home

A Speech

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 03:27:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing great -- greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our great natural resources. - FDR's First Inaugural Address

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | HuffPo Blogger Files Class action Suit Against Huffington and AOL >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Speech | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama shorter: (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    "I'm gonna let GE do it.  The end."

    Yes...because they are willing (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:25:59 PM EST
    to do it :)  NOT!

    Parent
    The thing (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    that stuck me the most was: When there is no vision there is no leadership.

    Obama definitely has no vision for the country or at least one that he can articulate.

    I've been feeling this for so long, I'm (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:30:52 PM EST
    glad to hear others are seeing the same thing.

    Could there be any better example than today, with so many WH "sources" claiming so many possibilities that the administration is considering, that no one has any idea where he stands?

    The vision is blurry, and the leadership is altogether missing.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 06:03:00 PM EST
    I've definitely noticed the leadership thing even way back to the primaries. This just crystallized to me that he has no vision either.

    I don't know that not having a "vision" can always be a bad thing but times are so tough right now that we definitely need a visionary leader. If times were good, it might not matter so much.

    Parent

    No one has any idea where he stands (none / 0) (#43)
    by NealB on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:31:40 PM EST
    That sums it up about perfectly.

    You've been saying it all along better than most.

    Parent

    He stands (none / 0) (#51)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    firmly behind whatever idea will get him re-elected.

    Parent
    There's A Single Focused Vision (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:14:51 AM EST
    Get re-elected.

    I used to make jokes about republicans and their lack of policy, they would say 'lower taxes', without any sort of plan.  But they had vision, they wanted lower taxes, the details were not really important so long is the goal was met.

    Not more jokes, because my own damn party has one vision, 'get re-elected' and like the R's the details aren't important so long as the goal is met.  "Continue Bush tax cuts, done, screw the poor, done, Gitmo, what's that, infrastructure, who needs it, Social Security, cut, cut, cut, because it will get us re-elected, to hell with principles and doing what is right, we have a goal to meet."

    Parent

    "...treating the task (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 04:22:19 PM EST
    as we would the emergency of war."

    We suffer from a lack of leadership not votes.

    It's Simple! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    If you want to get a job, all you have to do...

    ...is just join the armed forces!  Plenty of work for all..

    Yes indeed. Quality of applicant pool (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    is improving.  Plus, now McChrystal will have your families' back.  What's not to like?

    Parent
    It was getting a little iffy there for awhile (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    Join the military, see the world....from the plane window on your way to Iraq to die :)

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    (T)he question now will be can (Obama) be an effective President in terms of forwarding a progressive agenda, or perhaps more interestingly, does he even want to? I think we will find out.

    BTD asked this in a post dated October 20, 2008.

    I think we now know the answer: No, and No.

    FDR he ain't.

    Obama is losing the cowboy poet vote-- (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:05:37 PM EST
    if he ever had it.

    Parent
    Clever and insulting (none / 0) (#44)
    by NealB on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:47:12 PM EST
    Both. Also useless.

    Parent
    Just curious... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 08:39:19 AM EST
    What is clever, and what is insulting?

    Parent
    NealB is insulting! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:47:28 AM EST


    Parent
    Remember, political correctness means (none / 0) (#91)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    even the Old Bolsheviks don't get to criticize Stalin.

    Parent
    True dat (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:15:09 PM EST


    Parent
    dibgy-Obama's policies effect liberalism (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 06:46:43 AM EST
    While the Democratic Party very well "win" from time to time and the party will play its role in the kabuki dance -- that of "protector" of an ever dwindling handful of ever smaller signature programs to keep the desperate progressive faction on board --- liberalism itself has suffered a terrible and perhaps mortal blow. To have a Democratic president of the United States adopt austerity and extol it as an historic victory the midst of ongoing high unemployment and a moribund economy means that the argument is basically over. This is not Franklin Roosevelt's puny GOP opposition and the Democratic Party does not have the middle class loyalty it had in 1937 to withstand making this kind of monumental error. Neither are we likely to be rescued by a war machine --- it's already cranked. No, the Democratic Party is formally relinquishing its historic claim to represent the economic interests of working families. The best we can hope for is that they "protect" us from a full blown Theocracy or a return to Jim Crow. (After all, they need to get elected somehow or they won't get a share of the spoils.)

    The next step is to join the clamor to turn the safety net into an individual "investment" instrument and elder insurance scam and make the transition complete. The consensus on that is already there...... link



    Parent
    Not 'hope and change,' (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by the capstan on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 06:25:25 PM EST
    but hard work and social justice for our 'fellow Americans.'  He had a vision, and he called on us, the American people, to join in his vision.
    FDR did not thank anyone for his elevation to the presidency; he called 'My friends' to work and to share their bounty.

    I know I must have heard the speech, as I have heard all the inaugural speeches since (except the last).  But tho I know the famous words, I remember them not at all--I was four months old then.  (My first birthday was celebrated in the CCC camp my father was building.)

    We needed another FDR in 2008--

    Forgot to say, (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by the capstan on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 06:30:46 PM EST
    he figuratively rubbed the noses of the bankers and speculators in the mud--or rather the dust of the dust bowl.  And now Wall Street and the bankers are calling the tune.  What must he and Eleanor be thinking now?

    Parent
    And in legislation (none / 0) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:00:34 PM EST
    he indeed rubbed their noses in the steaming pile of their own creation.

    Parent
    'Hope and Change' was (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    never a vision. It's always just been a slogan. The only vision the man has is of himself sitting in the oval office.

    Parent
    BTD, you hater (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:03:43 PM EST
    you just posted this FDR speech to make Obama look bad

    No - FDR made that speech specifically (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    to make Obama look bad.  lol

    Parent
    It was all a (none / 0) (#40)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:02:37 PM EST
    conspiracy launched decades before his birth.

    Parent
    Courtesy of Ian Welsh (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:17:58 PM EST
    Obama to Right Wing

    "I agree with you, now make me do it"
    Funny how appealing (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 03:32:08 PM EST
    "socialism" sounds when you read the actual text.
    Look, Obama will be making jobs for bankers and brokers, so cut him some slack.

    I've been reading Freedom from Fear (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    this week (David Kennedy's history of FDR and the Depression). There are some striking similarities--and differences.

    One thing I'm convinced of is that Obama desperately needs a Huey Long.

    Looks like Bernie (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    Sanders is as close a match as I can see.  Minus of course the too-apparent hunger for power and the love of authoritarian rule.

    Parent
    Zactly (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    I wish he had more influence.

    Parent
    Obama rewrite (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    My, er, our greatest primary tasks are 1) to get re-elected, 2) to avoid as much conflict with my dad, er, Republicans as possible, and then maybe 3) to put people to work. But putting people to work, understand me here, cannot be accomplished by direct recruiting by the Government itself, and because the task of three wars is more important, because war is like the good things about FDR, while employment programs are like all the bad things about FDR.  In short, dive into sh*t creek; we might let you can have a paddle, but never a canoe.

    BUT - (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 06:38:31 PM EST
    Obama is better than Clinton!!

    All snark aside, I am open to that argument.  (And as election season rolls around, someone is going to have to systematically make it).  

    no comprendo (none / 0) (#19)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    there is no Clinton running for president in 2012 so why would someone have to systematically make that argument?

    Parent
    Well Obama is obviously no FDR. (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:24:40 PM EST
    Then again neither was Clinton.  I think once we get to 2012 we can compare the first term of Obama to Clinton.  Who won policy-wise, who had the most uphill battle, etc.  A sizable portion of the blogosphere compares Obama to Clinton regularly.  I think we should go beyond "Clinton introduced DADT; Obama ended it."  I dunno...I think it would provide context in terms of how Obama stands as a Democratic leader.  A lot of people hated Bill Clinton and chose Obama for that reason; and a lot of people currently hate Obama and would rather have Bill Clinton's third term.  I think it's worth looking at.

    Parent
    One thing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:38:40 PM EST
    Obama won't have is Bill's unemployment numbers.

    I guess you could talk about DADT because that seems to be only quasi success Obama has had so far but even that's not really implemented yet.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#24)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:43:04 PM EST
    but the question is, what policies did Bill Clinton implement that nourished or created those unemployment numbers?  Obama and Clinton aren't operating in the same environments.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:57:47 PM EST
    I for one think that the massive military spending is a drain on the economy. It produces nothing for the most part. Bill cut back on the military spending. Being at war is a psychological drain on the country too. Right now I think people are sick of war, war and more war.

    The budget reconciliation act of 1993 certainly helped and Bill was more of Keynesian than a supply sider like Obama is.  

    Obama's problem is that he's never really held a leadership position and never had to deal with economics so he continually makes bad choices because he doesn't know the difference between a good choice and a bad choice. maybe if he had been a governor of a state and had to actually implement policies he would be more grounded so to speak as to what works and what doesn't.

    Parent

    Excellent point about experience (none / 0) (#28)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    as an executive, and not too much experience in the US senate. I would have hoped that two years in the learning curve would have caught up.

    But the issue of facilitation then takes over, which demonstrates laissez-faire leadership doesn't lead to strong positive outcomes in settings where a more authoritative style works.

    Parent

    With high (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    unemployment the country really couldn't afford to have a president with Obama's lack of experience and it's showing. It's kind of like knowing that 9/11 is coming and you vote a trust fund baby like Bush into office. I guess most people hoped for the best despite Obama's obvious flaws but unfortunately his skill set is not what is needed right now. He's the wrong president for these times.

    Parent
    Conversely, what policies did (4.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    Obama pass that influenced unemployment numbers...

    Parent
    Well the stimulus (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:49:09 PM EST
    did stop the bleeding.

    To me, is Obama a disappointment?  Yes.  Do I still want him re-elected in 2012?  Hell yes.  But the only arguments I've seen supporting his reelection hinge on what is "politically realistic" as a rationale for some of the less adventurous proposals that have been signed into law.  If the GOP is going to go on attack Dems are going to have to offer a bit more than that, because they will attack at points where their policies would perform worse (the housing market, unemployment, healthcare) and where Democratic policies could possibly have been implemented better...and someone's going to have to say that.  I'm sure Obama will campaign strongly but the theme so far is "let's continue what we're doing" which doesn't seem adequate in the face of what's inevitably to come, IMO.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    is a really hard sell. It's the old things are going to be worse if you elect the other guy. I've never seen it work in my 30 years of watching politics.

    It seems that Obama's reelection campaign is a rehash of Bush 2004--I suck but the other guy sucks worse. Gee, I just can't wait to relive 2004 can you????

    Since Obama doesn't emotionally connect with voters, he should be glad that the GOP doesn't really have anyone who can either outside of Huckabee. The wild card here is Trump who actually goes around saying whatever because he has nothing to lose. I don't care for his birtherism craziness but to hear someone say stuff that hasn't been run through consultants is kind of a breath of fresh air.

    Parent

    I remember Bill on many occasions calling out (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    the GOP on some issue and wagging his finger saying why their position was "wrong" and here's whyyy!  Then he would explain the reasoning and when he was through the issue was much clearer.   He didn't tolerate stupidity on the GOP part. He stood up to their arguments.I wish Obama would not put up with it anymore.  He seems so vapid.He is such a puzzlement.  Is he just an empty suit?

    Parent
    Yet (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:22:29 PM EST
    in 2000, Nader could convince a section of the left that there was no difference between  democrats and republicans. And democrats were asking people in the left to vote for Gore (and not Nader), not by being able to make the case that Clinton-Gore moved the country leftwards in 8 years but by scaring them about Republicans.
    So, who should I believe? You? Or my lying eyes?

    Parent
    Why didn't Nader's (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:24:56 PM EST
    tirade work in 1996? After all he was running then too wasn't he?

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:51:28 PM EST
    Democrats did win the 2000 election, but Bush was still inaugurated.  The disgrunted left can make a difference, as tiny as they are.  Something Obama should remember.  There will surely be close races everywhere.

    Parent
    Liberal Pushback (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 09:52:48 PM EST
    WP is reporting some pushback on the President. Good development!


    Parent
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:03:45 PM EST
    Obama can do whatever he wants (within reason) but he shouldn't be represented as the most liberal option on the table simultaneously.  If he feels the need to mediate conflict, someone on the Left needs to create conflict.  Nothing wrong with that.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 09:00:35 PM EST
    people just sitting home is going to be more of a problem than any third party. Heck, a lot of states don't even have third parties to vote for.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:11:13 PM EST
    An empty suit and business oriented just like all Presidents since Reagan and a wholly owned subsidiary of the finance industry who helped the GOP snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

    Parent
    What did FDR do? (none / 0) (#39)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:01:39 PM EST
    The depression didn't end until World War II started.

    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:14:09 AM EST
    As is the local library.  If you really think FDR did nothing between 1932 and 1941, I can scarcely believe you have a heartbeat.  Um, a little thing called the WPA, for starters, but I suppose you think putting desperate Americans to work when the private sector wouldn't is a bad thing. Better to have let people suffer, as we should today, no?

    Parent
    Google IS my friend! (none / 0) (#117)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 03:03:32 PM EST
    Google Wikipedia Great Depression:

    "As the Depression wore on, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried public works, farm subsidies, and other devices to restart the economy, but never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. According to the Keynesians, this improved the economy, but Roosevelt never spent enough to bring the economy out of recession until the start of World War II.[15]"

    Parent

    Wikipedia is NOT your friend, (none / 0) (#123)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:49:09 PM EST
    considering its open editing. I've read articles on many things, from General Joe Stillwell in WWII to a biography of Ataturk that were questionable in their interpretation at best, fabrications in the middle, or outright lies at the worst.

    Wikipedia is not a credible academic reference, so use it at your risk. Truth and Wikipedia part ways frequently.

