home

Is "Obama The Indecisive" A GOP Meme?

In a post on how lousy the Media is, Tristero argues that:

[T]he meme the press is toying with right now, surely abetted by Republican operatives, is that Obama always avoids the hard decisions. A nice guy, the president, but just not tough.

I thought they were toying with the meme that Obama is a socialist? And that Obama was fighting back by dismissing critiques of progressive economists of his and Geithner's efforts on the financial crisis (you know the one where dismisses Krugman, Roubini, Stiglitz, et al?). In other words, unless, Stiglitz, Roubini and Krugman suddenly became GOP operatives, I think Tristero got this one wrong.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Morning Open Thread | The Political Value Of "Temporary Takeovers" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    But he's never been comfortable (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    making the hard decisions in all his career. He's never been the one out in front leading the charge for new policies (except the ethereal "hope" and "change"), and instead has been very much a "follow the crowd" kinda guy. That's just not his thing.

    I don't think this meme may be too far off the mark.  Obama wants to be all things to all people, and that just won't work.

    Well, I think there is a large segment (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    of the population he doesn't give a second thought to. They started out democrats, and ended up Independents. He made no effort whatsoever to win them back, and is not doing much to take care of their interests right now.

    Obama wants to be all things to all people, and that just won't work.



    Parent
    I think the modern Democratic Party discourages (none / 0) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    Bold decisions- the last major initiative that any Dem President tried was Clinton's Healthcare plan- and even that was too moderate and halfway- the lesson both Clinton's admin and apparently Obama's is that big stuff is political poison- hence Clinton shift to micro-initiatives- the Dick Morris playbook, something Obama has apparently adopted (with reason, it worked for Bill Clinton) so while Obama is marginally more progressive than Clinton (the first Dem pres since LBJ to attempt to push the Overton window back to the left), he's not bold- heck, I'm not sure the American Public wants bold in the post-"Decider" era.

    Parent
    Haven't we (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:49:46 PM EST
    seen some polls that indicate people DO want bold action?

    Parent
    He's not indecisive per se (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    and it would be better if he were characterized as slow as frackin molasses.  I'm reading his NYTimes interview from yesterday and trying to understand where this kind of stuff comes from:

    What I don't think people should do is suddenly stuff money in their mattresses and pull back completely from spending. I don't think that people should be fearful about our future. I don't think that people should suddenly mistrust all of our financial institutions because the overwhelming majority of them actually have managed things reasonably well.  [emphasis supplied]

    Um, really?  Maybe that's literally true...but since the big ones are failing that strikes me as misleading.  Nor do I get a warm fuzzy feeling from knowing he and Rahm Emanuel, and Tim Geithner, talk about the banking sector everyday.

    He's right (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    In general, MOST banks are doing just fine. It is those that made bad investments and gambled on the real estate market that are in trouble.

    My local bank is doing swell because they were smart and there are thousands across the country that are doing just fine as well.

    Just because the big ones are failing doesn't mean that EVERY OTHER bank is failing. I guess it only feels like every bank is failing because the big ones are.

    Parent

    but it's not really reassuring (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:33:42 PM EST
    or to the point to say that well, only 3% of our banks are failing - when 4 US banks take up most of the pie.  It purposefully distracts from the issue at hand - are the banks too big to fail?  That's the question that needs to be solved.

    Parent
    It sounds to me (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:57:51 PM EST
    like a deception, as lilburro says. Saying that most banks are doing well deliberately side steps the huge whale sitting in the room. I wonder if he thinks that no one can see the whale.

    Parent
    What Obama doesn't seem to get (4.70 / 10) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    is that it isn't that people are fearful about their local banks, it is that they are fearful of the effect the mega-banks' massive problems are having on the economy in general, and people's ability to keep collecting paychecks to deposit in ANY bank.

    It's a little like being in a little boat very close to the Titanic, which is in the process of sinking; you know your little boat is seaworthy and in fine shape, but if the Titanic goes completely under, the integrity of your boat will be irrelevant as it gets sucked into the giant hole that is created when the Titanic finally goes under.

    It's fine for Obama to remind us of all the sturdy little boats, but the sea is full of Titanics, and if they aren't dealt with, it won't matter.


    Parent

    Actually I think he does understand the problem (none / 0) (#58)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    with the big banks. If it was as simple as just nationalizing Citi(which is a major problem) I think it would have been done by now.  

    When you come up with a solution that won't cause more harm than good, let me know.

    Parent

    I'm sure he does (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    After all, the Banking Committee was his committee - why didn't he act on it then?

    Parent
    Did he attend those banking committee meetings? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    Wasn't he off campaigning most of that time?

    It's not just the banks.  It's the stock market, the housing crisis, and ever rising unemployment.  I don't see him doing anything about any of them.  Yes, yes, he passed the stimulus bill that will help sometime during the future.  Maybe.  And he's going to get universal health care done this month.  Maybe.  In the meantime, our economy is in the tank, and getting worse each day.  

    Parent

    I wasn't addressing whether Obama (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    understands the problem with the big banks, I was addressing whether he understands what it is that people are afraid of - and simply telling people to take comfort in the health of most of the banks shows that he is not in touch.

    Nowhere in my comment did I speak to the issue of nationalization.  Nowhere.  And yet, there you are challenging me to come up with a better plan that will do more good than harm.

    Interesting.  That's what Obama was elected to do, to make the hard decisions.  To formulate plans and policies that work, that have the effect that will do the most good.  

    There is no way - none - that the economic experts on his staff and in his administration have not been taking the developments and the numbers and gaming the possible results of continuing to dilly-dally ("dilly-dally" is the newest partner in the firm to be known as Dither, Fiddle, Muddle & Dilly-Dally; Procrastinate is going before the committee for a vote on partnership, as well).  There is no way that one or more of those scenarios does not look like Doomsday - the only question is, how long will it take them to summon up the courage to act to prevent it?

    I agree that it will be complicated, and hard and not fun, but Obama does no one any particular service by pretending that the relative health of what is really a small segment of the banking system should calm people's fears about where this economy is heading.

    Parent

    What evidence do you (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    have that Obama understands?

    Parent
    What evidence do you have to the contrary? n/t (none / 0) (#79)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:50:00 PM EST
    You offered it. (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:03:12 PM EST
    You answer it.

    Parent
    They all talk about it everyday-- (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    for an hour.

    Wouldn't we be more confident in our financial institutions if we knew exactly which of them merited such confidence?

    Parent

    CC (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 08:40:43 PM EST
    Please apologize for that remark.

    I like your voice here but we can't have these kinds of comments.

    Anne articulates our concerns very well. (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:18:01 PM EST
    With apologies to Dylan, We don't have to be weathermen, or economists, to know which way the wind is blowing.  

    Thanks, BrassTacks, (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:34:25 PM EST
    and everyone who recognized the ugliness of cotton candy's comment.

    I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me, or wanting to discuss our different points of view, but it's hard to have a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to have even read my comments.  

    The most telling part of cotton candy's comment was her need to include my race in her insult; it didn't hurt me, it just showed me the extent of her prejudice.  And her systematic downrating of my comments was to be expected.

    It's really quite sad and disturbing, and the best approach - one which I will be taking - is not to engage.
     

    Parent

    How would she know your race? (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:48:57 PM EST
    Or did she simply guess?  And why would it matter?  

    I SO HATE racial prejudice, in all its ugly forms.

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 06:34:19 AM EST
    Cotton Candy's thinking and language should be included in The Great Dialogue on Race within The Nation of Cowards.

    Parent
    People engage in conversation with (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:54:12 PM EST
    you, Anne, because it feels like they are in a conversation that gives them the chance to learn something, or consider another point of view.

    Whether we agree or not with the thought, it is delivered with a respect that makes it worthy of consideration. Some may not come all the way over to your point of view, but I bet most move a bit closer to it.

    One thing is for sure...no one needs to cower or consciously take deep breaths to loosen their shoulder muscles when they see your name as the contributing conversationalist.  

     

    Parent

    I'd like to think we're all here (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 10:10:36 PM EST
    to learn something, and I try to express myself in line with that; I know I've read comnents here that made me stop and think about something in a new way, or gave me information I didn't have before that helps keep my brain working and my thoughts evolving.

    There are so many people here who put a lot of thought and effort into the discussion, and it just seems so unnecessary to descend to the level cotton candy did.

    Thanks for your kind words, Inspector; I appreciate it more than you know.

    Parent

    You're welcome (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 10:23:00 PM EST
    People think they get to be anonymous in the comment sections of blogs, but in reality hiding behind the monikers causes them to reveal exactly who they are.

    You have every reason to be proud of yourself.

    Parent

    Well said. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    One small disagreement (none / 0) (#96)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:47:08 PM EST
    I am fairly sure that CC reads each of your comments.  How else would she be able to give each of your comments a 1 rating?  ;)

    Parent
    The two responses she made had (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 10:05:16 PM EST
    nothing to do with what I had written, so either she needs to work on her comprehension skills, or she sees my name, and then plays off a word or two in my comments to counter something I never said.

    Oh - one point - I think of "CC" as "Cream City," someone whose comments I very much like to read; it does her a great disservice to give cotton candy the same moniker.

    Parent

    YIKES!!!!! You are SO right. (none / 0) (#103)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:40:01 AM EST
    I too love Cream City and will never use CC to refer to anyone else.  My apologies.  

    Parent
    Hehehe (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    I can't hear this without thinking of "the Decider" who made decisions without bothering to look at facts.

    You know (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    the problem was not so much the "Decider" thing (with the caveat that usurping the powers of Congress  and the SCOTUS was criminal and impeachable) it was that the decisions were incredibly bad.

    I think this is a major flaw in the Dem understanding of Bush's political failure - it was the POLICIES, not Bush's method of enacting the policies, that have destroyed the GOP.

     

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    I wish Obama were as good at getting good policy through as Bush was at getting bad policy.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by sj on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    What I said I wanted (back in 2007) was I wanted someone who was as effective at using his/her powers for good, as Bush was at using his for evil.

    Parent
    of the two -- flawed policies and flawed methods of enacting those policies. Had the decider's method of implementation not been wrong, he would have saw those policies for what they were: bullcrap. Just a thought.

    Parent
    I feel confident you are incorrect (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    You are projecting your own feelings on the American Public, imo.

    Parent
    I mostly agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    although I also feel, to some degree, that his "methods" may have contributed to the bad policies.

    For example, when Gates called Obama more "analytical" to me that amounted to admitting what I felt about Bush, in that he didn't bother to look at facts before making said decision.  Which doesn't help when trying to make good policy.

    So yes, the "Decider" is not that important, and mainly just a dig, but I also think it tells us something about how he came to make such bad policy decisions, specifically on the war, where he had all these Generals trying to speak out and not being heard.

    Although I grant you most of it had to do with just being wrong, especially on his economic agenda.

    Parent

    Oh you mean the one that (none / 0) (#2)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:32:28 AM EST
    trusted his "gut" right? Yeah, well, bless his gut.

    Parent
    Any criticism of Obama is (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    "abetted by Republican operatives[.]" Just ask Booman!

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    And that is why the "Left Flank" has failed.

    Parent
    Like Tristero, I wish Pres. Obama (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    would push for legislation to enable more stem cell research.  But I gather the President has decided not to so.  Not sure why?  Dithering, don't want to expend political capital on this issue because it is so controversial, don't really support extensive stem cell research?

    The Prez seems quite comfortable in (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    just tossing the t*rd on the table, walking away and letting congress deal with the squeamish details. I think he does it by design. In that fashion, he is always above the fray and untainted by the odor he caused. Hmm. Not bad.

    Parent
    YES!!!!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    This is becoming my perception as well.  I was thinking exactly the same thing yesterday when I caught Obama on the tube talking about how he wanted this and that "decided" by Congress because Congress represents the people.  That's laughable as all get out to me as we prepare for Afghanistan.  He didn't ask Congress about that :)  How about asking Congress about his own faith based whatever the heck he is going to be throwing money at, I want to see some debate about that on C-span.

    Parent
    The healthcare issue is headed (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    down the same path, Tracy.

    Parent
    Because that's the role of Congress (none / 0) (#69)
    by Lacey on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    Congress is where those details are ironed out and eventually approved. The president doesn't write the legislation or approve the spending. Congress does. Now he can, and actually does, work with congress on specific legislation and direct their focus to specific areas. Which is exactly what Obama's doing. But why let those details get in the way of a good Obama complaint, which seems to be all some are good at.

    Parent
    Hmmm... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    Seems like he could have addressed some of these issues, nay, taken a lead, on some of these issues, when he WAS in Congress.

    Oh, I forgot - he was too busy running for office.

    Parent

    Exactly. (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 07:23:19 PM EST
    His responsibility(and he loves to toss around that term) is to show leadership. Define what you want and to what extent you want it and instruct your majority to go and get it. Don't just sit back and pipe dream along the lines, " oh, this might be nice. see if you can get this for me. if not, that's okay." B**lsh*t!

    Parent
    I don't intend to be anything like (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    the Republican party base.  I intend on keeping the dude I voted for accountable.  He's just a President, not a diety in any way, shape, or form.

    Parent
    Obama's pretty good with (4.66 / 9) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    stroke-of-the-pen leadership, but I never get the feeling there is any muscle, or passion  behind it - not much into going beyond what the pen started, taking the bully pulpit on the issue, fighting for it and seeing it through.  Yeah, I know some of what he signs is the end result, and not the beginning, but it all just falls so flat for me - he's so detached.

    Sadly, I would not expect him to be any different if he were still in the Senate - this is just who he is.


    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#12)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    When I clicked on that link I expected the article to be about the financial crisis not STEM CELL RESEARCH which is what Tristero was talking about. Also, he is right about the NY Times, if it weren't for the socialist meme being pushed out there by the GOP, I'm sure that a NY Times reporter would never have even dared to ask Obama if he was a socialist.

    Anyways: I don't quite think it is appropriate to claim that Obama is dismissing the critiques of progressive economists. I think he hears them loud and clear and given how politically tricky it is to nationalize the banks I understand what he is doing. Nationalization sounds good compared to just continuing to give the banks billions of dollars but when you actually look at what I would call the fine print of nationalization, Obama is really in a tough position.

    I guess we should just let the banks fail.

    If Obama didn't realize he was going to (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    be spending four years in a tough position every single day and he needed to be able to take that on head on he shouldn't have ever run for President.  I didn't ask him to take the job.  He asked me for it after doing everything he could to exclude others asking for the job.  The last guy to use the excuse that "it was hard work" didn't do much actual work....ever.

    Parent
    Pssst. MT: the primaries (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    are over, don't cha know?  

    Parent
    They are (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:08:26 PM EST
    And he won!  Now he can act like a winner and bring the CHANGE he promised everyone or he can act like another loser having to deal with "hard work".  Can imagine JFK flinching at "hard work"?

    Parent
    Who said he was flinching? (none / 0) (#22)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    Just because you don't like what he is doing "the hard work."

    And maybe you missed the last 50 or so days but I have seen quite a bit of CHANGE that he promised from the last eight years of hell.

    Parent

    Name the change (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:18:56 PM EST
    Afghanistan increase, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    Iraq decrease (slowly), release of some OLC memos, some change on stem cell and birth control. new playground at Whitehouse,  

    Parent
    Name the change??!?! (none / 0) (#31)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    Are you serious? Please tell me you are joking and don't recall Ledbetter, drawing down the Iraq War, recommitting to Afghanistan, reversing Bush on stem cell, the stimulus bill, Gitmo, etc etc. I hope that you are joking when you don't see those things as the change that he promised during the campaign.

    Parent
    I suppose Americans can eat on (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    the "marginal" stem cell changes.  Having someone use our tax dollars in very inefficient ways like a TOO SMALL stimulus isn't change though.  We've had our tax dollars wasted without mercy for years and years now.  And a drawdown Iraq in unison with a recommitment to Afghanistan is not what most people want but he'll risk doing that "hard work" while leaving the basic welfare of the American people to the over leaveraged wolves and that isn't change at all, that's the same old same old.  Gitmo isn't closed yet and Bragram is coming online.  I notice that you have selective change acknowledgement.  

    Parent
    You asked for change (none / 0) (#59)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    and you are getting it. To argue that he is not doing anything is just wrong and I will continue to point out his accomplishments every time someone wants to scream "he hasn't done anything/this isn't change I can believe in!"

    Parent
    How about he isn't doing anything HARD to do? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    I thought he would be bringing some change with him that would transform my world, not just pocket change.  I know....I'm naive.

    Parent
    MT... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    You haven't seen the heavens open and heard the angels sing?

    Parent
    NO damn it! (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    And I'm Buddhist and I've tried everything you can imagine to achieve that state of Obama grace and still is eludes me.  No political nirvana for Tracy, just more chop wood carry water.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#64)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    Maybe it's me but the man has been in office for all of what 50 days?  

