Up From The Comments: A Liberal’s Obama Lament

In the comments of my post below about President Obama’s 2010 campaign launch, Swampland commenter Square1 gives one personal summary of the reasons why Obama may have some trouble exciting the liberal base next time around.

For Obama’s defenders here is a list of what I consider to be the Obama administration’s “major deceptions”. It is not limited to explicit statements of Obama.

For the record, I NEVER, personally, believed Obama was a “liberal”. This is not a “wishlist” of things that I hoped that the Obama administration would accomplish. And I was always aware that Obama had many odious views. I am not going to attack him now for his idiotic support of “clean coal” when he has always pandered to the coal industry.

Nor is this a list of areas where Obama simply hasn’t moved fast enough. Rather, this is a list of area where an honest supporter of Obama could legitimately claim to have been mislead. Where Obama is moving in the opposite direction from what one could reasonably have expected.

1. Transparency in government. In driving HCR, Obama rushed to cut secret deals with PhRMA and the insurance industry. The WH then lied about the deals when pressed.

2. The Public Option. Obama supporters weren’t entitled to believe that Obama would push for single-payer. They weren’t entitled to believe that the PO would be included in a final bill. What they were entitled to believe was that the Obama WH would strongly push for it. Not lie about their support while secretly trying to kill it.

3. Individual HCR Mandate. I can honestly say that one of my primary reasons for preferring Obama to Hillary in the primaries was Obama’s express opposition to imposing an individual mandate until the cost side was addressed. I don’t blame politicians for changing positions sincerely. I blame them for doing so without articulating a legitimate basis for doing so.

4. Iraq. We are still there. What are we doing? Is this even up for debate?

5. GITMO. Said he would close it. Now needs a permission slip from Lindsey Graham to run his own administration.

6. Executive Power, domestic spying, & torture. Too many sub-issues to go into, but the capper for Obama supporters isn’t a specific lie. It has been the failure to get Dawn Johnson confirmed (or to make her a recess appointment) to head the OLC. Most intelligent, outside observers have noted that this failure indicates that the administration has undergone a substantial shift in ideology on national security and spying issues since Johnson was appointed. And, yes, supporters have a right to be disappointed in the shift in ideology.

7. Treasury Department deceptions. Obama like to talk populist rhetoric while Geithner tries to kill issues like executive-pay caps, derivatives regulation, the creation of a financial consumer protection agency, etc. (This is one area that is somewhat grey. On one hand, Obama has never pretended to be anything other than a loyal friend of Wall Street bankers. OTOH, the magnitude of the bailout giveaways, as well as the phony populist pandering, are enough to make supporters justifiably disappointed).

Read the whole comment here. What do you think?

Related Topics: 2010, up from the comments, 2012 Election, Barack Obama
  • Latest on Swampland

    Image: Mark Halperin interviews Mitt Romney

    Romney Defends Bain Record, Hits Obama on Economy: ‘He Just Doesn’t Have a Clue’

    Mitt Romney lashed President Obama’s economic stewardship in an interview with TIME’s Mark Halperin on Wednesday, deflecting attacks on his years as a private equity executive and laying out how he hopes to take control of the economy as soon as he’s sworn in, should he defeat Obama in November.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Image: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

    Mother of Mitt: How Lenore Romney’s Failed Campaign Shaped the Presumptive Republican Nominee

    This week’s TIME cover story, “The Mother of the Mitt Campaign,” tells the tale of how Lenore Romney’s 1970 run for U.S. Senate may have made a bigger impression on the Republican presidential candidate than his years spent as the son of a governor. Mitt’s father lost his own presidential bid, but it was the lessons from his mother’s loss that are more instructive as Romney enters the campaign stretch.

  • nflfoghorn

    And the alternative to all this: McCain/Miss Prissy.
    .
    As Spoob or Freep would say: Next!

  • nflfoghorn

    Lost in all this is the fact that the president – any president – has the great power of influence but not much else. The actual sausage-grinding lies with Congress and how much the prez can influence it/bend it to his will. I’m sure he thought he could do a lot more than he has but, as all prezzes do, he came to the realization that there are too many forces working against him so he does what he can.
    .
    Remember Dubya’s second (i.e., halfway-legit) term? How much did he get accomplished domestic-wise?

  • homerhk

    I repost my response to Square’s post below which was partly in response to me, I think.

    it’s comments like the one you posted that made me think of adolescents. You would have done well to stick with the Billy Tauzin example which I agree is one of the more egregious turnabouts from Obama and which did leave a bad taste in my mouth. Having said that, he got healthcare through and one way of looking at the deal is that he managed to wrest $80 billion from phrma that otherwise wouldn’t have been given up. But I understand the issue with that particular dea.

    On the others – and in particular Iraq and Gitmo, this is where I think the outlook is immature (notwithstanding that you are a great scholar of US politics, of course). His campaign promise was to get out of Iraq within 16 months – it then moved to 18 months but it is basically the same. Troops are withdrawing as we speak. Now, if you think that he can just magically bring everyone home right now that’s fine but in the real world, that’s not possible. This is something whic I don’t think you and Derek get. It’s not about having a centrist pov, it’s about having liberal views and desires but understanding that they can’t all be achieved 100% or within a particular timeframe. That’s not centrist in terms of ideology and there can be legitimate disagreement about what might or might not be possible. I happen to think that the man who can best make those judgment calls is the man in the office rather than an armchair blogger/commentator.

    with your 7, I guess you haven’t been reading the news lately since both derivatives regulation and a consumer protection agency are both in the Dodd bill which, as you may have heard, Obama is supporting fully and trying to resist compromise on. He also said he’d veto any bill that did not deal with regulating derivatives.

    on the public option i don’t want to re-hash many many words of debate that have taken place but first you can’t just assume that he wanted to kill it from the beginning and second there just weren’t the votes for it; so yes, he could have fought valiantly for it and failed to get it or he could have done what he did which was to say he supported it, say he’d sign a bill with it in but not let it’s omission crater the substance of reform. We might wish that he had fought more publicly for it but I understand the political reason for doing so and given that it was never going to happen anyway I take this as a missed opportunity to score brownie points rather than any policy failure.

    and btw Obama has hardly ever been a populist – he has consistently been a consensus builder, a person who takes ideas and suggestions from everwhere and disagrees without being disagreeable so I’m not sure what point you are trying to make on the populist rhetoric.

