Obama's betrayal of liberalism

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, I think this is a bit harsh. I agree that it would be nice if Obama was more liberal, but he's gotten some good stuff done. Yes, we should be out of Afghanistan. Yes, the healthcare bill could have been a lot better. Yes, we could have much more progress on DADT. However, you have to remember what he's up against in this country. As was noted, a centrist like him is decried as a flaming liberal. 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 think Obama's getting a really horrible rap, and seeing so many people buy into it is disappointing to me. Obviously, he's not the greatest president we've ever had, or probably not even in the last 30-40 years, but he's done some good things.

I agree. I also understand that he isn't the one making all the decisions per se. Nothing gets passed unless voted on. A lot of times what you want to pass wounds up with a lot of crap attached to it by other parties.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he's the best thing since sliced bread, just that he's not on a level with GW.

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

Yes, that explanation makes sense as long as you assume he was completely genuine and honest in his campaign promises. I tend towards the idea that he was the usual politician and just said what seemed like the best thing to get elected.

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 don't think so. I think W did what he did for crappy reasons, and there is no good reason for Obama to continue some of the things he's continuing.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Yes, it's possible. I don't think it's that the democrats don't want it to happen. I think it's that they don't think it's a good idea if they want to get re-elected. And I think they're wrong on that. I think they could make sweeping changes and still get re-elected. I see it sort of as the movie industry. You have these trends. They finally make a good Spider-Man movie, and it does really well. So, then you have 100 more of them. Lord of the Rings does really well, so then everyone wants to make a fantasy movie like it because it worked the first time. Democrats are just like the studios. They're too afraid to just do something that seems like it should work, and they're too ready to just keep doing things the way they've been done up until now.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

That may very well be true, but it is my understanding that promises of finding better ways were a big part of his campaign. So far he might as well be GWB himself in this regard. That is a big disappointment, and one that hints heavily of major trouble ahead.

Gitmo must have made more sense too for some reason.

It is very hard to think of any, however. And it is too much faith for any politician to ask, anyway.

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

Hopefully he is simply being lied to with a lot of determination. Or, perhaps most likely, he wildly underestimated the actual reach and political influence of the religious right and the plain dumb right in the USA (I know that I did). Either way it is real depressing.

Of course, the very existence of this situation casts legitimate doubt on whether Obama was a dedicated and sincere politician in the first place. Then again, I don't see evidence that he is being pressured too strongly into behaving as he promised to, so I must wonder what the USA people actually want from their President.

There was a good reason why GWB did what he did

I sure can't think of any.

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.

Sorry, but that is way too much faith for an elected representative to ask of anyone. Back in the day it were only commie leaders and other dictators who made such appeals.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hopefully he is simply being lied to with a lot of determination. Or, perhaps most likely, he wildly underestimated the actual reach and political influence of the religious right and the plain dumb right in the USA....

Obama's hebetude cannot be so glibly blamed on that other party.
I mean really, just when is this guy going to be responsible for something...anything?
Aren't his supporters getting tired of making excuses for his miserable performance?

 

[Smoke]

Yes, it's possible. I don't think it's that the democrats don't want it to happen. I think it's that they don't think it's a good idea if they want to get re-elected. And I think they're wrong on that. I think they could make sweeping changes and still get re-elected. I see it sort of as the movie industry. You have these trends. They finally make a good Spider-Man movie, and it does really well. So, then you have 100 more of them. Lord of the Rings does really well, so then everyone wants to make a fantasy movie like it because it worked the first time. Democrats are just like the studios. They're too afraid to just do something that seems like it should work, and they're too ready to just keep doing things the way they've been done up until now.

That's one possible explanation of why the Democrats obstruct progress. I don't know whether it's as convincing as others -- the fact that the Democrats for the most part suck at the same corporate teats as the Republicans, for instance -- but ultimately their motives for obstructing progress are not as significant to me as the fact that obstructing progress is their unwavering policy.

 

[Magic Man]

That's one possible explanation of why the Democrats obstruct progress. I don't know whether it's as convincing as others -- the fact that the Democrats for the most part suck at the same corporate teats as the Republicans, for instance -- but ultimately their motives for obstructing progress are not as significant to me as the fact that obstructing progress is their unwavering policy.

Oh, of course their dedication to our corporate overlords is a key problem. I wasn't trying to reject that.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That may very well be true, but it is my understanding that promises of finding better ways were a big part of his campaign. So far he might as well be GWB himself in this regard. That is a big disappointment, and one that hints heavily of major trouble ahead.

Trouble for some of us or all of us?

Hopefully he is simply being lied to with a lot of determination. Or, perhaps most likely, he wildly underestimated the actual reach and political influence of the religious right and the plain dumb right in the USA (I know that I did). Either way it is real depressing.

That is democracy in action Luis. The people have spoken. There are only about 20% of Americans who agree with your ideals. Surely you aren't implying that just because the majority of Americans are religious or just plain dumb they should not be represented are you?

Actually, I could get on board with this. Too many Americans are not qualified to vote IMHO.

Of course, the very existence of this situation casts legitimate doubt on whether Obama was a dedicated and sincere politician in the first place. Then again, I don't see evidence that he is being pressured too strongly into behaving as he promised to, so I must wonder what the USA people actually want from their President.

You should not have to pressure a President to keep his promises. If he has any character at all, he should stick by his promises or at least make an effort on his own.

Transparency in government for example is nothing but hot air and lip service.

 

[LuisDantas]

Trouble for some of us or all of us?

All of us, of course.

That is democracy in action Luis. The people have spoken. There are only about 20% of Americans who agree with your ideals. Surely you aren't implying that just because the majority of Americans are religious or just plain dumb they should not be represented are you?

Of course not. But neither do I believe that the majority is automatically correct, or even sane. Majority vote is perhaps the least significant part of Democracy as I conceive it.

Also, it is not religiosity that I object to. It is immature voting. I mean, really, Sarah Palin being a mover and shaker?

Actually, I could get on board with this. Too many Americans are not qualified to vote IMHO.

Other than not being humble myself, I agree.

You should not have to pressure a President to keep his promises. If he has any character at all, he should stick by his promises or at least make an effort on his own.

Fair enough. Still, surely it is legitimate to remind him of his own promises and how much he may have fallen short on them.

Transparency in government for example is nothing but hot air and lip service.

Then there is not much point in electing representatives in the first place, now is there?

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, it is not religiosity that I object to. It is immature voting. I mean, really, Sarah Palin being a mover and shaker?

This smacks of mere partisan bigotry. When Obama, Biden & McCain were completely lacking in any business or managerial experience whatsoever,
it is shallow to simply dismiss Palin, who at least has run a sizable organization in her career. As we now see, Obama was also completely unprepared
for a job as demanding as prez. This was knowable beforehand, but voters are simply charmed by the candidate with the biggest promises & gift of
gab, albeit teleprompter & speech writer dependent. And what of foot-in-mouth Biden? Do you honestly believe that he is more presidential than Palin?
America is just a junior high school writ large.

 

[Magic Man]

This smacks of mere partisan bigotry. When Obama, Biden & McCain were completely lacking in any business or managerial experience whatsoever,
it is shallow to simply dismiss Palin, who at least has run a sizable organization in her career. As we now see, Obama was also completely unprepared for a job as demanding as prez. This was knowable beforehand, but voters are simply charmed by the candidate with the biggest promises & gift of gab, albeit teleprompter & speech writer dependent. And what of foot-in-mouth Biden? Do you honestly believe that he is more presidential than Palin? America is just a junior high school writ large.

You know what really smacks of partisan bigotry? Pretending that Obama is no better than Palin. It takes quite a bit of ignorance to make a statement like that.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know what really smacks of partisan bigotry? Pretending that Obama is no better than Palin. It takes quite a bit of ignorance to make a statement like that.

No, it takes objectivity to see it. As a lefty apologist, conditioned to accept Obama, you overlook the fact that he has never been
in charge of anything in his entire life. I find Palin unacceptable, but at least she meets minimal standards of work experience.
Let Obama work his way up the management ladder, run a company which meets a payroll, become a mayor or governor....then
we'll talk.

Btw, I note that you lack any cogent argument.....all you have is ad hominem attacks. Time to face facts: Obama is an empty suit
who took the Peter Principle to ridiculous extreme. No matter how the left tries to excuse his failures, or build him up with jokes
like a Nobel Prize for encouragement instead of actual accomplishment, his incompetence shines thru.

 

[Revoltingest]

Boy....not many people leaping up to defend the Annointed One these days.

 

[Storm]

Boy....not many people leaping up to defend the Annointed One these days.

Maybe because we're sick of trying to get it through thick skulls that he was never "the Annointed One."

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe because we're sick of trying to get it through thick skulls that he was never "the Annointed One."

Tis a humorous reference to his being shepherded thru his career, with loving treatment by friendly press.
As for the "thick skulls" remark.....there's a boatload of irony.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it takes objectivity to see it.

Sure, if by "objectivity" you mean "crazy bias".

As a lefty apologist, conditioned to accept Obama, you overlook the fact that he has never been in charge of anything in his entire life.

Well, considering I'm neither a lefty apologist nor conditioned to accept Obama, I'm guessing you must be talking to someone else, especially considering the fact that that's not something I've overlooked.

I find Palin unacceptable, but at least she meets minimal standards of work experience.

So, in your opinion running a company is relevant work experience for running the country? Why?

Let Obama work his way up the management ladder, run a company which meets a payroll, become a mayor or governor....then we'll talk.

Why? What would that do? Just because you run a company doesn't mean you can run the country, and you don't need to run a company to run the country. I'd like my president to have been poor and atheist at some point in their life, too, but that's not a reasonable prerequisite for running the country.

Btw, I note that you lack any cogent argument.....all you have is ad hominem attacks.

I'm sorry. I thought it was pretty clear that there's a huge difference between Obama and Palin. It's one thing to argue for a McCain or something, but to claim that Obama is just as bad as Palin is just plain ridiculous. What is there to argue? She's an idiot; he's not. You may disagree with his policies and ideals, but he's at least not an idiot.

I also didn't realize that your sole criterion for running the country is whether or not you've run a company before. That's quite a weird set of criteria there.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mball: Nothing more than ad hominems & the argument of obviousness?
Time to put down the Kool-Aid & step away from the glass.
Geeze...there's no reason for you lefties to get so angry about a mere difference of opinion about whether Palin is worse than Obama.

 

[Smoke]

Palin is obviously a contemptible fool, and Obama is obviously a contemptible liar. We might as well argue about the relative merits of meningitis and smallpox.

 

[Sunstone]

Palin is obviously a contemptible fool, and Obama is obviously a contemptible liar. We might as well argue about the relative merits of meningitis and smallpox.

About the only difference I can see between those two diseases is that, while Obama is all but certain to leave the country a seriously weakened invalid, Palin would most likely have killed it. Of course, the difference isn't much -- especially considering Obama might leave us so sick we wish he'd been Palin and killed us.

 

[Magic Man]

Mball: Nothing more than ad hominems & the argument of obviousness?
Time to put down the Kool-Aid & step away from the glass.
Geeze...there's no reason for you lefties to get so angry about a mere difference of opinion about whether Palin is worse than Obama.

I'm sorry. I wasn't the one who started this by calling what Luis said "partisan bigotry". And now you're going to try to deflect by calling me out on ad hominems? Wow.

Look, it's really simple. Obama might not have done the best job in the two years he's been in his position, but he's not a moron. If you really think he's as bad or worse than Palin, there's something wrong with you. That's not due to Kool-Aid, and I'm not getting angry. It's due to rational thinking and your nonsense gets tiring sometimes.

And again, there's no argument to be had. Palin is a moron, and Obama isn't. That is painfully obvious to anyone paying attention.