    You do realize that most people get 90 days.  I'm so sorry the major change that you were expecting didn't come the minute after he was sworn in.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    But as I commented earlier, the poor dear is already tired.

    Parent
    Perhaps he needs to party a bit less (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:26:49 PM EST
    Does he really need to have 2 or 3 parties a week at the White House when he's so exhausted that he can't properly deal with foreign leaders?

    Parent
    Name That Change (none / 0) (#44)
    by daring grace on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    I went to the web site Politifact which I believe I learned about from someone here. It features, among other things, an Obama truth-o-meter that follows the progress or lack thereof of the president's campaign promises and whether they're being kept.

    I thought it would be a useful source for answering your question. FYI, they also track his compromises, and stalled actions etc. too. They have brief explanations at their site. I eliminated most of them because of space concerns.

    Under Promises Kept:

    No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners

    Promise Kept
    No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch

    Promise Kept
    No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)

    Promise Kept
    No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq

    On "my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war".

    Promise Kept
    No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan

    Promise Kept
    No. 239: Release presidential records

    "Will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult."

    Promise Kept
    No. 241: Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.

    Promise Kept
    No. 278: Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires

    Promise Kept
    No. 307: Create a White House Office on Urban Policy

    Promise Kept
    No. 327: Support increased funding for the NEA

    Promise Kept
    No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear

    Promise Kept
    No. 427: Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees

    Promise Kept
    No. 452: Weatherize 1 million homes per year

    Promise Kept
    No. 458: Invest in all types of alternative energy

    Promise Kept
    No. 503: Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet

    Promise Kept
    No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits

    In the Works rulings on the Obameter

    In the Works

    No. 1: Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers

    In the Works
    No. 4: Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes

    Will extend aspects of the Bush tax cuts such as child credit expansions and changes to marriage bonuses and penalties.

    In the Works
    No. 27: Change standards for determining broadband access

    In the Works
    No. 31: Create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges

    In the Works
    No. 37: Extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes

    In the Works
    No. 38: Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes

    In the Works
    No. 39: Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners

    In the Works
    No. 59: Invest in electronic health information systems

    In the Works
    No. 70: Eliminate the higher subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans

    In the Works
    No. 72: Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs

    In the Works
    No. 84: Double federal funding for cancer research

    In the Works
    No. 114: Reduce the Veterans Benefits Administration claims backlog

    In the Works
    No. 126: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq

    In the Works
    No. 128: Launch robust diplomatic effort with Iraq and its neighbors

    In the Works
    No. 135: Increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps

    In the Works
    No. 159: Set standards for when the government should hire defense contractors

    In the Works
    No. 161: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war

    In the Works
    No. 175: End the use of torture

    In the Works
    No. 176: End the use of extreme rendition

    "From both a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, torture is wrong. Barack Obama will end the use torture without exception. He also will eliminate the practice of extreme rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries."

    In the Works
    No. 177: Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

    Parent

    uhh (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    Promise Kept
    No. 278: Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires

    Come on.

    Parent

    I Didn't Edit the List (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by daring grace on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    I copied all that were on the site, as is. So it has every little thing...

    You'd be surprised how important seemingly trivial programs like this can be for the folks they impact esp. where there's been official inaction for years.

    Parent

    I realize it's important. (none / 0) (#55)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    But I don't recall Obama campaigning on it, nor is it likely to make or break his administration.

    Parent
    I Don't Recall A Lot of The Campaign Promises (none / 0) (#66)
    by daring grace on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:12:16 PM EST
    listed at this site.

    I suspect this one was made in a state or an area of a state where it makes a difference like out west as opposed to my area--upstate New York.

    Not going to make or break, true, but it is change. And a campaign promise being kept.

    Parent

    I'm just amazed that with all he's (4.50 / 6) (#73)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    had on his plate, he's winterized/weatherized a million homes in less than two months...

    Seriously, some of these kept promises had nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the Congress.

    Parent

    Actually, Congress Fiddled With It (none / 0) (#88)
    by daring grace on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:37:13 PM EST
    And, of course, Repubs in Congress tried to toss it out as not relevant to the stimulus bill.

    If you want to give Congress credit for eventually passing it with $5 billion allocated, fine.

    But to be fair, you might want to give the president credit as well for proposing it and keeping a promise he made on the campaign trail long before this economic crisis.

    Parent

    How do we get on the list for that? (none / 0) (#95)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    I have such drafty windows.  Anyone know how to get on Obama's list for winterizing a house?  I would love that.  I've never heard of it where I live.

    Thank you.

    Parent

    How To Get On The List (none / 0) (#105)
    by daring grace on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:05:00 AM EST
    If you followed the link in my previous post it would take you to the article confirming that this weatherization program is part of the stimulus.

    At the bottom of that article is a link that takes you to the Dept. of Energy page which features the info about the program.

    That page seems to indicate that the program will be administered by the individual states so your next step would be to contact someone in your state about how (or even IF) your state is going to apply for funds to administer the program.

    Short answer: It's not being administered at street level (i.e. your own home) by the feds. They're providing funding and other kinds of program support, apparently, for the states (and maybe localities?) to do it.

    Parent

    Actually coming from a state where (none / 0) (#48)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    Wildfires have caused state of emergencies and seriously impact our economic well-being this is a welcome change from the Bush policy of "let it burn so we can convince the public that mass-logging is the only answer."

    Parent
    Just to poke a tad more..... (none / 0) (#51)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    #278 probably dealt with the brush, small trees and vegetation in close proximity to the white house incinerator. He had the groundskeeper take care of it.  

    Parent
    I can attest to this (none / 0) (#84)
    by Amiss on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:10:39 PM EST
    We have been covered in ashes for the past month from the US Forest Service in the National Forests surrounding us.

    Parent
    MT... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Lacey on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    You're joking, right? You have to be because there has been change. You may not like it, you may think it wasn't enough, but to pretend that it hasn't happened is to ignore reality.

    Parent
    Well JFK (none / 0) (#45)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    Might not be the Best example- LBJ, Truman, FDR- those are the decisive Dems of the Post-WWI era- I mean JFK dithering in large part precipitated the Cuban Missle crisis, and continued/escalated Vietnam- historically a very, very large portion of the stuff people credit Kennedy for was accomplished by LBJ- if not for the taint of a war he inheirited LBJ would rightly be considered the second best Dem of the 20th century instead of the 3rd or 4th (depending on where one places Clinton).

    Parent
    I used JFK because I think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    likened himself to JFK a couple of times.  To be fair though you are using selective JFK dithering memory. LBJ never gets the credit due him for what he accomplished.  LBJ chose to press on with Vietnam though.....he inherited something and then he did with it what he did and he is responsible for that. Deciding to not run and destroy your own party was very very decisive.

    Parent
    LBJ (none / 0) (#49)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    would have been annihilated in 1968- McCarthy almost won- I think it can be argued that absent the assasination of RFK, Dems win the 68 election.  Escalation in Nam was a bad decision and ultimately an epic mistake, however when you look at the political reality of the time is there anyway Johnson could have withdrawn from Vietnam and still say passing the Civil Rights act?

    Parent
    If you want to nuanced (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:16:20 PM EST
    I know nothing outside of history books.  I was a baby.

    Parent
    Well, and sadly (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    my well versed Uncle who served in the Marines and ended up doing recon in Vietnam would have had much to say to you, but he isn't with us anymore by his own hand.  He taught me the most about what happened politically at that time. He was always politically active.  I wish we could have known that the current climate was going to cause his PTSD to flare up so badly.  He did what he did in the month that Vietnam Vet suicides suddenly hit the roof during the Iraq War.....during the reckoning we all had with the fact that there were no WMD's.

    Parent
    My Sympathies, Tracy (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by daring grace on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:26:58 PM EST
    My brother also served in Vietnam and also took his own life, albeit not as a result of combat PTSD, but more likely from a lifelong struggle with the demons of a very hard childhood.

    Like your uncle with you, my brother brought an important viewpoint to me and I often think of what I'm missing as events unfold in the country and the world.

    Parent

    Oh Morally (none / 0) (#56)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    escalating Nam was indefensible, I meant that LBJ would have had to do it around 1965 or so and by that point doing it would have likely cut the party in two and possibly made the Dixiecrats a viable third party in the South.

    Parent
    There is nothing different about leaving (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:52:40 PM EST
    the little guy out in the cold while we continue on with more war and more corporate welfare.

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#20)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    I'm not saying that he isn't prepared to be in a tough position.

    Whether you like what Obama is doing or not, he IS in a tough position and any other person who would have been President would be in the exact same position. I see that this is just another way to rehash the primary wars but I'm not going to because it would be pointless as I'm sure that you would argue that Hillary would have been better(!)

    I personally think that he should just let the banks fail and something tells me that they will probably fail whether he nationalizes them or not.

    Parent

    I'm not rehasing primary wars either (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:20:12 PM EST
    but please don't show up attempting to shop 'poor Obama' around when decisive things must be done ASAP.

    Parent
    Stress tests? (none / 0) (#29)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:22:38 PM EST
    Whether you like them or not, THAT is doing something.  

    I'm sorry but given that he has been in office for less than 100 days and has already signed a $800 billion stimulus package, I'm going to have to disagree with you on how fast he is moving.

    This crisis is not going to be fixed overnight.

    Parent

    The stimulus package was too small (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    and in his joy of negotiating before anybody even needs to be negotiated with he insured us of a package that was too small!  I know this crisis isn't going to be fixed overnight.  Everyone on this site knows that.  The feet dragging that takes place right now and the refusal to listen to Krugman and Rubini and a 100 economists telling the administration things they don't want to hear has taken this "recovery" from two years to three years and now we are looking at five years and if something isn't done very very soon it will be even longer.

    Parent
    You need to keep up (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    In the NYTimes today, it was reported that Geithner has delayed action on the financial crisis to AFTER the April G-20 meeting.

    The dithering is there for anyone willing to see it.  Those who insist on being blind will of course not see it.

    Parent

    Or they're doing something ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Lacey on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    people have forgotten, it's called being cautious and prudent. After all, look at the mess the world is in because of politicians making decisions without thinking everything through. Spending some time to examine the solutions and potential consequences, perhaps talking with leaders in other countries and maybe developing a world-wide solution, could turn out to be the better move long term.

    Parent
    It is about the Media (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    precisely as I stated in my post.

    Wow!

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    It was me who said the GOP put out the Socialist meme, not Tristero.

    He said the GOP is putting out the "Obama is indecisive" meme, which I argue is not true.

    You should read more carefully.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#28)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    and agree with Tristero. The reason why I  was puzzled by your post was because Tristero was referring to the specific issue of stem cell research and in that instance, he is right--the GOP is putting out an "Obama is indecisive meme."

    We can argue who is calling Obama indecisive on the economy another day.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    Saying it does not make it true.

    The people who are saying Obama has been indecisive on the financial crisis (and I would be interested to hear where exactly the GOP has said Obama has been indecisive -- an indecisive "socialist" who steamrolled them on the stimulus, who is not "consulting" them?) are not the Republicans.

    Believe it or not, people who are Democrats believe Obama has been indecisive on the financial crisis - 99% of them in fact. Republicans have been yelling about socialism and "pork" - not indecision.

    Parent

    That's interesting (none / 0) (#38)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    because I recall from recent polls that Obama gets pretty high marks from dems on handling the economy and that it is the GOP that consistently gives him low marks. Sure there are a few vocal progressive critics of his plan but to say that they are representative of the majority of dem opinion doesn't quite seem correct to me.

    Personally, I think it is way too early to claim that Obama has been a failure on handling a massive and complex economic crisis that he inherited.


    Parent

    Honeymoon polls (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    Poor phrasing on my part (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    I meant 99% of the people criticizing Obama as being indecisive on the financial crisis are Democrats, not that 99% of Dems are critizicing him on the financial crisis.

    To the contrary, most Dems are giving him a pass. They are wrong to do that.

    Parent

    Understand but (none / 0) (#57)
    by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    I don't think that the majority of dems are just giving him a free pass.  I can only speak for myself and those that I have discussed this with but the consensus has been that we realize that this is a major crisis with no magic bullet solution and we ourselves are trying to become more informed about what is really happening.
     

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    My take is that tristero is correct at least in this one case.

    That compromising coward Obama! What a wimp.

    And that is as much as many busy people will trouble themselves with: Obama's ducking the issue.

    Reading the comments on TL threads, this theme has stuck, and is  what Obama critics here are saying regarding Obama's stem cell research EO.