    Now, the final two points: Dawn Johnsen – I view this as a bit like the public option – there were simply not the votes there and yes he could have done a recess appointment but he decided to do so with Becker instead. Is this a lie, however? no. is this a betrayal? only if you’re inclined to see everything as one.

    And finally the individual hcr mandate, you say he didn’t explain why but you are a scholar of US politics! I point you to this Tumulty (from Time no less) interview of Obama on the individual mandate issue:

    “But some things have changed. I mean, for instance you were very much against an individual mandate. Could you describe how your thinking has evolved on this issue…

    President Obama: I feel pretty good that I’ve been pretty consistent on this. The individual mandate is probably the one area where I basically changed my mind. The more deeply I got into the issue, the more I felt that the dangers of adverse selection justified us creating a system that shares responsibility, as long as we were actually making health insurance affordable and there was a hardship waiver for those who, even with generous subsidies, couldn’t afford it. And that remains my position.”]
    So, you may not agree with this but he has explained why he changed his mind. The ability to change ones mind and to step back and re-think things through IS a change..

  • larry278

    Obama is an FDR capitalist as MS demonstrates.

  • onlylivingboyny

    These gripes don’t hold much water. Grievances 1-3 have been rendered so moot by the historic passage of HCR as to suggest an almost infantilism in the continued carping over the public option and mandates.

    On Iraq, we’ll be down to around 50,000 troops this time next year, which is, in the real world, a remarkable and remarkably quick and efficient draw down.

    One can be upset on GITMO’s continued operation, and clearly this has been one of the pronounced defeats of the President’s early tenure. Though, I would argue if your most pronounced defeat is a delay in closing GITMO, you’re doing pretty well.

    I’ll confess my own ignorance on matters of Executive Power matters, and leap to number seven, which is I think the area Obama takes the most flack and deserves the most credit. Folks left and right can argue about TARP and Detroit, etc., but the fact remains the president assumed office amid the worst financial circumstances confronting our country and the world in seventy years. Managing to thus far right this once fast-sinking ship, not just at home, but by example and temerity, abroad, is and would be in any other president’s term a crowning achievement.

    Any liberal who stays at home during the midterms over these grievances is simply handicapped by self-righteousness.

  • nflfoghorn

    “Any liberal who stays at home during the midterms over these grievances is simply handicapped by self-righteousness.”
    .
    Or, like an SEC exec, is watching porn.

  • nflfoghorn

    Sixteen thousand hits. In ONE MONTH?!? And he only got a two-week suspension?? Whaddya have to do to get fired for gosh sakes???

  • josephp55

    Square1′s comment is an excellent summary of the issues that have caused me to give up on Obama. He even has them prioritized in the right order.

    Number 1 is the one that really knocked the scales from my eyes and revealed Obama to be no different than any other crooked politician. During the run-up to the health care reform bill, his administration made a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry—he promised to fight drug price negotiation and drug re-importation, in exchange for industry support for his bill. This is precisely what he promised the American people he would never do as president, yet he did it anyway. And then he tried to lie about it until he was forced to admit it was true.

    The other points made by Square1 (not supporting the public option, sellout to Wall Street, continuation of Bush violations of human rights and governmental excesses) are just as valid.

    Certainly McCain and Palin would have been a nightmare for the country, so I suppose we had no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils. But after his campaign of hope and change, I have a feeling of betrayal that makes me reluctant to support him on anything again, even in the face of the tea party crazy.

  • josephp55

    Grievances 1–3 have not been rendered moot by the passage of the historic HCR bill, in my opinion.

    In fact, I have big problems with the bill and almost would have rather it not passed. I very much agreed with Dennis Kucinich that the bill was not worth passing on its own merits, but in the end supported it only because the Republicans had made it such a referendum on Obama, and its defeat would have been taken as a victory for the “pull the plug on Grandma” tea party crazy.

  • deconstructiva

    …understandable, but is staying home worth the risk of President Palin? The Tea Party may split the R vote (I’m betting on it), but if not… …Maybe just pressuring the WH and Congress harder to get the agenda you want + primary specific candidates (such as challenging Lincoln) are better options.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I think all of these are legitimate points which is why I find so ironic the volume at which certain commenters scream SOCIALISM and other such nonsense.
    .
    What I find the most disappointing is Obama’s unwillingness to rock the boat with the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies. The reason we haven’t seen any appreciable shift in the detention policies or DADT or FISA is that we haven’t seen any appreciable change in personnel.

  • jsfox

    I am hearing a whine without much fact.

    Transparency – While not perfect even the Sunlight Foundation says it is a vast improvement over the recent past and this means more than the previous administration.

    Public Option, he left it by the side of the road because it wasn’t going to happen in this bill. Mandates. yea I get it, but there was no other way to do it or make it work. Suggestion get behind several bills now working there way through that add a PO or medicare for all.

    Iraq is in fact ahead of schedule.

    GITMO, even his own party won’t fund the closing. How is this his fault if both Dems and Republicans in Congress are afraid of their own shadows and have a bad case of the NIMBYs?

    National Security. What has changed? He now gets the briefings. It is easy to be altruistic when you are not getting the security briefings.

    Treasury good grief executive pay was controlled if you took TARP funds. The government has no place in dictating what executives at companies get paid. This should be a stockholder prerogative. Consumer protection why not wait and see what actually happens before complaining. And another individual who forgets who did the bailouts and who actually put some controls on them after coming into office.

    All in all weak soup.

  • josephp55

    This is in reply to 1.1:

    True, the President only holds the power of persuasion in regards to the legislative process.

    But, as Square1 pointed out, Obama sold the American people out by making a secret deal with big pharma, which is precisely what he promised he would never do.

    That is a hell of a lot worse than merely failing to be adequately persuasive.

  • josephp55

    Perhaps you are right that staying at home during midterms would be an example of being handicapped by self-righteousness. But in 2012, I hope we get a good primary challenge to Obama as a way to voice our feeling of betrayal.

  • josephp55

    The reason the Public Option wasn’t going to happen in the HCR bill is because Obama left it by the side of the road, not the other way around.

  • theotherjimmyolson

    Personally my greatest disappointment came when the president made clear he was going to look ahead, not behind. With that single statement it was clear to me that unlike the case of Nixon, Obama was not going to push back against the outrageous expansion of executive power. I believe he threw away the only chance to save this democracy. No one can argue that the president has to consult with others to set his administrations agenda. It is his responsibility alone that the lawlessness of the past decade and more will go unexamined and uncorrected. I certainly got the impression that he was campaigning on a promise to end these crimes.

  • jbaustian

    Obama may be many things, but “capitalist” is not one of them. Capitalists believe in free markets, Obama does not.
    .
    “Crony capitalism” is not real capitalism, it is a bastard, it is fascism, and that is something that Obama knows something about.

  • jsfox

    If this all we disagree on I can live with it.

  • diecash1

    The reason the Public Option wasn’t going to happen in the HCR bill is because Obama left it by the side of the road, not the other way around

    Perhaps you missed all the conservadems that said they wouldn’t vote for a bill that contained a public option? I suppose that is somehow Obama’s fault too.

  • rose83

    It’s interesting – and this is less in response to this thread than to political conversation generally – how the election mentality dominates American politics virtually all of the time. Most of the Democratic arguments against critique’s like square1’s are simply, “The alternative is so much worse.” They’re right of course, but if the standard Obama is judged against is Sarah Palin, not only will he avoid any criticism from the left, he will also avoid any criticism from the reality-based community.

    This cannot produce a healthy political discourse.

  • diecash1

    While I agree with the substance of your post, I am troubled by this:

    I certainly got the impression that he was campaigning on a promise to end these crimes.

    I don’t recall him saying anything to that effect, campaigning or otherwise. IIRC, he consistently said that he didn’t want to look back, only forward.
    ..
    I too am greatly disappointed with that decision. I fear that the mistakes of the past will only be repeated in a larger fashion, if that’s possible.

  • Ivy_B

    I agree, Rose. However, this is partly where the horserace and she said, he said journalism has brought us.
    .
    Do we hear about the substance of the financial regulation bill and how it will work? No we hear about a lie that Mitch McConnell tells over and over about what is not in the bill. That sort of thing worked so well for health care reform. And on and on.
    .
    As a solid Hillary supporter, I am less surprised about Obama’s positions than many here. I never thought he was much more than a pragmatist. So I find myself mostly pleasantly surprised that he got so much done. Not all the things I would want, but on the other hand I don’t know who would have. Between the hardened opposition of the Republicans in Congress and the Blue Dog Democrats, I am not optimistic.
    .
    I don’t know where we go to find a healthy political discourse. I don’t think we can have one until we have a second healthy political party.

  • kevin

    Capitalists believe in free markets, Obama does not.
    .
    There’s no such thing as a “free market” in the United States of America. There hasn’t been for a century or so.
    .
    If you want to see a real “free market,” you’d need to strip away all patent office and copyright protections, remove all of the corporate tax breaks on the books, scrap all the interventions of the Fed and the Treasury Department, and get rid of the 85% or so of the work of the federal court system devoted to mediating corporate disputes.
    .
    Such a “free market” paradise as you imagine hasn’t existed in the U.S. for over a century. But Somalia has a wonderful case study for you to explore. Go take a look.

  • apr2563

    Michael: Since you have so generously shared a pretty negative critique of Obama by square1 under your byline, will you feature a more positive overview by someone who will rebut that position such as homerhk?

  • kbanginmotown

    Speaking of whom…what ever happened to SpongeBob? I can’t recall seeing him around, lately…

  • square1

    People say a lot of things. Perhaps you missed all the Democrats in the Progressive Caucus who said that they wouldn’t vote for any bill that didn’t have a “robust” public option. Guess what? They ended up voting for a bill with no PO whatsoever.
    .
    It has always been very difficult for me to believe that the conservadems could have justified filibustering a signature piece of legislation pushed by a President of their own party. The reality is that Obama dealt away the PO early on and used the conservadems as an excuse to drop it.

  • bacotawordpress

    These are good points. I’m still an Obama fan, though. Maybe Reagan, two Bushes, and a Clinton just lowered my standards. (And I’m old enough to remember Nixon, Ford, and Carter, too.) Just think about it — we have to back almost 50 years to find a comparable president! :)

    As far as the mandate goes, he did campaign against it and I’ve been surprised to see nobody really prominently calling him on that. Good thing he changed his mind, though, because he was WRONG when he campaigned against it and he’s RIGHT now. Everybody has to buy in or the system isn’t going to work. That’s even true with “Single Payer”, it’s just that we’d be buying in through tax dollars.

    Ditto for Iraq, really. We’re pulling out (and I’m glad) but we’re not rushing (and I’m glad).

    Also, the bailout may have been distasteful — but we are NOT in a depression now. I’m thankful for that.

    As for Gitmo and such .. errr… I dunno. Maybe next year??

  • square1

    Thanks, MS, for posting my comment.

    Not everyone will agree with my assessment (obviously), but it is important that there be some honest reporting on disenchanted liberals. Too often during the HCR debate only the positions of the teabaggers and the center-right WH would be covered. Rarely was it explained that many Democrats opposed HCR as being a corporate giveaway.

    Again, not everyone may agree with that assessment, but that perspective needs to be reported.

  • bacotawordpress

    Actually, Obama believes in free markets.

    REPUBLICANS DO NOT.

    Obama has repeatedly desire to regulate markets to keep them free and functioning. Republicans have repeatedly desire to let some particular wealthy group manipulate those markets for their own profit without penalty. (investment bankers, health insurance companies, big oil, etc)

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Didn’t he lost the GITMO vote by like 90-something to 2 or something like that? If the Senate was entirely made up of Democrats, he wouldn’t have been able to close GITMO because the sword is stuck in his back. I really can’t blame him.
    .
    Iraq has been dealt with but I think that during the summer, he should try to take one day and make the message of the day: “We have withdrawn X% of soldiers from Iraq. Combat operations will be finished as of X.” You put a big freaking spotlight on the fact that he’s already signed all the papers to get the troops out.

  • josephp55

    I always want to hear a well reasoned rebuttal to an argument. But the extent of the rebuttal argument so far is:
    .
    1. After Reagan, two Bushes, and a Clinton, Obama isn’t so bad overall.
    2. McCain/Palin would have been a lot worse.
    .
    I agree with both those points, yet I still feel betrayed by Obama.

  • freeinpa

    “Lost in all this is the fact that the president – any president – has the great power of influence but not much else.”

    That can’t be true you and Patrick among others tell us daily that Bush destroyed everything and Obama save the world. How can this be?

  • freeinpa

    “There’s no such thing as a “free market” in the United States of America. There hasn’t been for a century or so.”
    ==

    “, Obama believes in free markets.

    REPUBLICANS DO NOT”

    ========

    It’s always amusing to watch liberals debate things they do not have a passing acquaintance. The dumb led by the clueless!

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    @Ivy:

    I’m an Obama supporter, was almost from the beginning of the primary. And I’m surprised by how much he’s gotten done! With health care, he really should have told congress “this is I want, now come up with a bill we can all live with” instead of leaving it up them. Even better, he could have sent his own bill to both houses for an up or down vote. But he’s too much of concensis builder for that. Rather than put his own ideas on the line, he likes to gather other people’s ideas and takes the best of them and go to work. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, its smart in the right hands. But in the case of health care, it made for a long drawn out process and a law that I predict isn’t going to work in the long run. A public option or single payer is on the horizon.

  • apr2563

    joseph, as a liberal I am disappointed in the administrations failures on the progressive agenda. But, I have been voting since LBJ ran. I was thrilled by his Great Society initiatives and horrified by the Vietnam War.
    .
    Then I lived through Nixon. What can I say.
    .
    Jimmy Carter tried but learned what he could and couldn’t accomplish.
    .
    Then I lived through Reagan and Bush Sr.
    .
    Clinton disappointed me with triangulation. He was fighting Republicans who questioned his legitimacy as President and a media that was playing gotcha. Of course, his conduct was reprehensible. But, he did accomplish some good.
    .
    Then I lived through Bush Jr.
    .
    Here we are with Obama. He inherited a mess. He inherited a country whose progressive agenda from the days of FDR has been slowly dismantled. He has not given us everything we want. But,
    .
    http://www.progressivefix.com/obamas-regulatory-accomplishments
    A lot of regulatory accomplishments cleaning up after Bush.
    .
    Stimulus package, HIR (not everything I would like, but a start), Cut F22 fighter, Sotomayer, Lily Ledbetter fair pay act, Schip expansion, Public Lands Bill, Credit Card reform, Some progress on lobbiest transperency,
    Quiet but steady progress against terrorists, FDA regulating tobacco, Expanded Amer Corp, Eased restrictions on Stem cell research. This is just some of what he has done in less than 2 years. Read Halprins column on another thread and take a deep breath. Here’s hoping for more.

  • shepherdwong

    “There’s no such thing as a “free market” in the United States of America…”
    .
    There’s no such thing as “free market” anywhere. It’s plain ol’ “conservative” claptrap for people too brain dead to figure out who’s lying to and brainwashing them and why. No real market can even exist, no less function effectively, without regulation (even a yard sale requires currency that people can presume is guaranteed by government). But that means that the rational argument is over government finding the right kind and degree of regulation, which is useless for corporations trying to convince the slobbering base and ignorant independents to vote against their own interests and elect corporatist lackeys promising “free markets”, which really just means nothing more than industries deregulated to the point where they can screw us at will with impunity.

  • diecash1

    The reality is that Obama dealt away the PO early on and used the conservadems as an excuse to drop it.

    Well Square1, that’s your take on it. I don’t necessarily agree with it. If Obama was staunchly behind the public option, maybe he could have pressed the issue with the conservadems more; that may have helped but I don’t think many of them would have come around to supporting it. The fact is that the progressive/liberal wing tends to fold when playing high stakes poker in Congress. Had they held out, perhaps they may have altered the outcome for the better.

  • grape_crush

    What do you think?

    I think that turnout is usually lower in off-year elections, no matter who is in office. I think that a measure of an ‘enthusiasm gap’ would be more relevant in September, not that I think Gallup’s poll – as it is now – is very useful.

    I think that Obama is a center-left politician, otherwise known as a moderate. I also think, based on his performance so far, Obama is a pragmatist…which, i think, explains some of the compromises made that have left a bad taste in some people’s mouth.

    I think that, given the hand they were dealt and the extraordinary levels of vitriol, outright lying, and mule-headed obstruction coming in from the right-wing, the Democrats have had a successful enough year and a half. I also think that there’s a lot more to be done.

    I think that you can’t always get what you want, and almost no one gets everything they want. I also think that not everyone understands that.

    I know that the higher the number of progressive politicians there are in Congress is, the more likely it is that progressive policy will be made into law. There’s no excuse, no matter how much you feel Obama has irked you, for the Left to sit on its hands at home come November.

    None.

  • homerhk

    apr2563, i agree with your sentiment in your post, unsurprisingly. the media is always willing to show where people disagree or aren’t fans of the President but rarely show the point of view of the some 48% of people that approve of what he’s doing.

    Joseph, in terms of rebuttals to the criticism please see my post above. YOu will see that nowhere do I even mention McCain, Palin, Bush, republicans or the alternative was worse. My post is a full throated positive review of the Presidency thus far. Were I an American, I would have been extremely proud to vote him and would be chomping on the bit to vote for him again.

  • shepherdwong

    “Again, not everyone may agree with that assessment, but that perspective needs to be reported.”
    .
    I do and I think most political liberals do. They’re motivated by policy, unlike most others, so they’re always watching what government officials do (more than listening to their rhetoric). At this point it is impossible to argue that Obama is enacting a liberal agenda. For all practical purposes, he’s a centrist and could be any Republican president of the last century.
    .
    OTOH, the other alternate choice was Senator “Get Off My Lawn” and the “I don’t know what I read” beauty queen. Likewise, the next election (and all the follow) will also be choices of the lesser of evils. If only Independents could somehow learn to discern.

  • fhmadvocat

    square1,

    I can appreciate your point of view. However, I think you need to think about what Obama did accomplish and see the greater good.

    I still think Obama is a Liberal, albeit a cautious pragmatic one. The problem is the majority of this country is not liberal. Conservative outnumber Liberals in this country 2 to 1 and Moderates outnumber Conservative and Liberals combined. The Democrats got their majority, not by electing Liberals but by electing#Conservatives. How do you explain a Democrat f~om Mississippi

    Whale an idealistic Obama would haze liked to have’done all that he promised and all that you wanted, a pragmatic Obama simply wanted to accomplish things and get them done.

  • square1

    Should the GOP ever pull its head out of its butt and make an attempt to present itself as a viable alternative, the Democratic Party is in for a world of pain. Regardless of whether I am right or not, I submit that the complaints that I articulated are widely held within the Democratic Party. The inability of Obama and party leaders to address the widely-held negative views of their performance by rank-and-file Democrats is political malpractice.
    .
    Instead of respecting these concerns, making an attempt to correct the perceptions, and improving Democrats’ prospects at the polls, Dem leaders routinely insult, condescend to, and dismiss liberal critics. Great electoral strategy, folks!
    .
    Maybe I am missing something, but telling potential voters that they are stupid and naive doesn’t seem like a great way to win votes.
    .
    And what irks critics even more is that, for all of Obama’s professed willingness to compromise, he never compromises in favor of liberals. He never tells conservadems that they “can’t always get what they want.”
    .
    What did conservadems say about HCR?
    “We don’t want single-payer.” Dead on arrival.
    “We don’t wan’t a public option for everyone.” Dead.
    “We don’t want Medicare buy-in.” Dead.
    “Hell, we don’t want any public option.” Dead.
    .
    Just a bunch of give and take. Liberals give and conservadems take.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    At the bare minimum a ‘free’ market requires a court system able to apply the force of government to enforce contracts entered intio freely and then abrogated by one party. Most Conservatives have no clue the degree to which their Freedom actually requires a functioning government.

  • square1

    You are entitled to your views. However, I see things vastly differently.
    .
    I see a President whose party controlled both houses of Congress. Over the past year Obama has largely accomplished what he wanted to accomplish. He didn’t need to compromise to get there. He simply didn’t want to push for more.
    .
    IMHO, liberals who tell themselves that Obama really, really, really wants more liberal policies but just can’t get there (yet) are simply telling themselves a fairy tale in order to minimize the pain of disappointment.
    .
    Obama has made choices.
    .
    On HCR, he chose to lean on liberals to accept an HCR with an individual mandate and without a public option. He chose NOT to lean on Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh, or Baucus.
    .
    On his economic team, he chose to listen to Benanke, Summers, Geithner and others with close ties to Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and the Fed.
    He chose NOT to listen to Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Simon Johnson, Sheila Bair, Nouriel Roubini, Elizabeth Warren, and Bill Black.
    .
    He chose Rahm Emanuel to be Chief of Staff.
    .
    He chose to put global warming on the backburner and produce no meaningful proposal at Copenhagen.
    .
    He chose to “look forward and not back”.
    .
    He chose to unilaterally declare his support for nuclear energy, “clean coal”, and offshore drilling before he received a single concession. (Why? Because he is more concerned with appearing “moderate” and “reasonable” by co-opting GOP positions than producing the best policy.
    .
    He chose to make “pragmatism” the new “triangulation.”

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Obviously, I agree with Square. The notion that your base is going to be there for you (fired up and ready to…) when they’ve not been rewarded in any measurable way on a single issue…
    .
    And Shep: “If only Independents could somehow learn to discern.”
    .
    I’d say that they did two years ago, which is why Obama and the dems are in power in the first place. The persuadable were converted, temporarily at the least. As for a permanent shift in the collective consciousness, far more work to be done. First you get them to shift their sympathies your way in a given election or two, then you elucidate (by discernible action) that your sympathies are with them. You legislate policy that benefits them in crystal clear, immediate terms. Then the shift towards liberalism becomes a trend, not a fleeting disenchantment with “conservatism.” i.e. FDR vs. BHO

  • earljr1

    Talk about star gazing and delusions of grandeur! I have always known that liberals never grasped the concept of reality, but this fawning accolade pushes the boundary beyond pure mush. Obama is all things to all people. Just give him an audience, let him gauge the wind and off he goes…telling them whatever they want to hear. To his credit, he usually does it with great oratorical skill, but can you believe what he spins? Only if you really DO believe in Unicorns. Give him credit for one thing, he gave birth to the Tea Party and this product of his incessant lying, could well bring about his political demise. Good riddance, I say.

  • shepherdwong

    Their heads would all explode in unison if it ever dawned on them that only government secures and protects the “free market”, not to mention their individual liberty.

  • Ivy_B

    Exactly my thoughts, grape. Well stated.

  • shepherdwong

    “The persuadable were converted, temporarily at the least.”
    .
    Yes, well. If you have to be persuaded to not vote a Republican into a government job, that doesn’t speak well of your ability to discern. Republicans. Don’t. Do. Government. It’s part of their philosophy of government.

  • square1

    If Obama was staunchly behind the public option, maybe he could have pressed the issue with the conservadems more.

    What do you mean “more”? When Obama would meet with Dems behind closed doors, he never brought it up.
    He didn’t pressure Lieberman. Obama called the PO “symbolic”. And Rahm reportedly pressed Reid to drop Medicare buy-in.
    .
    Obama didn’t press on the PO or Medicare buy-in because he was OPPOSED to those proposals.

  • grape_crush

    Liberals give and conservadems take.
    .
    Yes, Bart Stupak managed to hold the Health Care Reform bill hostage until Obama and Pelosi caved and adopted the Stupak–Pitts Amendment into that legislation.
    .
    And Obama has been strident in his opposition to the repeal of DADT, hasn’t he?
    .
    What?

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Good observation Rose. I think a lot of it boils down to how we perceive our responsibilities as voters, party members, even citizens. As for Obama, many seem to think we worked to put him there and he needs our support in the face of a hostile (reality-free) opposition and failed media. That if we were to pressure him from the left too much, he’d be vulnerable and in the end we’d wind up with a nutter in ’12.
    .
    OTOH, there are folks like Square who see their role far differently. Accepting the obvious, that the officeholder of the moment is not as liberal as he is, he brings to bear his criticism, his pressure to make Obama etc. understand that his base’s support is conditional, that we’re not republicans who will support in lockstop whatever the king is down with.
    .
    Ivy, you seem to be saying that the responsibility for “a healthy political discourse” is the GOP’s alone. Absent their buy-in, the dems have no reason to feel obligated to deliver on their end. But I think dems can make a major paradigm change on their own, if they choose. True, the reason we’re not hearing full-throated progressive populism from the president is b/c this simply isn’t who he is. But the notion that he couldn’t greatly recalibrate the debate (insane GOP & corp. media notw/standing) on his own, that he couldn’t far more forcefully rebrand liberalism….
    .
    Again, most voters from whatever walk of life only know the tainted versions of liberalism and conservatism on show in DC. If we ever hope to purify liberalism in practice, we have to have discernible action and eloquent interpretation. This latter is what is most regrettable in Obama’s case, as he couldn’t have been a seminal spokesman for liberalism’s reality in the face of decades of lies/misinfo. HCR is the most damning ex. available. The bill, as with congressional dems and Obama, is thought to be “liberal,” which is as asinine a frame as saying it’s socialist.

  • Ivy_B

    Ben Nelson just voted against bringing the reform bill to the floor. And we wonder why Obama can’t get things done?

    Every d@mn thing takes far longer than it needs to.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “Yes, well. If you have to be persuaded to not vote a Republican into a government job, that doesn’t speak well of your ability to discern. Republicans. Don’t. Do. Government. It’s part of their philosophy of government.”
    .
    Ah, I see, and the democrats in congress since 2006, & the WH for 15 months–their incredible accomplishments are? Please use bullet points, listing them in full. I really want to see in crystal clear terms why elected dems deserve their continued support. God, even their own base (per the post) are reluctant to support them, why in the world should independents be enthused. How have their lives been made markedly better by the centrists Shep?

  • 53_3

    These are all legitimate questions and comments. I remember every one of them occurring, but my take is that no president has ever pleased all the people all of the time, and I think those that think he must please them in every way are mistaken.
    .
    I think the difference here is that there is room for legitimate dissent and criticism, I don’t think he is any more socialist than fascist. He is walking a delicate line in a time of considerable hardship, and is going to do things that displease both sides of the aisle.
    .
    The only difference is that while progressives may balk and complain, the right responds with hateful and frequently seditious commentary.
    .
    Yup! POTUS is a man, after all…

  • shepherdwong

    “How have their lives been made markedly better by the centrists Shep?”
    .
    Dude, you think that’s the question Independents (and the rest of us) should be asking when we consider our vote?! Man, we are in trouble. The question is how much f@cking worse their lives would probably be had the Republican approach to governance between 2000 and 2008 continued under the President Warmonger and the Vice President Ignoramus. Even if the Gulf wasn’t in flames by now, no stimulus and the death of the big three automakers (and their vendors) alone could have meant that we’d be killing each other over canned food and ammunition. Again, see: the choice of the lesser of evils.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    The moderates are the only group that gets everything they want and they go ape shit if it looks like liberals might win even one battle. The best they can do is tell liberals to grin and bear it and frighten them with the thought of more Republicans. Even though they won’t allow even a single Liberal in the administration, they still demand that Liberals vote for them. The system is unsustainable. However , it is nice to see at least one thread dealing with the pissed off Left, to counteract the next 50 devoted to the complaints of the right.

  • apr2563

    jcpan: Please look over my post at 11.2. I have listed some of the things that have been accomplished by Obama’s administration. There are things touching people’s lives now.
    As I stated earlier, I have found Obama frustrating, but I hope he has a long term plan. I haven’t given up on him yet. I know I won’t be voting for a Republican or Ron Paul advocate in the next election.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    The moderates are the only group that gets everything they want and they go ape sh@it if it looks like liberals might win even one battle. The best they can do is tell liberals to grin and bear it and frighten them with the thought of more Republicans. Even though they won’t allow even a single Liberal in the administration, they still demand that Liberals vote for them. The system is unsustainable. However , it is nice to see at least one thread dealing with the pissed off Left, to counteract the next 50 devoted to the complaints of the right.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Apr, I’m merely speaking to enthusiasm (or lack thereof), both the base’s as well as the logical conclusions an electorate will draw from our dysfunctional/failing government (this is bipartisan!) I’m not daft enough to claim that Gore would have =ed W. or that Obama = Maverick. If nothing else a few degrees closer to sanity/a few degrees further removed from armageddon. Come 2012, inevitably, intervening passions notw/standing, I’ll end up voting for Obama. The fact that our system coddles incumbents, that he won’t be primaried by a real progressive just like any centrist dem in congress…
    .
    As much as I loathe lesser of 2 evils as a defense of inaction or misaction, it’s by and large been THE factor when I’m in a ballot box, during the course of 20 years voting for dems, clothespin in place. Well, other than democratic primaries when the occasional full-throated progressive or green can garner my futile vote (filed under the illusion of “choice”).
    .
    A favorite writer of mine, J.M. Coetzee put it this way:
    .
    “Australia is by most standards an advanced democracy. It is also a land where cynicism about politics and contempt for politicians abound. But such cynicism and contempt are quite comfortably accomodated within the system. If you have reservations about the system and want to change it, the democratic argument goes, do so within the system: put yourself forward as a candidate for political office, subject yourself to the scrutiny and the vote of fellow citizens. Democracy does not allow for politics outside the democratic system. In this sense, democracy is totalitarian.”
    .
    As is, I would add, the notion that two stale parties reflecting the will of the establishment over the will of citizens. Our system has built-in pressure releases at every level.

  • diecash1

    Obama didn’t press on the PO or Medicare buy-in because he was OPPOSED to those proposals.

    Again, that’s your opinion. Neither you nor I know what precisely happened in the course of negotiating the health care bill. I tend to believe Obama when he says that he supported the public option but it was not a make or break piece for him and in light of the dim prospect of a bill containing it being passed, he, and Congress, let it drop. As I said, I don’t believe he was a staunch (read die-hard) supporter of the public option. I’ve seen no evidence to support your contention that he did not support it.

  • apr2563

    jcpan: I wish there were some way a really progressive, independent could be elected. If he/she were the dem/rep congress would make that person’s life heck. The traditional media would be looking for weaknesses from the first day of their administration.
    Fox and the rw would be frothing with animous. Not going to happen.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Apr, you may be right that it’ll never happen but the battle is worth fighting regardless. Otherwise, progressives should just give up the ghost and walk docilely into the veal pen, asking Rahm & co. for their talking pts.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    And I’d add that throwing up our hands, saying that a progressive democratic party (for whatever reasons) is unlikely, is a ploy that might be used to validate a version of democracy that demands citizen input only on election days. During the intervening years, not so much. IOW, if this is the best we can expect, it seems to free us up to do a lot of other fascinating stuff, like commenting on blogs.

  • maverick2k9

    How low can journalistic standards get?
    .
    But still, I didn’t expect MS to fire a gun from someone else’s shoulder.
    .
    What next? Highlight comments about people praising your hero McCain? This one, I fully expect to happen in the coming days.
    .

    Read the whole comment here. What do you think?

    Well.. MS, You first. What do YOU think? I don’t think you can hide behind someone else’s opinion.

  • shepherdwong

    “…you may be right that it’ll never happen but the battle is worth fighting regardless. Otherwise, progressives should just give up the ghost and walk docilely into the veal pen, asking Rahm & co. for their talking pts.”
    .
    There’s a reason liberal opinion was embargoed from nearly all corporate network and cable and most print journalism as well. And progressive inroads have been made since the invention of the intertubes for the same reason. People have to actually hear what liberals have to say to be convinced of anything and right now everything they think they know about liberalism they’ve heard from conservatives and centrists – who just happen to hate liberals. Fixing the infotainment industry is the first battle we need to win.

  • rose83

    Ivy and jcapan,
    .
    I don’t see how it’s possible to have a healthy political discourse without rational people disagreeing and supporting their arguments with empirical evidence. And the media does not accommodate that kind of discourse. (I agree with Ivy about the media’s addiction to framing everything in terms of what people say: they don’t talk about financial reform; they talk about what Mitch McConnell says about financial reform.) So from what I can see there are only two options for promoting a healthy political discourse: bypassing the MSM and/or a viable GOP that is grounded in the reality-based community.
    .
    Unfortunately, they both sound unrealistic, but at least technological trends could help replace – rather than simply continue to marginalize – the MSM.
    .
    As for whether I expected more from Obama, I absolutely think it was reasonable to expect better message control. As a Hillary supporter, I heard so many arguments about why his well-run campaign showed that he would be a better President. I don’t know if it was switching from Plouffe to Emanuel, but something went wrong in the transition. Plus DADT. I expected more there.

  • earljr1

    What a pitiful whine coming from maverick. A journalist steps up to the plate and delivers factual information and maverick can hardly stand it. Obama is an enigma….no one knows where he stands on ANY given day. His rhetoric, though impressively delivered, is empty, non binding and full of bluster. He epitomizes everything wrong with a professional politician and simply cannot be trusted. The Tea Party has it right, it is time to take our country back from these vagabonds. We need a government who will be responsive to the WILL of the people and that characterization certainly DOES NOT fit this administration.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Firstly, I intended to say “could have been a seminal spokesperson…” in my earlier comment.
    .
    “There are only two options for promoting a healthy political discourse: bypassing the MSM and/or a viable GOP that is grounded in the reality-based community”
    .
    I dunno Rose. I guess it depends on whether you think today’s democratic party vs. say Bush the 1st’s GOP would be make for “healthy” political discourse. As opposed to the party that just put together than Guy Fawkes’ homage.
    .
    Cuz at the ripe old age of 40, I can recall vividly the Sunday morning shows before the GOP went batshit crazy. Limited to two status-quo parrots, mediated by corporate, intrepid reporter du jour. At the end of the hour your head was spinning in the wake of so much b-s.
    .
    An alternate media that holds all politicians accountable, as Shep also brings up below, yes, this would be wonderful. As would an electorate that’s far better informed (by said media, their schools etc). But I still maintain that a far more healthier discourse could be had right this instant if the dems weren’t a bunch of f’ing lawyers most concerned about reelection and protecting their share of the (necessary) corporate financing of their campaigns. I simply can’t chalk up all the blame to those other groups.
    .
    I know eggs and chickens abound in this sense of despair but …

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Firstly, I intended to say “could have been a seminal spokesperson…” in my earlier comment.
    .
    “There are only two options for promoting a healthy political discourse: bypassing the MSM and/or a viable GOP that is grounded in the reality-based community”
    .
    I dunno Rose. I guess it depends on whether you think today’s democratic party vs. say Bush the 1st’s GOP would be make for “healthy” political discourse. As opposed to the party that just put together than Guy Fawkes’ homage.
    .
    Cuz at the ripe old age of 40, I can recall vividly the Sunday morning shows before the GOP went batsh!t crazy. Limited to two status-quo parrots, mediated by corporate, intrepid reporter du jour. At the end of the hour your head was spinning in the wake of so much b-s.
    .
    An alternate media that holds all politicians accountable, as Shep also brings up below, yes, this would be wonderful. As would an electorate that’s far better informed (by said media, their schools etc). But I still maintain that a far more healthier discourse could be had right this instant if the dems weren’t a bunch of f’ing lawyers most concerned about reelection and protecting their share of the (necessary) corporate financing of their campaigns. I simply can’t chalk up all the blame to those other groups.
    .
    I know, it’s difficult to separate hens from their eggs …

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “Fixing the infotainment industry is the first battle we need to win.”
    .
    Well, the inoperable cancer about to strike down that industry may mestasize and kill off the whole experiment in democracy, if you ask me. In any event, fixing it IMHO ain’t possible. Killing it with some serious chemo…
    .
    Where I am not nearly as hopeful is in seeing an evolving bottom-up form of media leading us any closer to the promised land. Perhaps it’ll shift it further from us. Such disparate strands of reality & facts, all ripe for the picking by the majority. Why pick the objective set when they fail to validate our opinions or lifestyles as effectively.
    .
    Since I’m on a Coetzee kick of late, what he has to say about the university here seems relevant:
    .
    “It was always a bit of a lie that universities were self-governing institutions. Nevertheless, what universities suffered during the 1980s and 1990s was pretty shameful, as under threat of having their funding cut they allowed themselves to be turned into business enterprises, in which professors who had previously carried on their enquiries in sovereign freedom were transformed into harried employees required to fulfil quotas under the scrutiny of professional managers. Whether the old powers of the professoriat will ever be restored is much to be doubted.
    .
    In the days when Poland was under the Communist rule, there were dissidents who conducted night classes in their homes, running seminars on writers and philosophers excluded from the official canon (for example, Plato). No money changed hands, though there may have been other forms of payment. If the spirit of the university is to survive, something along those lines may have to come into being in countries where tertiary education has been wholly subordinated to business principles. In other words, the real university may have to move into people’s homes and grant degrees for which the sole backing will be the names of the scholars who sign the certificates.”
    .
    -J.M. Coetzee, Diary of a Bad Year
    .
    I think that 2nd paragraph might just reflect the reporting of reality in today’s America. We’re internal dissidents.

  • shepherdwong

    Unbridled corporatism ultimately consumes everything.

  • maverick2k9

    What a pitiful whine coming from maverick. A journalist steps up to the plate and delivers factual information and maverick can hardly stand it.

    Wow.. Where did I say that I disagree with square1′s evaluation of Obama administration?
    .
    BTW, it was square1 who stepped up the plate and provided what he thinks is factual information. MS was merely relaying that information, while thinking he could dodge the bullet (i.e. criticism) by neither agreeing or disagreeing with what square1 had to say.
    .

  • rose83

    True, but I think there are degrees of health. And I’m not so sure about the GOP of Bush Sr. being significantly better. Less crazy, undoubtedly. But also if anything more entrenched in racism and sexism. (I barely remember Bush Sr., and have no memories of Reagan, so all I know is what I’ve read.)
    .
    I think sometimes the horror and absurdity of the modern GOP lead us to mistake calmness for rationality. And clearly on foreign policy, the GOP has become substantively crazier. But it has been in love with Reagan for the past 30 years, so I’m sceptical about the existence of some golden age of rationality in the GOP!
    .
    As to the Democratic party’s blame, I agree of course. But where I agree with Ivy is that I believe even a strong, progressive, and persuasive Democratic party would not be enough to make American political discourse healthy. I hate to be so formal – academia is poisoning my writing style! – but I believe that a progressive Democratic party is a necessary but insufficient condition for a healthy political discourse.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “I hate to be so formal – academia is poisoning my writing style! – but I believe that a progressive Democratic party is a necessary but insufficient condition for a healthy political discourse.”
    .
    As someone who left academia behind 12 years ago, you could have worst problems, Rose. Obviously, the 5 years spent at the community college level don’t count. The ivory tower has many faults, closed discourse streams and too often being out of touch with the lives they’re puportedly so knowledgeable about, but from the outside looking in, across the distance of time, it’s about the closest to utopia you’re going to get in the US. Shorter me–relish every minute of it and if you can make it a perm. career.
    .
    BTW, did you see the Coetzee quote downthread about the university? That’s probably the view I’d have come to had I never left. And when I left in the late 90s that was about the tone I had. Couldn’t wait to get back to the real world.
    .
    Anyway, as for the rest. My pt. wasn’t that the GOP was wonderful back in the day. But I daresay by today’s standards they would be considered “a viable [party...] grounded in the reality-based community.”
    .
    I agree with this: “But where I agree with Ivy is that I believe even a strong, progressive, and persuasive Democratic party would not be enough to make American political discourse healthy.”
    .
    But it’s the only part of the equation people like us have some control over IMO.
    .
    Alas, I have to go to work. Nice chatting with you.

  • apr2563

    The Republicans have been using the same scare tactics for generations. They just have a bigger megaphone. After all, they control talk radio and have a whole news network at their disposal.
    .
    It took William F Buckley to drive out the Birchers from the Conservative movement. Now they can not even stand up to Limbaugh. And, the Birchers are back.
    .
    During the McCarthy reign of terror most of the media was weak kneed also. Edward R. Murrow and Joseph Welch brought him to him down. 2 voices with some resonance.
    .
    Nixon and his xenophobic stooge Pat Buchanan were experts at demonizing the left. It took Nixon’s resignation to bring that vile bunch under control.
    .
    Then, of course, we had Lee Atwater and Papa Bush followed by Karl Rove and the shrub.
    .
    The Reps don’t know how to govern and want to make it as hard as possible for a Dem. Keep that in mind.

  • theotherjimmyolson

    Thanks, all. this thread has been very useful to me.

  • apr2563

    jcpan: Believe me when I tell you I worked my heart out for George McGovern. We won our county but were overwhelmed accross the US. There was less than whole hearted support from the national party. The media, mind you with Nixon as the opponent, couldn’t wrap their collective heads around an anti-war candidate.
    .
    Before that campaign and since, I have supported Progressive candidates never giving up the hope.
    .
    Realisticly I have to support the lesser of 2 evils at some point. In the end we had McCain or Obama. What was the alternative?

blog comments powered by Disqus