    Parent

    And you should be happy, the Gilded Age is back (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    How the Real Housewives of Wall Street got $220 million in free taxpayer money, and more recent and disgusting and, until now, secret cases of corporate welfare and downright theft.  Ever heard of TALF?  I hadn't.  And these are the folks you are going to trust to bring the country back?  To put your fellow Americans to productive work?  Puhleaze.  We are a nation controlled by junkies whose habit we all pay for.

    Parent
    What about Bill? (none / 0) (#45)
    by NealB on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:58:45 PM EST
    How come young Bill (former president) has nothing to say about any of this?

    The Bushes are silent. Reagan, Carter, and Ford are dead. But young Bill's not so long gone. How come he's got nothing to say about the undoing of the New Deal?

    Carter (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 05:38:46 AM EST
    isn't dead.

    Parent
    Or Hillary? (none / 0) (#46)
    by NealB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:00:09 AM EST
    .

    Parent
    seriously? (none / 0) (#47)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:55:37 AM EST
    Hillary is a loyal member of the Obama administration

    in addition to which, domestic policy is not her bailiwick

    Parent

    Did you mean her bailiwick (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    Or her focus?  Because she is well-versed in domestic policy.  In fact it was her domestic policy that ultimately garnered my support in the primaries.

    I never cared that much for her foreign policy -- except for the fact that always kept a spotlight on women's issues throughout the world.

    If, however, you meant it's not her focus as SOS, that's certainly true.  But your first point, I think, is the significant one.

    Parent

    i meant it' s not her job right now (none / 0) (#111)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    & even if it were, she is a loyal member of the Obama administration . . . lather rinse repeat

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    I just wanted to clarify.  I agree with you.  I was using the "area of interest" definition and you were using the "area of authority" definition.

    Parent
    Bill had plenty to say (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    about The Deal that was THE WORST THING EVER AND EVER IN HISTORY.

    "After meeting Friday with President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton told reporters he supported the tax and benefits package negotiated with Republicans because "I don't believe is a better deal out there."

    But those here who respected him didn't care about what he said then because he disagreed.

    Parent

    He also (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:56:32 AM EST
    said that he didn't need another tax cut too didn't he?

    And he's probably right that it's the best deal Obama could get because we all now know about Obama's poor negotiating skills.

    Parent

    Ha, Glenn Greenwald's latest (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:25:49 AM EST
    echoes what I've said a few times, which is that Obama's supposed "weak" negotiating is a fig leaf for agreeing with Republicans on just about everything.
    Give him a read.

    Parent
    He did (none / 0) (#60)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    Obama believed the same thing and has never said otherwise.

    The fact that Obama agreed to the deal does not mean that he favors tax cuts for the rich.  It is possible to concede a point that you disagree with.

    I don't know why this is so difficult to accept.

    Parent

    The fact is (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    we don't know what Obama believes but we do know that he extended tax cuts for the wealthy. We can only go by his actions.

    Parent
    This makes no sense (none / 0) (#92)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    Clinton enacted DADT and DOMA so he hates gays?

    Clinton cut welfare benefits so he hates the poor?

    Bush passed prescription drug benefits so he loves seniors and entitlements?

    Does the woman's democratic caucus love the restrictions on abortion funding they signed off on in connection with ACA?

    The difference between conceding a point and believing in the point are real.  You can't look at any final piece of legislation and say that any person who signed it loves it.

    Parent

    Who the hell cares (none / 0) (#95)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:09:38 PM EST
    what a politician loves or doesn't love? It's only what they DO that matters. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:16:43 PM EST
    it might blow up his belief in Obama.

    Parent
    Because it is a dumb concept (none / 0) (#101)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    that assumes that every politician can dictate the terms of every law they sign.

    All laws are, for the most part, a group of concessions.  No one gets to sit down, right the law they want and see it passed without modification.

    Your way of seeing the actions of politicians is odd.

    Parent

    And I suppose (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    he doesn't really believe in Guantanamo Bay, starting more wars in Arab lands, torture of US citizens, predator drone strikes against civilians, etc. He just supports those things because they are the political realities and he has to go along with it all. He's weak, but he believes the right things, so we should support him. Meh.

    Parent
    No suppose about it (none / 0) (#106)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    He doesn believe in GITMO but has no choice.

    He doesn't believe in starting wars in arab states but doesn't believe in mass slaughter more, which is why Libyan intervention is limited.  He didn't start Iraq and Afghanistan but he has a responsibility to finish them

    I prefer predator drones to troops in the ground and so does Obama apparently

    For someone so weak, he sure is willing to endure the wrath of the left and the right.

    The weak position would be to do whatever the far left demands.

    Parent

    Ah, yes...the helpless president theme again. (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    I don't have any idea where you come up with these things, I really don't.  What does "He doesn't believe in Gitmo, but he has no choice" even mean?  Is his non-"belief" in Gitmo the reason for his policy of indefinite detention?  Or does that come from somewhere else?  

    I mean, I can give you a laundry list of things like this on all kinds of issues: privacy rights, warrantless surveillance, state secrets, inhumane treatment of detainees, transparent government, single-payer health care, the illegal activities of Bush/Cheney, economic policy, women's health issues...

    He says one thing, does another, and he does it over and over and over again.  For some of us, there's a pattern in there.

    The man has a veto pen.  He has executive power - he exercised it with respect to Libya, for example.  He's not required to sign everything the Congress puts in front of him - veto power is one way presidents draw lines in the sand, tell the people in no uncertain terms what they do believe in.

    He's not weak at all; he's just choosing to use his power in ways that are not in line with what many of us do believe.  For two years plus, people have wasted more energy and effort in "explaining" Obama, in being sure that any moment now, the "real" and liberal Obama will burst onto the scene.  They've blamed Congress, his spine, his poor negotiating skills, his need to please those who like him least.

    I have never been under any illusions about who Obama is and how he would govern; he's always been meandering around the edges of the crowd, sussing out where that crowd is going so that he can work his way to the front and claim to have led everyone there.  

    The weak position would not be to do whatever the left demands; the weak position is the one that doesn't get us where we need to be, where the country needs to be, out of this economic hole we're in, back to being a real supporter of equal rights, civil rights, human rights.  The weak position is the one that carries no risk, stakes out no new ground, nibbles at the edges of the status quo but never really changes anything.

    Maybe if you did a little thought exercise, and tried to imagine what your reactions to Obama would be if he were the Republican president; would you be able to find as many excuses for him as you do now?  Would you be Really Angry Black Guy?


    Parent

    'Hope and Change' (none / 0) (#109)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:09:52 PM EST
    except when we don't have a choice, which is pretty much always.

    Parent
    And your view (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    that what a politician believes trumps what he actually does, is preposterous.

    Furthermore, you don't even know what Obama believes, you only know what he says he believes. And even then you interpolate a lot of what you want him to believe into what he says he believes, rendering your position even more ludicrous.

    Parent

    And none of that (none / 0) (#104)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    matters with respect to what Obama believes.

    Parent
    You really (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    don't know the history behind those policies. DADT was revolutionary for it's time and if DOMA hadn't passed would you rather have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? That is what was going to happen and that would have made marriages that were done in certain states like MA illegal.

    Is Welfare the only thing that poor people care about. The EITC was a lot more helpful to people than welfare. What is your love of welfare? You keep talking about how entitlements need to be cut but you're whining about welfare????

    Obama has shown time and again that he will fold like a cheap lawn chair.

    The women's democratic caucus is the only reason Obama didn't cave on Planned Parenthood. He would have caved on that too.

    Parent

    No I do know the history (none / 0) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    I am not the one indicating that all that matters is that X politician signed Y law.  I am the one indicating that the history and the context matter.

    Others are saying that all that matters are the politician's actions in signing the bill.  You are assisting me in pointing out the silliness of the position.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    you are assigning beliefs to Obama that he doesn't seem to have. I know he says a lot of things and that's what you buy into but BUT his actions say differently.

    Obama has not done what he campaigned on so how can you know what his beliefs are?

    Parent

    You have no idea (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    what he would have caved on either.

    Making these pronouncements about what would have certainly happened in an unknowlable future is not helpful.

    Parent

    Comedy gold!! n/t (none / 0) (#90)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:54:03 AM EST


    Parent
    Speeches (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    Are they important or not.  Sometimes the bully pulpit is crucial and important and other times its just more wind?

    Anyway, Obama's speech today has to exceed expectations for many here because you expect him to get on the mic, yell "pay the rich!!!!!!", strike a B-Boy pose, and then walk away high fiving the bankers on the way out of the door.

    This, unlike many of the other CRUCIAL MOST IMPORTANT MOMENTS EVER IN THE HISTORY OF EVERYTHING that are discussed here, is actually a crucial moment. The President's speech and his plan are going to be dissected intensely. This is the put up or shut up moment I think is th real test (as opposed to a 6 month budget).

    Prediction: everything is on the table: entitlement cuts, tax increases, defense spending reductions, everything.

    If he does that, I am OK with it. Not thrilled but no one was going to be thrilled with some part of this.

    If he tells the country that sacrifices will have to be shared by all, that's what I voted for. That's change.

    The far left will hate it bu the far left has proven to hate everything at this point.

    I for one (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:00:35 AM EST
    don't care what Obama puts in his word salads. And that's all they are is word salads. You know absolutely by now that Obama will not stand firm on anything he says.

    Parent
    Are you saying Obama is (none / 0) (#59)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    schizophrenic?!
    I'd say he's a monomaniac in pursuit of personal enrichment.
    Obama could be a billionnaire by 2020, if he plays his cards right as President. He knows it, I know it, you know it.


    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:31:20 AM EST
    pretty much. He apparently wants to compete with the Bushes in the trust fund baby category.

    Parent
    Sick (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    The idea that the President is crafting policies with the thought of his own enrichment is ridiculous, completely unsupportable, and ground in no concrete fact or evidence that you can point to.

    This is an example of everything wrong with liberals and Tea Partiers.

    It's the liberal equivalent of the conservative hawks at the start of the Iraq war.  Doves were viewed as anti-american because surely, no honest flag waiving american would ever oppose the war for principled or pragmatic reasons.  They could only oppose the war because they hated America.  Liberals were infuriated by that completely baseless accusation and rightly so.

    Similarly, we should be infuriated by those who try to ascribe evil or dastardly intentions to those who take different fiscal positions than we do. Are some of the folks on the right evil? Yup. Are some of them advocating policies for personal enrichment. Yup.

    But there is no evidence of that from Obama or the other dems who voted for The Deal and budget concessions.  They obviously didn't want to do it but felt (rightly or wrongly) that they had no choice.  If you disagree, call them poor negotiators or call them weak or whatever. But accusing them of doing it so they themselves could get rich is ridiculous.

    It's the an equally disgusting side or a completely ridiculous coin and should be called out whenever it happens.

    And I am.

    Parent

    Woohoo. (none / 0) (#66)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:38:30 AM EST
    Anyone who doesn't think that a modern President isn't thinking about how much money he can make after he leaves office, and how to maximize that amount, is a bigger fool than anyone who posts at TL. GHWB is worth over $100 million (if not a lot more). Bill Clinton is worth well over $100 million. Not sure of W.'s net worth, but it's substantial. Obama knows he will be super-rich after he leaves office. In my opinion, the system we have, in which ex-Presidents are allowed to enrich themselves to an obscene degree is prima facie corrupt.
    Obama signaled time after time that he was open to ending the New Deal, or negotiating it down.
    That alone probably was enough to get the banker/finance money behind him.

    What's wrong is the idea that ANY President of the last 40 years is at all normal. We have had a succession of freaks---people from the far fringes of abnormal psychology.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    That if you have the ego, intelligence, cunning and skill to become President, you probably don't have to become President to be rich and you'd likely make more money doing something else.

    Parent
    LOL, as if Presidents are intelligent (none / 0) (#74)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:01:24 AM EST
    YOu get to be President by having charisma.
    That's 99% of it.
    Obama is no genius, and he couldn't make 1/10th the money in another field.


    Parent
    Obama (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    is not intelligent?

    Wow. That's a new one.

    So let me get this straight.  He's a stupid man who has gotten to the place he is (and Columbia and Harvard and all of it) based on his charisma while simultaneously gaming the entire US economy to make sure that when he leaves office he is a billionaire.

    Admit it.

    You have a tinfoil hat on your head right no don't you?

    Parent

    I said he's no genius, which (none / 0) (#85)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    is indisputable, really.
    He's smart, as politicians go.
    And, being smart, he knows that he should be considering how to maximize his payoff when he leaves office. He'd be an idiot not to.


    Parent
    To me, (none / 0) (#122)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    he just sounds as stupid as anybody.

    Parent
    Bush (none / 0) (#121)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 06:07:28 PM EST
    graduated from Yale.

    Condi Rice graduated from the University of Denver at the age of 19.

    A lot of good that did us.

    Parent

    Bwah ha ha!! (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:49:26 AM EST


    Parent
    If you think (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:16:15 AM EST
    "entitlement cuts" are necessary, you're not even nominally on the left.  Sorry.  I have no problem with making certain services more efficient as long as the services provide the same or greater quality of service/benefits.  If Obama can prove that he is making the social safety net stronger, then I have no problem with that.  The midterm elections were among other things (jobs, bad economy) about the perceived threat of Obama "taking Medicare away."  Americans in general value those programs.  It's not a "far left" issue.

    According to NYT the speech will be about:

    "keeping domestic spending low, finding additional savings in our defense budget, reducing excess health care spending while strengthening Medicare and Medicaid and tax reform that reduces spending in our tax code."

    Keeping domestic spending low during a recession is dumb.  Austerity measures are not working across the pond in the UK.  Otherwise I have no problem with this outline of the speech.

    Are Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias far left now?  I'm not sure who you think is standing with you in your eagerness to embrace "entitlement cuts."  

    Parent

    Entitlement Cuts (1.00 / 4) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    Are necessary in that they are a painful concession that we have to endure.

    I don't personally think they are necessary to balance the budget.  But I think they are necessary to pass any bill that addresses the budget issue because the other party will demand some level of concession there.

    If we demand that everything be on the table, everything has to be on the table.  We can't pick and choose hypocritically.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:39:29 AM EST
    have completely bought into the supply side voodoo economic theory. No wonder you see nothing wrong with what Obama is doing. You seem to think that the middle class has to offer up everything while the wealthy in this country should offer up nothing.

    Parent
    I have not bought into supply side anything (none / 0) (#73)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    I have bought into the idea that we will have to make concessions.

    I don't favor entitlement cuts and think they will be counterproductive and wrong to boot.

    But I don't think we get tax increases on the rich without some level of entitlement restraint.

    In addition, I think healthcare reform will actually increase entitlements on a net basis long term even if we have SS cuts for example.


    Parent

    That would (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    have been an argument to make BEFORE Obama did the deal. As it is, Obama gave away the store in December so he has nothing to deal with. The GOP knows that he'll cave so they aren't going to budge. To think that Obama will really fight to change the taxes on the wealthy is just delusional.

    Parent
    Of course not (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    But I don't think we get tax increases on the rich without some level of entitlement restraint.

    In fact it's highly unlikely that we get tax increases on the rich at all.

    Parent

    In fact (none / 0) (#100)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:35:38 PM EST
    with Obama we get entitlement restraint and tax cuts for the rich.

    Parent
    Let's put everything on the table--- (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:54:25 AM EST
    including PRIMARYING OBAMA!

    Parent
    I don't know if we are talking (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    about the same thing.  "Entitlement cuts" means cuts to benefits in my book.  I don't think Dems wanted those on the table.  Dems have been attacking the idea that benefit cuts should be on the table for a very long time.

    Make Republicans say that they want to cut benefits.  That's a political winner for Dems all day long.

    Parent

    I no longer have much interest in what (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:45:46 AM EST
    he says, because he will likely say something different within hours or days.  He is going to do whatever he and his advisors think gives him the best chance to come out a winner in 2012, regardless of whether that is what's right for the country or for the majority of the people who live here.  Like you, he relies on polls that say that "most people" want compromise, and most people want to do something about the deficit.  

    The devil will be in the details, as it always is, and just as with the health whatever legislation, I'm pretty sure the target dates to implement the worst of the worst cuts will be sometime after the possibility that the real-life experience of them will affect the way people vote.

    So, okay.  You're focused on Obama being re-elected, which is why, for the most part, you don't offer more than a toss-off comment about actual policy, and instead give us polls and what Clinton said, and what the pundits are saying.  Fine: that's what your priority is and you're as entitled to that as anyone else.

    In the best possible scenario, we would be looking at a Democratic president who governed and led in line with the things most of the people here expected and deserved, whom we could get behind not just because he has the all-important (D) after his name, but because he improved lives, strengthened our rights and freedoms, and set us on a better course for the future.  Unfortunately, that is not the scenario we are dealing with, which means my focus is not on his election chances but on the policies and legislation he's behind.

    As for this being the put-up-or-shut-up moment for Obama, I might agree with you if you were talking policy, but you're not - it's all about the politics for you.  Why not stop the charade and just admit that you really don't care what Obama does as long as it leads to him taking the oath again in January, 2013?


    Parent

    I have said (none / 0) (#75)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:03:24 AM EST
    nothing today about Obama being re-elected.

    You use that as a strawman to avoid substantive points I make.  That's pretty much it.

    How about this: you avoid using my "Obamabot" status for the meat of your discussions with me and I'll stop using your Obama Derangement Syndrome to dismiss your criticisms.

    Then we can talk about policy, which I talk about regularly but you seem to ignore.

    Parent

    You talk about policy regularly? (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:18:43 AM EST
    On what blog?  Tell us, we'd all like to go read your discussions.

    You are the one who is constantly reminding us why we have to get behind Obama, why the world will end if a Republican is elected, how irresponsible those of us are who wouldn't vote at all for anyone for president, how even though we don't like what Obama's doing, we have to suck up our disappointment and march on to the voting booth to ensure Obama's re-election.

    So, don't give me this horsecrap about your not saying anything "today" about Obama being re-elected.  I'm not using your self-admitted "Obamabot" status - you're the one who drags it in - I guess you think that entitles you to call others "PUMAs" - which you do with some regularity.  You use the term in much the same way, and with much the same tone, as you do "liberal."

    Well, you might want to ponder where you, as a black man, would be today without liberals who believed in equality and were willing to fight for it.  Where I, as a woman, would be without liberals who believed I should have the right to vote, to own property, to make my own reproductive health decisions, and were willing to fight for that.  Where gays would be without liberals who believe in equality and are willing to fight for it.

    As near as I can tell, the only thing that's "wrong" with liberals is that we are a constant reminder that Obama and far too many in the Democratic leadership aren't living up to the principles and platform they're supposed to support and work for, on our behalf.

    Parent

    On this one (none / 0) (#86)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    We agree on policy goals Anne. I think I have said that about a million times now.

    Our disagreement is over the likelihood of the actual implementation of those policies, which is a very different question.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#120)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 06:01:30 PM EST
    does not have any derangement syndrome, Mr. Guy.

    Very nasty and unnecessary.

    Parent

    simplistic hippy-punching (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    If he tells the country that sacrifices will have to be shared by all, that's what I voted for. That's change.

    The far left will hate it bu the far left has proven to hate everything at this point.



    Parent
    "If he tells us to find the nearest bridge (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:26:57 AM EST
    and jump off of it, that's what I voted for."

    Honest to God, it's like the pod people or Stepfod 2.0; I can't stand it.

    [and off-topic here...how are you doing these days?  Recovery going well, I hope?]

    Parent

    I'm good, Anne, thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    Feeling fully recovered, fine, and very lucky.

    Also grateful that I didn't get furloughed last week, but kinda knew they weren't really going to shutdown the gummint. Didn't stop my agency from going beserk all last week though!

    Hope you and yours are doing well.

    Parent

    Heh. Dear Leader says (none / 0) (#84)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    there are too many unemployed workers. If you can't find a job, you have failed the Dear Leader. You know what you must do.

    Parent
    As a wise man here once said (none / 0) (#107)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    What does the far left give Obama any credit for.

    They proved showed their colors when they deemed ACA a massive failure and then got angry because DADT repeal took 2 years instead of occurring instantly with the snap of his fingers.

    Parent

    Which" wise man" was that? (none / 0) (#114)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    Or are you simply inflating your own ego again?

    Parent
    In Versailles, everything was fine. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:11:00 AM EST
    In Washington, everything is fine.

    But people are angry, if misdirected toward the Tea Party.

    Lots more people are ANGRY right now.

    I don't for one moment disregard violence perpetrated by disenfranchised people.

    I'm not advocating for it, but people have started to get very angry over being considered last, when corporations and 'rich people' get taken care of first.

    Be careful the cuts that you want to see enacted. There is much more discontent out there than you imagine.

    I'm trying to sound grim here, Cassandra presenting a warning. People are ready to fight. Right now there's no organization. But that's still dangerous.

    Jeff (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    I know people are angry, but I don't think anything is being contemplated that would foment revolution in the streets.

    That's a bit much.

    Parent

    ABG, I didn't say revolution. (none / 0) (#94)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    Revolution is organized. There's no organization, but I would not be surprised by riots in given locales, based on shared anger.

    Mob behavior. Not revolution.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#119)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 05:57:50 PM EST
    wouldn't make that distinction.

    Mob behavior is one description of revolution.
    The mob in this case is the people - or would be.

    There is no leader.

    But I don't think that is the way that revolutions happen.

    Too many people become dissatisfied at the same time.
    A tiny spark can ignite forceful behavior. Behavior that is outside the box. Look at Egypt. Look at our our revolution. The original tea party. Patrick Henry. To hell with the government. Get it off our backs. Frantic behavior. Explosive behavior. It doesn't need a leader. It is organic.

    I hope something happens to shake the foundations of our republic. The government does not represent the the people. It doesn't represent the will of the people. It is using the people.

    How about calling it an insurgency?

    Parent

    I've been hearing some (none / 0) (#88)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 11:47:23 AM EST
    grumbling among the libs in Congress in recent days, over Obama's caving on budget cuts mostly hurting the poor.  This is a good sign as it's now more than just Bernie Sanders or Kucinich speaking up.  

    And with the AA community a couple of issues have appeared -- the above mentioned one and also O's cave to Repub demands about preventing D.C. funding the poor for abortions.  This comes as the support for O in this community has dropped to 85% (95% voted for him, iirc).

    Also too there's a divide emerging among black leaders, with one pro-O faction led by the Rev Al, who's now apparently a friendly face at the WH, and an anti-O group led by Tavis Smiley and my good brother Dr Cornel West.  See, e.g. this lively exchange of finger-pointing (go to about 11:00 mark) betw the Rev and the Doc on the recent Ed Schultz Black America special.

    I mention this because it's going to take a more broad-based liberal grassroots movement to shake things up with this admin and get the attention of the media, and perhaps other things electorally down the road.

    Parent

    The AA vote (none / 0) (#108)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    will be there for Obama in 2012.

    The GOP will make sure that occurs.

    Parent

    A Speech | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment