Obama's betrayal of liberalism

[dust1n]

Me too, Dustin! I'm looking forward to it. For one thing, I sure hope they repeal the popular election of senators. I want them to be just like in the old days.

I want to work in a coal slave camp when I grow up! :yes:

 

[McBell]

What it comes down to for both major parties is screwing over the American people for the sake of multinational corporations. There are vanishingly few American politicians who can credibly be described as either liberals or conservatives. The vast majority are just whores.

May I have permission to use this quote?

 

[Sunstone]

I want to work in a coal slave camp when I grow up! :yes:

And so you shall, you cheeky boy! For the plush job you once would have known is gone to China! Count your blessings to have a future in coal!

 

[McBell]

[youtube]qsoa1wHJT2E[/youtube]
YouTube - Lee Dorsey - Working In The Coal Mine (1967)

 

[Smoke]

May I have permission to use this quote?

I encourage it.

 

[Sunstone]

May I have permission to use this quote?

It's a damn good quote. I myself have already laid plans for its theft.

 

[Levite]

Can you remember where you read that analysis by Alterman? I'd like to read it too.

I could well be misremembering, but I think it was in a book called What Liberal Media?

 

[Troublemane]

To me, the fascinating thing is something Alceste pointed out. First, Obama ran as a center-left candidate. Once elected, he performed a bait and switch and became Bush III. But look at this: When he ran to the left of the center, he attracted huge crowds and won the popular vote by a decisive margin. But when he shifted to the right, his popularity began dropping. I think that tells us the American electorate will massively support a center-left candidate under the right circumstances.

He ran on the promise of "hope" and "change" not as a leftist. He ran with the promise to make a transparent democracy which would involve the will of the people and to run the white house in a manner contrary to the 'politics as usual' way it has been. Thats why he was so popular.....AND because the alternative was this guy:

 

[Sunstone]

He ran on the promise of "hope" and "change" not as a leftist. He ran with the promise to make a transparent democracy which would involve the will of the people and to run the white house in a manner contrary to the 'politics as usual' way it has been. Thats why he was so popular.....

It seems easy to forget today that Obama also ran on such left wing (but popular) causes as the Public Option, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, end torture, restore civil liberties such as habeas corpus, and so forth -- all of which leftist causes he has betrayed.

 

[Smoke]

Most major policies in this country start small. Social Security started small, for instance. You usually don't just get a major change all in one bill. You get a step in the right direction, and then that gets added onto as time goes by. The same is true of Medicare.

I don't recall that either of those subsidized insurance companies and forced Americans to buy their crappy policies, though.

Obama's healthcare reform benefits a few people. But it didn't fix the system; if anything, it propped up what we already had.

 

[Magic Man]

Such as?

Such as the healthcare bill. Yes, it's not ideal, and it leaves a lot to be desired, but he at least got something done; it's a start, and it does provide some much needed changes. Also, pulled out at least most of our troops from Iraq, and the Stimulus bill did some good things, creating jobs and giving tax cuts.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't recall that either of those subsidized insurance companies and forced Americans to buy their crappy policies, though.

No, but then that misses the point. The point I was making is that we're not going to get sweeping change all at once. For things to change, it's going to have to happens slowly in small increments.

Obama's healthcare reform benefits a few people. But it didn't fix the system; if anything, it propped up what we already had.

Yes, more needs to be done, but it set the stage for more to be done, and in the meantime it gave some much needed changes to the existing system.

 

[Smoke]

No, but then that misses the point. The point I was making is that we're not going to get sweeping change all at once. For things to change, it's going to have to happens slowly in small increments.

Why? There's no particular reason why change must happen slowly in small increments, except that the Democratic Party lacks the political will to effect change at all. They will not defy the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and do the right thing. They will not make a credible argument to the American people. They will not stand up to pressure from the Republican base -- people who will never vote for them anyway -- and they betray and mock their own base.

It's not Republican intransigence that keeps change from happening, and it's not the ignorance of the American voter. It's the deliberate policy of the Democratic Party. I repeat: It is the deliberate policy of the Democratic Party to prevent any necessary change except slowly and piecemeal, over a period of years.

Look at Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Americans who believe that lesbian and gay members of our armed forces should be allowed to serve openly are not a tiny, extremist faction. They are the majority of the population. They are even the majority of Republicans. This is one issue in which there was absolutely no political risk. But Obama failed to accomplish this reform; in fact, he deliberately obstructed it, because he didn't want it accomplished in any kind of a timely manner. It could still be accomplished in the lame duck session. There is still a Democratic majority in the Senate. If McCain wants to filibuster, Reid has the power to make him man up and really filibuster. Reid doesn't have to roll over and surrender to John McCain; he could, if he wanted to, turn that filibuster into a real, old-fashioned endurance contest, which McCain would lose. Harry Reid and Barack Obama could be making a case to the American people for repeal -- not that the case even needs to be made, the American people get it, but they could easily make it political poison for Republicans to support DADT. They could still easily effect this change. They won't. And in 2012 they'll be telling LGBT voters -- most of whom aren't directly affected by DADT anyway -- that they'd better vote Democratic, or change will never come. They are the most contemptible of liars.

Or take healthcare reform. If Obama believed in a single-payer system, as he claimed, or even if he intended to deliver a "robust public option," as he promised, he could have taken a leadership role in the issue. He could have been making his case to Congress and the American people. He could have been -- and should have been -- making speeches all over the country on the subject. Americans want healthcare reform. The American people know that the system is broken, and Obama had a golden opportunity to rally the American people to his side and fix it. He declined. What he did instead was to sit in the Oval Office with his thumb up his *** and demand that the Democratic Congress do all the lifting. And then, when that Congress delivered a deeply flawed and unsatisfactory law that quite rightly ****** off far more Americans than it pleased, he insisted that it was the best that could be accomplished while there are Republicans in the land. It's a lie. But that's what the Democrats do. And now he wants you to give him credit for having accomplished something remarkable.

This idea that change must happen slowly in small increments has become the Democratic mantra for two reasons:

(1) It absolves Democratic officials from any responsibility to accomplish any effective change.

(2) It supports their carrot-and-stick approach to political campaigning. "Just keep voting for us, and by God, in thirty or forty years we're really going to get something done! Besides, you have to vote for us. You don't want those mean old Republicans in power, do you? Sucka!"

The Democrats absolutely depend on you to believe this lie about incrementalism, because that belief is the only conceivable reason anybody would support their party.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obama's intentional failure on DADT mystifies me the most.
His stormtrooping with the TSA seems more that he's asleep at the wheel.
But I'm just guessing here.

 

[Magic Man]

Why? There's no particular reason why change must happen slowly in small increments, except that the Democratic Party lacks the political will to effect change at all.

I agree that change shouldn't happen in small increments. In theory it doesn't have to, but realistically that's how change happens. That's always been the way with large societies like ours, and most likely it always will be. Most people don't want to rock the boat.

They will not defy the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and do the right thing. They will not make a credible argument to the American people. They will not stand up to pressure from the Republican base -- people who will never vote for them anyway -- and they betray and mock their own base.

Fully agreed.

It's not Republican intransigence that keeps change from happening, and it's not the ignorance of the American voter. It's the deliberate policy of the Democratic Party. I repeat: It is the deliberate policy of the Democratic Party to prevent any necessary change except slowly and piecemeal, over a period of years.

Yes, of course, because they don't want to alienate people. They want to appeal to as many people as they possibly can.

Look at Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Americans who believe that lesbian and gay members of our armed forces should be allowed to serve openly are not a tiny, extremist faction. They are the majority of the population. They are even the majority of Republicans. This is one issue in which there was absolutely no political risk. But Obama failed to accomplish this reform; in fact, he deliberately obstructed it, because he didn't want it accomplished in any kind of a timely manner. It could still be accomplished in the lame duck session. There is still a Democratic majority in the Senate.

I don't disagree. DADT is a big failure on his part.

Or take healthcare reform. If Obama believed in a single-payer system, as he claimed, or even if he intended to deliver a "robust public option," as he promised, he could have taken a leadership role in the issue. He could have been making his case to Congress and the American people. He could have been -- and should have been -- making speeches all over the country on the subject. Americans want healthcare reform.

I'm not going to disagree on most of this. All I'm saying is that all in all, he's done a decent job as president. Not great, but not that bad either. I also don't think he's betrayed liberalism, only because I don't think he ever fully supported it in the first place.

This idea that change must happen slowly in small increments has become the Democratic mantra for two reasons:

(1) It absolves Democratic officials from any responsibility to accomplish any effective change.

(2) It supports their carrot-and-stick approach to political campaigning. "Just keep voting for us, and by God, in thirty or forty years we're really going to get something done! Besides, you have to vote for us. You don't want those mean old Republicans in power, do you? Sucka!"

The Democrats absolutely depend on you to believe this lie about incrementalism, because that belief is the only conceivable reason anybody would support their party.

See, I'm not saying it has to happen that way, ideally, just that realistically that's the only way things happen in this world. You rarely have revolutions that change things dramatically all at once. I would love for the president to end DADT and DOMA and make same-sex marriage federally legal tomorrow, along with closing Guantanamo, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan fully and creating a single-payer healthcare system. It's just not going to happen like that, no matter who the president is. That's all. I'm just judging Obama from the standpoint that those things simply aren't going to happen overnight. Should he still have made more progress towards them? Yes. But the fact that all of that isn't done in the past 2 years isn't a betrayal of liberalism.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Lets take a break from mball's Presidential apologetics for just a moment and consider this possibility.

I believe Obama was sincere when he ran for office.

I believe once he obtained his security clearance and was debriefed before taking the office as President of the United States, some issues became crystal clear to him. For the safety of the world, maintaining a presence in the region was paramount considering the Iran situation.

Gitmo must have made more sense too for some reason.

Before you dismiss my theory, what better explanation would change the course of a dedicated politician who truly believed in his electoral platform?

There was a good reason why GWB did what he did and why Obama changed very little in this regard. We are not privy to these reason at the moment, but I believe history will shed a different light on this matter.

 

[Storm]

Honestly, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. (Shocking, I know. )

A big part of Obama's campaign platform was that he would be bipartisan. He's certainly tried to do that.

 

[Smoke]

See, I'm not saying it has to happen that way, ideally, just that realistically that's the only way things happen in this world. You rarely have revolutions that change things dramatically all at once. I would love for the president to end DADT and DOMA and make same-sex marriage federally legal tomorrow, along with closing Guantanamo, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan fully and creating a single-payer healthcare system. It's just not going to happen like that, no matter who the president is.

You're absolutely right about that. But it's not because it's not perfectly possible for it to happen. It's because the Democrats don't want it to happen.

 

[Smoke]

Before you dismiss my theory, what better explanation would change the course of a dedicated politician who truly believed in his electoral platform?

Your theory assumes a dedicated politician who truly believed in his electoral platform. His handling of DADT demonstrates conclusively that Obama is not such a politician.

There was a good reason why GWB did what he did and why Obama changed very little in this regard. We are not privy to these reason at the moment, but I believe history will shed a different light on this matter.

I'm not able to take, nor do I think anybody should take, such a faith-based approach to politics. I don't doubt that they have their reasons; I am almost certain that their reasons have nothing to do with the good of the country.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not sure just what kind of person would be pleased with any of our last few presidents.

What it comes down to for both major parties is screwing over the American people for the sake of multinational corporations. There are vanishingly few American politicians who can credibly be described as either liberals or conservatives. The vast majority are just whores.

The way I view it is....It's always been this way. I'm not saying it's right and it should be ignored. As technology advances and information is more widely distributed and readily available people tend to take more notices and voice their opinion. When some couldn't read or write and had no idea what was going on and being spoon fed tidbits of information or misinformation it's easier for a government to keep the people in the dark....but as we become more and more aware we take notice quicker. Don't get me wrong. I actually agree with you 100%........:yes: