically what he sold us: a change of party and a change of rhetoric, not a change of the system. Unfortunately, I think many of us were so eager for change that we built him up to be the ideal progressive candidate...and we're now being let down as we realise he's only one man, constrained by the rules of our political system, and somewhat of a social conservative at that.

And, while I agree that he's been less than supportive of LGBT rights, he's always said he was against marriage equality. We elected him because we thought we could convince him, not because he was out there championing our cause already.

11lilithcat
jun 26, 2009, 8:51 am

I'm always amused when people are shocked, shocked! that a candidate doesn't do things he never promised to do (or has no authority to do), or doesn't do things NOW, right NOW!!!!, or doesn't agree with their agenda 100%.

12JFDR
jun 26, 2009, 10:57 am

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/04/white-house-website-doma/?sortby=toprated

"During his campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged to seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, telling The Advocate, “I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.” During the primary campaign, he touted his longtime opposition to DOMA, in a strongly-worded “open letter” to the LGBT community:

'Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.' "

13geneg
jun 26, 2009, 11:36 am

Here it is, nearly July, Obama has been President for at least 150 days and I'm still waiting for the chicken in my pot and the two cars in my garage! Maybe next year he can give me two GM cars from his private stash. He needs to get off his ass and do something!

14lorax
jun 26, 2009, 12:02 pm

11>

No, he can't single-handedly repeal DOMA. But he could continue to advocate for its repeal, or at least not completely do an about-face and start supporting it.

At least on LGBT issues it's not just "not agreeing with {my} agenda 100%", it's "completely abandoning any pretense of support." At this rate I'm surprised he's not demanding Lawrence v. Texas be overturned.

15dchaikin
jun 26, 2009, 12:40 pm

"he seems to be a Dem in Republican clothes. " ==> no, that was Clinton, especially in regards to financial regulations.

I'm disappointed in Obama in many ways, although for me it's old news. As soon as he won he started nominating standard rather dull Democrats to key positions. At this point I think it was clear that by change he meant something more along the lines of returning to Clinton policies, and not what we would consider liberal and progressive.

Obama seems pretty intent on staying in the middle of the road and, even then, he will compromise to the right in order to get some republicans on board. But, it's not about him. He listens and when he pushes, there are reasons for it. I think he has been consistent since was elected. I think he has done some things really well, for example limited his response to Iran.

I think the best thing Obama does is reach out across the spectrum both sides and listen to what these groups are saying. He does a good job a setting the tone on these issues, keeping emotions a bay. In the campaign, I think, in a sense, he "reached out" to the left, and we miss-interpreted that as (or were mislead to see it as) progressive promise.

16monarchi
jun 26, 2009, 12:55 pm

>15 dchaikin: "In the campaign, I think, in a sense, he "reached out" to the left, and we miss-interpreted that as (or were mislead to see it as) progressive promise."

Very well said, d. I'd never thought of it quite that way.

17FicusFan
jun 26, 2009, 1:06 pm

The problem with his centerist strategy is that it may leave him high and dry. Regardless of the current support by moderate Republicans, and center and right leaning independents, they will most likely vote for a Republican next time. Then the Left who are pissed will stay home or vote for someone else.

He may be a one term wonder, especially if he enacts stuff that is difficult or that doesn't work as well or as fast as people want it to.

"he seems to be a Dem in Republican clothes. " ==> no, that was Clinton, especially in regards to financial regulations.

Yes, but at least Clinton didn't lie. Obama has. If we misinterpreted it was with his help, and that makes him look like a liar in the end.

He is the one actually in bed with the finance industry. Protecting their bonuses, not fighting for the bill to allow bankruptcy judges the right to adjust mortgage terms, and accept lesser offers.

From what I understand the stress tests were a joke (not enough people used to thoroughly examine them, so they started with the information the banks provided, rather than checking the records and developing it themselves).

18dchaikin
jun 26, 2009, 1:16 pm

I think the examples you have may be valid, but are smaller stuff in a very big problem. (Actaully, was bonus issue resolve? Some kind of high tax on the bonus's or something like that?)

Obama is at least pushing for more regulation, and I don't think anyone has done that since Reagan began the trend of reducing regulation (leading, if I understand correctly, directly the the SL collapses).-- of course he is doing it after the collapse...

Correct me if I'm wrong on facts here.

19lorax
jun 26, 2009, 1:17 pm

I think the best thing Obama does is reach out across the spectrum both sides and listen to what these groups are saying.

Well, he might be listening to progressives, but that doesn't seem to have had any effect on his policies. I guess I was hoping that in one or two areas he'd actually try to make things better, rather than just Not Making Things Worse. I knew I was going to be disappointed in Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm not disappointed.

20geneg
jun 26, 2009, 1:42 pm

What I don't understand is why the conservatives aren't all over loving Obama.

He has a very distinctive, Constitutional approach to governance. He wants healthcare reform. Does he present a White House constructed bill for congresses approval or disapproval? No. He says to congress, here is what I want in healthcare reform. You guys, the legislative branch, need to build it and present it to me for my approval or disapproval. (Notice the difference in philosophy?) He did the same thing with his energy bill. He wants Congress to do its job, while he does his. Congress isn't used to this, especially the Republicans. They're used to following, not leading. Well, welcome to the US Constitution.

He isn't pressing gay issues because as luck would have it, he hasn't completely thought through what needs to be done. Once again, when it happens, it will be initiated by Congress, not the White House. If the government is not working on your specific problem don't blame Obama, get with your congress person. The Congress, not the President, makes and unmakes law in this country, no matter how hard Dick Cheney wishes it were otherwise. I like Obama if for no other reason than he understands the Constitution and the role of each branch of government with regard to this country's scheme of governance.

As far as DOMA and his support for it: it is the responsibility of the executive to enforce the law.Doma is the law of the land. I, personally, think it conflicts with the 14th amendment, but nonetheless, it is Obama's responsibility to see the law of the land enforced. He supported it because it is the law and that's what he is supposed to do. Congress needs to overturn DOMA, or as I said, it should be attacked on 14th amendment grounds (and it may have been, I didn't pay a lot of attention to this issue), but then the SC isn't a big fan of the Constitution, at least when it comes to institutions vs. people.

Rock on, Barack!

21Lunar
jun 26, 2009, 2:43 pm

#20: What I don't understand is why the conservatives aren't all over loving Obama.

They are.

My big three issues with Obama are, as I like to put it, the Three Bs: Bombings, Bailouts, and Budget deficits. Smells like Bush to me. These are not things to be "disappointed" about, but rather a wake up call that maybe democracy doesn't work (and never did). There are only so many events than can be written off as electoral "flukes" before one's belief in democracy begins to look superstitious. Unfortunately, short political memories tend to stack the deck in favor of superstition.

22perdondaris
jun 26, 2009, 5:01 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

23geneg
jun 26, 2009, 6:05 pm

Ninety-eight percent of Americans know what politicians are and what they are like. We have come to terms with it, try to take it into account, and compromise with it to attain a stable, relatively free life in a country in which we all get a say.

The plutocracy, or more accurately, the oligarchy can't elect anyone. They only have what power we the people allow them to have.

24perdondaris
jun 26, 2009, 6:56 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

25jmcgarve
jun 26, 2009, 11:15 pm

I am extremely disappointed by Obama's stands on preventive detention and state secrets. Bob Hebert has a good column on these topics here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/opinion/23herbert.html?_r=1 Frankly, I am surprised that Obama took these positions. They conflict with his history and campaign promises.

I am also extremely disappointed, but not surprised, in his failure to reform the financial system. The banks are still taking us all to the cleaners, and the "reforms" that Obama and Geithner have proposed are meaningless. Obama's economic advisers during the campaign were Rubin protoges and neoliberal schmucks, so I can't say this is a surprise.

I suspect that his lack of action on gays in the military reflects an ordering of priorities. Clinton took that issue up first, and it caused a political defeat that blocked most of the rest of his agenda, so it was probably a bad starting point, at least at that time.

As disappointed as I am in Obama, what really drives me nuts are those congressional Democrats who keep whittling down the health care reform and global warming bills. This is the time for action on those, and we have these jello spined characters like Ben Nelson and Max Baucus running the show. From the July Harpers:

"Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again" by Kevin Baker:

"More frustrating has been the torpor among Obama’s fellow Democrats... we have seen a parade of aged satraps from vast, windy places stepping forward to tell us what is off the table. Every week, there is another Max Baucus of Montana, another Kent Conrad of North Dakota, another Ben Nelson of Nebraska, huffing and puffing and harrumphing that we had better forget about single-payer health care, a carbon tax, nationalizing the banks, funding for mass transit...These are men with tiny constituencies who sat for decades in the Senate without doing or saying anything of note, who acquiesced shamelessly to the worst abuses of the Bush Administration and who come forward now to chide the president for not concentrating enough on reducing the budget deficit, or for “trying to do too much,” as if he were as old and as indolent as they are."

26triviadude
jun 28, 2009, 8:07 pm

I'm disappointed in Obama but not just because he is moving towards the center. Ever since Clinton, I've long become accustomed to Democrats moving to the center as an electoral strategy.

What disappoints me about Obama is he is moving to the center on issues for which there is broad public support for liberal policy goals. Over 70% of the public supports a public option in health care refrom but he seems to be wavering even on this indicating that he won't veto a bill without a public option in his latest press conference.

The view of Obama as liberal as opposed to centrist was based largely on his vocal opposition to the Iraq War at a time when centrist politicians seemed to be hedging their bets. But other than that issue....

27FicusFan
jun 28, 2009, 9:19 pm

What disappoints me about Obama is he is moving to the center on issues for which there is broad public support for liberal policy goals.

That is what I don't understand. He campaigned on change and he has or had such great public support that if he used the bully pulpit and went to the country he could have mobilized people to get congress moving.

I understand that he can't be a total outsider, or he won't get anything done, so he has appointed people from past administrations. He needed to balance between change and greasing the existing power structure. But he seems to have gone over to the side of business as usual, and he is squandering his public support.

28timspalding
jun 28, 2009, 10:36 pm

I find it interesting that all the disappointment is over ideology. Look on the bright side. One of the signal attacks on Bush was that, basically, he was a doofus. And, colored language aside, there were some major administrative screw-ups under Bush. Whatever you feel about Obama's policies, the evidence for Obama's competence so far is pretty good, isn't it?

29Lunar
Bewerkt: jun 29, 2009, 1:52 am

#28: Meh. Ignorance and a misinformed education are often the same thing in pragmatic terms. The one good thing he's done so far is mostly stay out of the Iran hate-fest. Being a "good" politician means having good people skills. This is great when having to get along with another country, even in the midst of urban turmoil, but dangerous when applied to areas where the facts matter, such as with economics where "successfully" pushing through misinformed policies can make one depression span decades.

30krolik
jun 29, 2009, 6:45 pm

>25 jmcgarve:
Agree. This sums up much of what I"ve been too lazy to formulate myself.

31nickhoonaloon
jul 1, 2009, 4:53 am

# 1

"He has transformed himself from a visionary person..."

I think that`s your problem right there. From an outsider`s view (I`m not in the US), Obama never did come across as particularly radical or visionary. I certainly had the impression he was keen to re-assure conservative elements, and certainly made great play of having the support of influential bankers.

Even if he had sold himself as a radical figure, I still think your disappointment would be misplaced, since it`s dodgy ground indeed to expect social change to be implemented "from the top down".

#21

I`m surprised that Lunar can remark "democracy doesn`t work and never did" and, with the possible exception of geneg, no-one takes issue with him. Should I read anything into that ?

32dchaikin
jul 1, 2009, 1:07 pm

#31 - well, not every comment needs feedback. The US isn't a democracy, but regardless I don't think Democracy "works" for any one person, it stumbles along with pretty much everyone seeing disaster in the future in some way...probably we aren't all wrong.

#28 tim - I'm holding my breath on competence. Obama sounds competent, and that seems to be a good thing. But it's not just about competence, there are good and bad decisions, right and wrong decisions. Doing something about global warming is a good and right thing (Bush did NOTHING for 8 years...the fucker!). Being soft on global warming is not a good thing...extrapolate to your topic of interest.

33vincentvan
jul 1, 2009, 10:42 pm

Tim..is competence what we're looking for?? I think more of the "I had a Dream" speech..I think of going beyond competence...and unfortunately, so far, Obama is just more of the same status quo competence...though as I said in opening this thread...compared to Bush, he might be likened to a God...all is reletive....

34Jesse_wiedinmyer
jul 2, 2009, 3:10 pm

I`m surprised that Lunar can remark "democracy doesn`t work and never did" and, with the possible exception of geneg, no-one takes issue with him. Should I read anything into that ?

Most of the posters have already taken issue with Lunar's statements and see no need to do so again.

35krolik
jul 2, 2009, 4:54 pm

Ah, yes. Sometimes it's like a predictable argument at the dinner table. But that's why new blood is welcome.

36almigwin
jul 7, 2009, 1:02 am

The economists advising Obama seem to be pawns of big business and the banks. Krugman of Princeton believes that the stimulus is way too small to really help, and that that was the mistake FDR made in the last real depression. Billions have been spent to rescue businesses that lied, cheated and stole while ordinary mortals lose their jobs, their homes, and see towns they live in being boarded up.
There should be much more forceful job creation - infrastructure projects, something like the WPA.
Job retraining programs should have real jobs available at graduation even if the jobs need to be created by the government.
We need to increase taxation sufficiently to pay for adequate health care, unemployment compensation and education as in the scandinavian countries and Europe.
The Federal government needs to help the states. Is it right to prevent the AIG bankruptcy but allow a California bankruptcy?
Welfare in New York, for a single person is less than $150 a month as reported in yesterday's New York Times. How is it possible to keep your clothers clean and take public transportation to look for a job on that amount of money (even with a "small housing subsidy").
An automotive engineer was reported as having attended a retraining program in computer aided design paid for by the stimulus package, but there was no job available at the end. the employers wanted at least 2 years of experience. The 'student' is now planning to study civil engineering next, on the taxpayer nickel, even though he is 58 years old. If the jobs don't exist, how can we train people for them? Don't we need to create the jobs first?

37Dmoorela
jul 7, 2009, 10:13 am

The last questions possed by #36 is really my fundemental disappointment in the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress. It has to be about jobs. Not only is the unemployment rate pushing 10% nationally it is much higher in some areas and the ER doesn't even count those that have given up on trying to find a job or those that are underemployed or those that are working multiple low income jobs to survive.

All of the other idealogical arguements must take second place to a concerted effort by a Democratic administration, and super majority in Congress, to address the issues of survival for working people. I think the Obama administration is attempting, and failing, to address every social and political issue presented to them. The media and people with too narrow political agendas do not have the patience to allow for a focused attention on the major problems of our time.

The multitude and complexity of problems facing the nation and the world can not be solved by one man in a few months or even a life time. Obama needs to do a better job of focusing his attention and dealing with the highest priority items. To fail to do that is a formula for disaster for the country and for his political future.

38jmcgarve
jul 12, 2009, 2:58 pm

>28 timspalding: Yes, Obama is competent, and articulate, and hard working, and honest -- none of which Bush was. Yes, that does help. But, IMHO, the state of the nation and the world is such that mere competence is completely inadequate to address the problems. Without a commitment to radical change, of they type we saw during the new deal, this competence will lead to utter failure. The failure might not happen as fast as it would under the Republicans, but it will happen.

The Harpers article, "Barack Hoover Obama", is pretty good at explaining the issues. Herbert Hoover was an extremely admirable man, competent, articulate, hard working, and honest, with a much better understanding of the problems of the Depression than nearly all of his contemporaries. And he failed utterly, because he didn't see the need for radical change, at a time when it was absolutely necessary.

To be fair to Obama, in most respects (except for financial system reform and civil liberties issues) he's driving about as much change as the Congress and the electorate will accept. The energy bill and the health reform bill might get the ball rolling towards real change, and if either does pass the Congress, it will be a narrow victory despite total Republican opposition and Blue Dog defections. But the recession will still deepen into a depression, and US employment in manufacturing, software development, etc. will continue to erode. So will social services and other public goods as the states continue to make deep cuts. This will then be interpreted as a failure of Obama's policies.

(BTW, with respect to Lunar's remarks, 34 hits it on the nose.)

39Lunar
jul 14, 2009, 12:29 am

#38: (BTW, with respect to Lunar's remarks, 34 hits it on the nose.)

Well, it's that (at least in part), and also that my debating style sometimes tends to involve a judo-esque methodology in which I take what people of a certain political ideology claim to stand for or against and then turn it back against themselves. It's like when I've used libertarian points with Oakes if I'm arguing against something he's said. I daresay it can be very disarming. Instead of reacting to my "smells like Bush" commentary, the only reaction above was "He doesn't believe in democracy! Blasphemer!"

As for Obama not being radical enough in the vein of FDR, I don't think Obama is Hoover. Bush was Hoover. Obama is actually mirroring FDR in taking the absurd policies of his predecessor and outdoing them to the point where he will prolong the economic downturn on the scale of decades.

40geneg
jul 14, 2009, 9:22 am

Bush was nothing like Hoover. Hoover was intelligent.

41tlcoles
Bewerkt: aug 8, 2009, 7:36 am

So does anyone know of a progressive candidate who would either be capable of transforming the Democratic Party and winning the support of its leaders and a broad swath of the country or who could successfully lead a 3rd party revolt against the mainstream parties and succeed at winning the popular vote?

((crickets chirp))

Dennis Kucinich regularly runs for the Democratic Party candidacy. But he fails, not because he is not a great progressive but because there is no will in the Democratic Party to move a progressive agenda. Hell, even "liberal" was considered a bad word for a while.

I voted for Obama because I wanted the country to turn in a new direction. For that, I am OVERWHELMING satisfied, especially with some of his appointments of an impressive roster of women and people of color (and issue which has the white Republicans really revealing the worst of their racism).

Of course I am disappointed in the lack of a truly progressive agenda in the White House, but you would have to be BRAIN DEAD to not notice that there hasn't ever been a truly progressive leader in the White House.

Progressive change can be aided by the White House and we have to continue pressing for that language, those directions and that will in BOTH PARTIES (as much as I would tell people to generally abandon the Republicans to eat their own young).

Being disappointed in *this* White House -- as if Obama was some savior who didn't bring to you to the Land of Milk and Honey in 7 months -- is to really show yourself to be politically naive about electoral politics. You want change, well, do more than fcuking vote for it. Keep on the pressure, keep up the demands, and treat this White House with both thanks (for the direction) and the usual skepticism that it's due.

As to the economic downturn, jesus, it took 8 years to really tank it and that doesn't even include the policies set in motion under the previous Democratic Administration. Rome was not built on the day, and any quick repairs will be merely smaller piles of the S.O.S.

42kingoftheicedragons
aug 8, 2009, 8:23 am

I, too, am a bit disappointed in Obama proving himself to be just another politician and giving us more of the same old, same old instead of doing the things he promised.

However, after 8 years of a failed administration taking the US off track of where we need to be in terms of global leadership, respect, the environment, health care, the economy, and everything else that was essentially destroyed in the past administration, it can't be fixed in six months. Or a year. It might not even be fixable in four years. The vast majority of American people can't tolerate that amount of change that quickly.

Just think of how much bigger of a mess we'd be in right now, though, had Obama lost.

43FicusFan
aug 8, 2009, 4:03 pm

I don't expect results in 8 months but I expected he would actually work for change. I agree its hard to do, but with the disgust towards Bush and the Republicans and the fear over the economy, and the optimism people had over him, he could have started down that path.

But he quailed, and kept with business as usual. Now he is paying the price with tanking numbers, and it will be almost impossible for him to get anything real done now.

44JNagarya
Bewerkt: aug 12, 2009, 6:12 pm

#11 --

Agree 100 per cent -- except that I'm not amused because of the harm it does and allows. It's a rampant political neophytism combined with a generous helping of me-first-and-onlyism.

First, a president -- ANY president (including the unconstitutionally appointed fake president/"leader" of the Bushit criminal enterprise) -- is not the only person in gov't with authority: our gov't consists of three co-EQUAL branches. To get anything done a president must contend/persuade/work with Congress.

Second, politics is the art of the possible. That means -- especially if one views democracy not pejoratively as "bickering" but instead properly as discussion and debate -- COMPROMISE. One gets what one can, while giving away as little as possible, with the hope of building on the initial success.

Third, since so many make an issue of it, exclusive of all else, the "LGBT" agenda is a childishly demanding and self-centered "screw everyone else" attitude. And worse: as a legal professional who has worked for decades to contest all forms of prohibited discriminations, I always supported others in their equivalent efforts, and they always returned that support.

EXCEPT for But not "LGBT": every state has a group of "LGBT" lawyers that is eager and willing to accept any and all support for their efforts, even from those who aren't "LGBT". But they are concerned EXCLUSIVELY with "LGBT" issues, so WILL NOT return the support, even symbolically. If not for such narcissistic self-absorption, a great deal more could be accomplished FOR civil rights for ALL.

Legitimate civil rights activism is about ALL moving forward TOGETHER, not the antithesis of civil rights that is putting one's own interests ahead of everyone else's.

Shall we admit and DISCUSS THAT discrimination based on every form of prohibited discrimination INCLUDING sexual orientation -- or would doing so be "politically incorrect"?

As consequence I've tempered my approach: if a person or group is subjected to illegal discrimination -- regardless kind -- whether actual or ginned up, but that person or group couldn't care less about others who are subjected to prohibited discriminations, then that person or group is on their own. And that goes double when they also engage in prohibited discriminations.

Last but not least: politics is "one hand washes the other," in absolute conformity with the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If I help you, you help me, and vice-versa. If a person or group won't do so, then they want the exact same in return: nothing.

Defeating evey form of prohibited discrimination begins with one person: ONESELF. If "LGBT" individuals won't do that as concerns the non-"LGBT," then they don't DESERVE that which would be SPECIAL treatment.

45JNagarya
aug 12, 2009, 5:40 pm

#12 --

"'Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.' "

One simple question:

What branch of gov't does the Constitution expressly stipulate as having the exclusive authority to make and repeal laws?

For the answer to that question, stop sucking your whiner's thumb and READ the Constitution, instead of waiting for someone else to read it TO you.

46JNagarya
aug 12, 2009, 5:43 pm

#13 --

I'm pissed! Or at least half pissed!

I'll take the chicken in my pot, but I don't drive motor vehicles, and NO ALTERNATIVE has been promised ME!

47JNagarya
aug 12, 2009, 5:47 pm

#20 --

Well said.

48JNagarya
aug 12, 2009, 5:58 pm

#32 --

"#31 - well, not every comment needs feedback. The US isn't a democracy, . . . ."

The essence of democracy is elections. The US Constitutioon -- and your state constitution -- expressly incorporate and stipulate that there shall be elections.

The US is a democratic republic, and a representative democracy.

49timspalding
aug 12, 2009, 9:05 pm

Relinquish the conch!

50FicusFan
aug 13, 2009, 12:36 am

I am not eating anyone, regardless what happens to the conch.

51nickhoonaloon
aug 19, 2009, 8:11 am

This is just an outsider`s view, but I`m slightly reconsidering my attitude to Obama.

It strikes me that with his healthcare proposals he is actually being quite radical by (what I take to be) US standards.

Granted, he is, by nature as well as by political persuaion, quite conservative (with a small `c`).
Certainly he is a "business as usual" politician.

Whatever humanitarian motivations he may have. I don`t doubt that part of his motive will be to provide a more stable society, by which he will certainly mean a more stable capitalist society. Another motive will doubtless be to have a healthier (and therefore more productive) workforce. A stable, healthier society is not generally considered to be a bad thing ! Clearly he`s not averse to risk, and, if the details are properly properly thought-out, his proposals will benefit a great many people.

On a purely selfish level, I notice that Anglo-American relations have suddenly nose-dived. I assume , in my cynical way, that this is basically a few crumbs thrown to the right wing to pacify them. In other words, he acts like a politician. Surely no-one`s surprised about that ?

52timspalding
aug 19, 2009, 1:09 pm

I don't quite understand the centrality of the health-care effort to Obama's program. Politically, I am in opposition here, but I see the attractiveness to liberals of something really radical, like single-payer. Health care is so screwed up that, deep down, I suspect ANY true reform could do some good. But what's actually coming out won't move the needle that much for liberals, is still objectionable from the right, and it's being handled in this weak, Carter-esque way. Health care is like base closings, but worse. Having Congress write it, not vote up or down on a completed document, is an invitation to produce something muddled and corrupt.

53Jesse_wiedinmyer
aug 19, 2009, 5:09 pm

Relinquish the conch!

I am soo stealing this.

54krolik
Bewerkt: aug 20, 2009, 6:06 am

I fear this recent Bob Herbert column has a lot of truth to it. It echoes some of what you're saying in >52 timspalding:, Tim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html?_r=1

55timspalding
aug 20, 2009, 6:08 am

Every time Bob Herbert and I agree on anything, the apocalypse threatens.

56krolik
aug 20, 2009, 6:13 am

Oh, it always threatens. But sometimes unexpected convergences are a window of opportunity.

57timspalding
aug 20, 2009, 6:48 am

Puppies die.

58krolik
aug 20, 2009, 10:32 am

Often before their eyes are open.

59modalursine
aug 29, 2009, 1:21 am

ref #10
Obama's never been a progressive. Anyone who paid full attention in the run-up to the election – and especially those of us who had him as a Senator before that – know that while he's smart, generally fair-minded, and a solid Democrat, he wasn't about to start any revolutions.

Exactly so. He never pretended to be other than what he is, a centrist slightly to the right of Hillary.

My crystal ball is a bit foggy today, worse luck, so I cant predict how it will go; but it seems, extrapolating from present trends, and barring any big surprises, that the choice is between:

a) Getting nothing at all, or

b) Getting some sort of weak tea regulatory reform which might improve access to healthcare for a few, and might mitigate some of the more egregious practices such as denying coverage for pre existing conditions or throwing people off the insurance rolls for actually (gasp!) getting sick.

Outcome "a" would probably leave the Obama administration as a lame duck starting January 2010.

Outcome "b" would help some people for a while, but then health care costs might very well double in the next 10 years creating an actual crisis in which a vanishingly small percent of the population can actually afford even a barely adequate insurance policy.

Either way, I think that's called "kicking the can down the road".

60timspalding
aug 29, 2009, 9:54 am

Exactly so. He never pretended to be other than what he is, a centrist slightly to the right of Hillary.

I think they struggled to define themselves against each other, but Obama was more frequently positioning himself to the left of Hillary than the right, I think. He went left of her on the Iraq war, for example, and she went right of him on Iran.

61daschaich
aug 30, 2009, 11:56 am

I wasn't really watching closely, but my recollection matches modalursine's comment -- while Clinton was more hawkish on the wars, her domestic policy was consistently (if not necessarily all that significantly) to the left of Obama's.

62dchaikin
aug 30, 2009, 3:49 pm

maybe I'm clue-less, but I've always sensed Clinton (both of them) were Republican-light, in the sense the both were overly pro-business (and supported deregulation, Alan Greenspan, etc.). In practice, this is how Obama has been - although more like pro-business and resistant to force necessary regulation over congressional (fund-raising supported) resistance. Obama would argue his hand has been forced. However, I recall that candidate Obama was distinctly for more financial regulation - which is left of the Clintons.

63geneg
aug 30, 2009, 4:59 pm

Since when do we have a dictator? In terms of his foreign policy, I couldn't be more pleased. In terms of domestic policy, he can suggest to the congress to create bills with this or that feature, but he can't tell them what to create. That's their responsibility and it should rest firmly on their shoulders, not his.

Is the Unitary Executive a bad thing only if it isn't your guy?

64FicusFan
aug 30, 2009, 5:56 pm

He is the leader of his party, the Democrats. They have a majority in Congress. It is the job of his aides and operatives to get the Congress to support and push his agenda. They do this by doling out political benefits to those who support, and political punishment to those who do not.

Obama is not standing up for the agenda he claimed to support when campaigning. While small measures and compromise are often the way Washington runs, Obama will lose the majority in Congress and the ability to get anything done if he doesn't stop shilly-shallying. People want results, not one day we support this, and the next day we don't.

65Lunar
Bewerkt: aug 31, 2009, 12:01 am

They do this by doling out political benefits to those who support, and political punishment to those who do not.

Try to restrain the unabashed hunger for corrupt practices. This was Gene's whole point. Now that Bush is out, suddenly it's ok to do without the separation of powers. Who's a bigger hypocrite? A president who flip-flops on issues or a partisan who flip-flops on the constitution?

66FicusFan
aug 31, 2009, 12:36 am

This is not a corrupt practice, but how politics works. It is not against the Constitution at all. No one does anything unless there is something in it for them, be it personal (something named after them) or for their position on an issue (I will vote for X if you vote for Y) or for their constituents (bringing home jobs or other pork).

67Lunar
aug 31, 2009, 3:03 am

This is not a corrupt practice, but how politics works.

Oh, I'm not claiming that this isn't how politics works. There's no contradiction between that and corruption. And it is definitely a violation of the separation of powers. The US constitution has very specific checks and balances written in which are undermined by the kind of backroom scheming and dealing that you advocate. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats' party-faithful start defending these practices once finding themselves enfranchised again (and defending pork too!)

68FicusFan
aug 31, 2009, 8:06 am

I mentioned pork, didn't 'defend' it. Its a fact of life.

If the practice is against the Constitution, then so is politics, and since it has been around as long as the Constitution, I think your interpretation is off. Both parties have Whips in both houses, whose institutional purpose is to keep them in line with their party, and ensure they show up for important votes.

What is actually bizarre is that you assume Democrats should not use the system in place to pass their agenda.

69geneg
aug 31, 2009, 10:20 am

Last I heard, the whips reported to the Leader of their particular legislative body, majority or minority, not the White House.

70FicusFan
aug 31, 2009, 10:45 am

The leader of the Democratic party at this moment is the President. Regardless of who the Whips report to, they are there to push the agenda as defined by their party.

71geneg
aug 31, 2009, 10:52 am

And it's my understanding they are. All four of them. With varying degrees of success.

72Lunar
aug 31, 2009, 2:46 pm

Wow, slavery was around even longer and you think my interpretation is off? Unless you're able to make a case for disagreeing with me about whether these practices undermine the separation of powers, you can't really justify anything by taking the conservative position of "This is the way things are and always have been, so we should keep doing it." If this were the Republicans in action, would you be singing the same tune?

And by the way, the president is NOT the "leader" of his party. Unless I'm mistaken, it's probably the chair of the party or someone else like that. But certainly not the president. The president is merely the head of the executive branch, which is co-equal to the other branches. That's all. No unitary executive or anything like that. That's for the Bush-worshippers.

Dan Carlin had an interesting podcast (#155) recently contrasting Bush and Obama's rulership styles and delineating the pitfalls of both.

73timspalding
aug 31, 2009, 4:50 pm

Non-controversial question: In what sense is the president the "leader" of his party? He isn't officially the head of the Democratic Party. I mean, he isn't actually the head of it. He's just the "leader" of it in some more general way. When did this idea come about, anyway?

74FicusFan
aug 31, 2009, 5:11 pm

The President is always leader of his party. He is the one who selects the Chair, which they then vote in (even for lame duck). Dean was not asked to stay on because he was Clinton's (Bill) pick and not Obama's.

Did you people miss during the campaign, when Obama as only the nominee moved the entire Democratic Party operation to new offices in Chicago, and closed the old ones ?

The party without the President is the one that has all the problems because until there is a winner in the nomination fight, the leader could be anyone. And of course they all think they are, so you get someone like Steele, who answers to no one.

Your interpretation of Separation of Powers would require Congress to grant the President's every wish or be in violation of the Separation of Powers for not allowing him to do his job (remember Congress holds the purse and writes the laws). Of course they don't act that way.

They haggle about what they (President, Congress) want, and if its an opposition Congress they may actually ignore what the President wants. If its a Congress with a majority in the same party as the President - then they should be enacting his agenda.

Separation of powers is not a hermetically sealed box.

75Lunar
aug 31, 2009, 10:27 pm

I forgot who it was that famously said this, but he said something to the effect that the checks and balances put into the constitution to restrain the power of the government didn't forsee that the branches would team up with eachother and thus undermine the separation of powers.

Your interpretation of Separation of Powers would require Congress to grant the President's every wish or be in violation of the Separation of Powers for not allowing him to do his job (remember Congress holds the purse and writes the laws).

Uh, no. The definition of the separation of powers I'm referring to would be as stated in the US constitution, through functioning checks and balances which, as I have explained before, are undermined by the practices you are advocating. I'm not sure how much further you're going to be able to keep arguing in favor of this one-party government you keep pining for and continue to pretend that all would be fine with the separation of powers. Orwell described that as "doublethink." The constant self-justifications of "this is just the way things are, so let's keep going" are but fig leaves masquerading as "realism."

76dchaikin
sep 1, 2009, 9:42 am

#75 - This is a good point. As much as Obama supporters would like to see him roll up all Democrats on his side and push through the "liberal and progressive" legislation liberals were hoping for when they (we) voted for him - congresses job is to not allow that to happen, to have an independent voice of sorts. Under Bush the Republican congress became, to an extent, a rubber stamp - and that was a failure of the balance of powers. The health of the government depends on that not re-occurring.

Also - a big problem with Obama is that the parties have swung right. The Republican party has pushed out it's moderates and is very very right leaning (FOX friendly). The old "moderate Republicans" have become Democrats and they are right of Obama's campaign stances.

So, while we see a Democratic congress - we do not see a progressive and liberal congress. "Leader" of the Democratic party or not, Obama has to deal with that reality.

77subspeciesone
okt 2, 2009, 12:14 pm

I've watched politics since before most of you were born. I've learned a couple of things:

1. Ideology always crashes and burns at some point, left or right;
2. Competence is a rare thing in politics; at least appreciate Obama for that.

Not much learning, but it gets me through the day.

78perdondaris
okt 7, 2009, 10:58 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

79K.J.
Bewerkt: jan 5, 2010, 9:20 am

78> It may be fair to allow homosexuals to join the military but it might not be in the best interests of the country.

Other developed countries in the Western world have gays openly serving in their military, and have no problems with this. There are gay men and women serving in the USA military, and doing an excellent job. When you are on a battlefield, the only thing you want to know is if the man or woman next to you has your back. Nothing more, nothing less.

The potential for internal strife is caused by people who don't want gays in any aspect of their lives, unless it is for the purpose of cutting hair, redecorating a home or on the stage. Just as long as gays stay out of the mainstream. 'But,' as George Carlin might add in one of his stellar performaces, 'we want their tax dollars to help pay for our kids' schooling.'

As for World War II, there were many gay men serving in that war, and they performed as well as their comrades.

Contrary to the idea held in the minds of many, gay men aren't waiting in the shadows to pounce on the first straight man that comes along, and bring him over to the dark side.

I guess you could say I fail to see where being gay has anything to do with being fit to serve in the military, and the issue lies in the hearts and minds of those who oppose the idea. My suggestion to them is that they get over it.

1> I have always found him to be an empty suit, and nothing has changed for me. No, I did not care for McBush, either, and he rather scared me a bit. Obama, though, is quietly proceeding to build with bricks laid down by his predecessor, and that to me, is extremely troubling, but not at all surprising.

80timspalding
jan 5, 2010, 12:00 pm

>79 K.J.:

I suspect that, if homosexuals were removed as an offense very few regular soldiers would, in fact, proclaim themselves as such. Things might be different if the army was drawn primarily from large eastern cities, or 30-somethings, but that's not the army we have. Closeted gays would be the norm. What would change would be the ability to toss soldiers out if their orientation were to be discovered. And having a whole class of soldiers living in fear of that.

I don't entirely discount the idea that it could hurt morale, but surely having women in the military is a far worse distraction. I'm sure the first black soldiers caused quite a stir too. Our militaries got over those transitions just fine.

81geneg
jan 5, 2010, 2:18 pm

I'm not sure what relevance a person's sexual orientation has except in the choice of sexual partner, which is, as far as I'm concerned, none of my business.

82K.J.
Bewerkt: jan 5, 2010, 7:14 pm

80> I suspect that, if homosexuals were removed as an offense very few regular soldiers would, in fact, proclaim themselves as such.

I tend to agree, and more for the reason that there is no need to tell anyone, as it is really none of their business.

82. That's a refreshing stance, and I do wish more people felt that way.

83Lunar
Bewerkt: jan 6, 2010, 2:39 am

#79: Other developed countries in the Western world have gays openly serving in their military, and have no problems with this.

Good for them. I'm more worried for whom the military is attacking than about the sexual orientation of those who would be pulling the trigger. It's unfortunate that the public debate is as limited as it is. One side wants striaghts to be able to bomb the crap out of brown people halfway around the world. The other side wants gays to be able to bomb the crap out of brown people halfway around the world. Both sides are mentally diseased.

84K.J.
jan 6, 2010, 6:54 am

83> An interesting perspective.

85perdondaris
jan 19, 2010, 11:34 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

86K.J.
jan 20, 2010, 9:05 am

85> Men will always respect men more because they can commiserate on the burdens placed upon them by women. The gay "man" cannot because he is incapable of understanding women like straight men. In the military machismo is more important than "getting along". Desegregationists have the same problem: whites and blacks do not want to live together. We can force them to live together of course but that only causes resentment on both sides.

Gay men cannot understand women? LMAO!! That's a funny one. After rereading this post, I have to assume you have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek. It is the only thing that makes sense, unless you are on a campaign to see what you can stir up in the forums.

For me, to think that you believe the following statement is scary:

Desegregationists have the same problem: whites and blacks do not want to live together.

87perdondaris
jan 20, 2010, 5:14 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

88Jesse_wiedinmyer
jan 20, 2010, 5:43 pm

I did not say gay men do not understand women (after all they act just like them)

This indicates to me that your knowledge of "gay men" is rather limited.

Straight men have to deal with women as their wives, sisters and daughters (engagement in a family dynamic).

Whereas all "gay men" are products of asexual reproduction.

The homosexual man only understands a woman as a lesbian marching beside him in a gay pride parade.

Ummm, an, uhh, interesting take on the question. I wonder how many woman and gay men would agree with it.

89perdondaris
jan 20, 2010, 5:47 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

90Jesse_wiedinmyer
jan 20, 2010, 5:49 pm

You assume that prospective parents would actually exercise that option. When one assumes...

91perdondaris
jan 20, 2010, 5:51 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

92Jesse_wiedinmyer
jan 20, 2010, 6:09 pm

Yes, Hell is other people.

93K.J.
jan 20, 2010, 6:32 pm

87> I did not say gay men do not understand women (after all they act just like them) but that they cannot understand women like a straight man. Straight men have to deal with women as their wives, sisters and daughters (engagement in a family dynamic). The homosexual man only understands a woman as a lesbian marching beside him in a gay pride parade. Perhaps as fellow soldiers in a crusade against societal norms and morality like Mao and Stalin were in the early 50s. When the march (or crusade?) is over they go back to their parochial understandings of each other (I'm Russian not Chinese and vice-versa).

Where to begin? Your perception of gay men is so skewed that I wonder if you are just trying to tweak someone. I'll start with the fact that I am a gay man, and your knowledge of gay men is in desperate need of education. You missed the target on all points. As for 'acting' like a woman, I just have to shake my head. That would hardly be an accurate description of me or 99% of my friends. The ones that do exhibit more feminine traits I admire, because they are true to themselves, in spite of the bigotry and potential for harm that surrounds them daily. They are few, the straight men I know of, who have displayed this level of courage.

Straight men have to deal with women as their wives, sisters and daughters (engagement in a family dynamic)

I guess my sister, mother, female cousin, aunts and grandmothers were not females, in the family dynamic? They'll be so disappointed.

A responsible parent would. I realize of course irresponsible people procreate which is unfortunate. (this was your response to #90 which stated: You assume that prospective parents would actually exercise that option. When one assumes...

I cannot begin to share the emotions that surfaced in me, when reading your comment. It seems, that to you, gays are sub-humans. I had thought we were getting past that point. Thank you for alerting me to my misconception. With the incidence of teenage suicide - relating to young gays in the USA - on the rise, I pray that no young, gay person in your area is ever exposed to this sentiment.

If you wish to learn more about that which you are ignorant - and I mean this from an educational standpoint - I suggest some reading on the topic. It is always good to keep in mind that ignorance can be cured by education. Stupidity is a lifelong affliction.

94tinymouse2
Bewerkt: jan 21, 2010, 2:04 pm

>87 perdondaris: You make it sound like gay men don't associate with or have any connections (by family or friendship) to women at all.

I wonder if you realize that gay men can even have daughters...

96perdondaris
jan 22, 2010, 5:03 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

97vincentvan
mrt 2, 2010, 10:18 pm

Though I haven't contributed nary a word since I penned my opening statement, it gives me no small amount of satisfaction that it has generated, for the most part, some intelligent political discourse. I leave you, my friends, to it.

98DugsBooks
Bewerkt: mrt 6, 2010, 7:01 pm

I think Obama should have kicked Republican ass from the outset on the health care issue, it was part of his winning platform. All this from hindsight of course. As soon as it became evident the Republicans only wanted to frustrate any reform for their own political purposes {damn the election mandate we had!} he should have gone for the majority vote, turning off the fed money pipe to Democrats who tried to coerce pork money for their vote.

I think NOT handing down some reforms on stone tablets from the mount; and instead, soliciting constructive suggestions from a vast pool of actual knowledge and experience in our government was a great idea but the attitude of screw the voters & play politics won out. I never would have believed that the Congress would drag any decisions to the next election cycle while stuffing their election bank accounts with health industry money and making gratuitous grandstanding spectacles over inane nuances of legislation. I guess I got caught up in the enthusiasm of the Presidential election and forgot slimeball congressional reality.

I like Obama. I am truly and utterly disgusted with Congress.

::edited in hapless attempt to improve clarity::

99perdondaris
mrt 7, 2010, 12:23 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

100thejazzmonger
mrt 11, 2010, 11:00 am

Commissions to "air the skulduggery" may sound like a worthy goal but, in a country with fairly evenly divided beliefs on some very fundamental issues, it is just not a practical, doable thing. Moreover, the White House would, in effect, be putting itself on a equal footing with the skulduggerers in something pretty close to open debate.

Think about putting the credibility of the presidency on the line in an attempt to "prove" all the stuff you know Dick Cheney was up to. Can't "prove it," then you look as venal and partisan as the other guys and have wasted pretty much all the time, money and credibility a new administration can muster.

In actual practice, it would accomplish about as much as the recent "bi-partisan" meeting on health care reform. It is a voluntary sharing of the bully pulpit.

101thejazzmonger
mrt 11, 2010, 11:03 am

<#99 by perdonaris - I don't like Obama. But I don't like Generallissimo Franco and his followers either. The Left is facing the same problem it faced in Spain in the 1930s. Support the Republic or die.>

You don't think this juxtaposition is kind of an extreme stretch?

102thejazzmonger
mrt 11, 2010, 11:20 am

Who do YOU consider to be the greatest military in the world? Whose army is that?

I'll tell you one terrific military that doesn't, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). Tiny country, surrounded on all sides by enemies and threatened internally by a signifcant population segment but you better think twice about messing with the IDF.

And, as far as the US winning WWII, when the military was segregated and had no women in combat, I say,Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. You might just as well say that the Americans and the English spoke English and the losers didn't, therefore all militaries should speak only English or, otherwise, they are WEAK.

The factors in the victory more likely lie in:

1) our being shielded from the depredations of the early years
2) our natural resources and factories being so far removed from the enemy
3) the ability to "ramp up" war production during the years of Lend-Lease
4) the incredible sacrifice of the British, and their tenacity in staying in the fight to become the staging area for the invasion of Europe

etc., etc.

103perdondaris
mrt 13, 2010, 5:11 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

Aansluiten om berichten te kunnen plaatsen