Is this as good as it gets from Obama

[DarrinS]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/is-this-as-good-as-it-get_b_343144.html





Yeah, I'm disappointed, too. I thought we were sweeping into power; I thought change meant Change. I believed all that talk about another First 100 Days, a la Roosevelt. Well, that didn't happen. The question is, is this as good as it gets from Obama, or is he pacing himself? He may have a four and eight-year plan and they included a first year of just gettin' to know you and not gonna rock the boat too much. Well, Mission Accomplished on that.

It's still too early to lose hope in a guy as smart and talented as Barack Obama. But I would counsel him to remember: If you're going undercover to infiltrate how Washington works, so you become one of them for a while, to gain their confidence, well, it can be just like all those movies where a cop goes deep, deep, DEEP undercover with drug people and -- fuck, he's a drug addict, too!

Logic tells me that really smart guys like Obama and Rahm Emanuel know better what they're doing than I do. :rolleyes They certainly know things I don't know. I think we have the same general goals and beliefs. And this is what they do for a living -- I wouldn't even try it. But I will never stop having this doubt: that maybe if they had really charged in there riding the forceful energy of the historic election, and acted like it was an emergency moment -- which it was -- they could have gotten some big victories right up front, and there really could have been an historic "first hundred days" for this administration and the country. Instead of what happened, which is the Obamas got a dog. :lmao It could have worked -- the country had given its endorsement to "...and now for something completely different." There might have been a way to knock the Republicans back on their heels right away, with the argument that "The American people demanded we make these changes, and you are unpatriotic to stand in their way."

We'll never know. Because that moment passed, and now it could follow the pattern of World War I and devolve into boring, static trench warfare where nothing really gamechanging happens while both sides slowly bleed to death.

That said, I do not forget that if the election had gone the other way, we'd right now have a barter economy and be at war with Honduras. :rolleyes

[DarrinS]

Damn, the rabid far-left liberal kooks are pimp-slappin the POTUS today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-is-timid-because-pr_b_345029.html





I am having a lot of "oye-vey" moments these days. Oye vey, we're not going to get single payer health care, the only option that would save money and expand coverage. Oye vey, we're not going to get a revival of Glass-Steagal, the common sense firewall that Congress established in 1933 to prevent banks from engaging in risky investment. Oye-vey, we're not going to get meaningful climate change legislation, as cap-and-trade will include billions in windfalls for polluters. Oye-vey, we're not going get real labor law reform, as the card-check provision of the Employee Free Choice Act has been tossed overboard. Oye-vey we'll never get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Oye.

The cumulative weight of these concerns frustrates me deeply. I suspect that the Democrats may be at the height of their power right now, and every socialist bone in my body wants to blame President Obama and his political advisers. As Arianna Huffington asks in her post, if reform is in Obama's DNA, then why has he surrounded himself with centrists? Why didn't he start with a bang, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt? If George W. Bush could govern from the extreme right, why can't Obama govern from the left?

As tempting as it may be to blame the White House, the administration's centrism is not the problem. Progressives must not give the White House a free pass. But the obstacles standing in the way of change have nothing to do with the President.

To begin, the Democratic and Republican coalitions differ in a critical way. The Republican coalition is made up of groups who can get what they want without compromising with one another. George Bush could pursue pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-tax, and pro-war policies without forcing activists from any of these camps to compromise with each other. This is not to say that the Republican camp is free of contradiction. That said, an extreme right-wing administration can keep Grover Norquist, Richard Perle and Pat Robertson happy at the same time.

The Democratic coalition, by contrast, includes factions that disagree with each other about the optimal size and scope of the government. DLC-centrists favor a relatively smaller state while progressives tend to favor a larger state. On almost every major issue, one side has to give. Hence the liberal wing of the party which insists on a public option and yearns for single payer inevitably butts heads with centrists like Max Baucus. It's pretty hard to keep both camps happy at the same time.

Another obstacle is of course the structure of the Senate, which provides disproportionate influence to residents of small, mostly conservative states and which allows coalitions of just forty Senators to block almost anything. It is worth remembering that Senate filibusters blocked federal anti-lynching legislation that the House of Representatives passed throughout much of the 1920s, '30s and '40s.

Finally, despite the current partisan balance in Congress and the public, the American people are, for the most part, more conservative than liberal. (Duh) Even after eight years of George Bush, an economic collapse, and the disastrous McCain campaign, Barack Obama prevailed by a margin of only 7 percentage points: 53% to 46%. That is an electoral landslide. But it is sobering to realize that if just 4 out of 100 people had shifted allegiances, McCain would have won the popular vote. Roughly 40% of the public self-identifies as conservative, while only about 20% of the public claims to be liberal. (The rest are moderates.)

How much can we expect from a President who presides over a relatively conservative public, whose party is fractured by a fundamental contradiction, and whose legislative agenda is held hostage by Ben Nelson? Probably not much. That said, there are at least two steps - one short-term and one long-term -- that Democrats and progressives can take to pursue real change.

First, the short-term: Senate Democrats should get rid of the filibuster. After eight years of George Bush, it is scary to contemplate that proposal. When Republicans get back into power, they would do a lot of damage if they were unchecked by the filibuster. So why take the risk?

Democrats need to have confidence that the public will reward them for passing policies that improve the general welfare, and will hold Republicans accountable for damage. The 2008 election can be understood in these terms. The public allowed itself to be snookered in 2004, but after Katrina, economic collapse and two failed wars, the Republicans were booted out of office.

If threats facing the country were minor, perhaps eliminating the filibuster would make no sense. Given that the seas are rising :rolleyes, that we are killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in wars :rolleyes that do not improve our security, and that we are in desperate need of single payer health care, real public transportation and financial re-regulation, only radical reform will solve our problems. And we will never get radical reform as long as the filibuster lives. The status quo is more risky than the elimination of the filibuster.

Second, the long-term: Progressives need to do a better job of convincing the public of the legitimacy of their ideas. How many progressive groups are working with journalists to help the public understand that high taxes are good? That excessive military strength is dangerous? That gay marriage helps kids? That anti-immigrant sentiment is highly correlated with racism? :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes That we already have a health care system based on rationing? These claims may sound dangerous, but research shows that all of them are true. Yet progressives often seem too scared of their own beliefs to do real consciousness-raising around dangerous ideas.

A colleague and I are writing a book called Selling Liberal Ideas that explains how, over a ten year period, gay rights advocates changed the public's mind about one point, the notion that gay troops undermine military effectiveness. When this work started, Generals who said that it was necessary to fire gay soldiers crushed activists who disputed them. Now, when people say that it is necessary to fire gay troops, they sound loony. By (1) identifying the central un-truth that propped up bad policy; (2) using scholarship to question the plausibility of that un-truth; (3) actively distributing the scholarship to journalists; and (4) repeating these steps again and again over ten years, gay advocates slowly changed the public's mind.

George Lakoff has said that progressives need to be more sophisticated about how we frame ideas. But I don't think he's quite right. The reason that Republicans need to work so hard at framing is that their policies are designed to hurt people, so they rely on frames to conceal what they're doing (e.g. "Clear Skies Initiative"). Since progressive policies are not designed to hurt people, we don't have to be coy about our values.

To the extent that the gays-in-the-military example can be applied to other issues, progressive groups should be more direct, honest and aggressive about what they believe, and should use research as the basis of communications with the public. That's how to change bedrock principles of public opinion. That's how to open up a space to make it safe for politicians to make real change.

[spursncowboys]

groudv8_eTQ
He's just getting started.

[Crookshanks]

That article is the biggest pile of excrement I've seen in a long while. And the fact that he really believes that crap is scary.

[AussieFanKurt]

Christ, post something new Darrin.. how about something not about Obama

[DarrinS]

Christ, post something new Darrin.. how about something not about Obama

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138461

[Winehole23]

That would be the other note on your keyboard. Johnny-two-notes. Add a third and you could be a rock-n-roller.

[TeyshaBlue]

Christ, post something new Darrin.. how about something not about Obama

It's a target-rich environment.:lol

[DarrinS]

That would be the other note on your keyboard. Johnny-two-notes. Add a third and you could be a rock-n-roller.


Well, IMO, Obamacare and the global warmists are the biggest threats to the US economy.

[Winehole23]

Next to our 14 trillion dollar bailout contingency operation and public guarantees for TBTFs? I think not.

Significant, yes, but far from the biggest.

[coyotes_geek]

Well, IMO, Obamacare and the global warmists are the biggest threats to the US economy.

Those two don't even make my top 5. Although I'm 100% against both obamacare & cap n trade.

1. medicare
2. bank/mortgage bailouts
3. federal debt not related to bailouts
4. social security
5. the fed / monetary policy

[Wild Cobra]

Well, IMO, Obamacare and the global warmists are the biggest threats to the US economy.
You forgot trial lawyers.

[Winehole23]

Says bizarro Perry Mason.

[Spursmania]

That article is the biggest pile of excrement I've seen in a long while. And the fact that he really believes that crap is scary.

Very scary.

[Spursmania]

You forgot trial lawyers.


Where's the insurance portability in the Dem bill?
Where's tort reform?

What a surprise! Sebellius used to be President of the Trial Lawyer's Association. And, people wonder why there is no tort reform.:rolleyes

[hope4dopes]

That would be the other note on your keyboard. Johnny-two-notes. Add a third and you could be a rock-n-roller.being an asshole seems to be the only song in your playbook.so no calling the kettle black precious.

[PixelPusher]

Hey! Check out these articles/youtubes about how dangerously leftist Obama is! OMFG he's going to bring about the apocalypse!


Hey! Check out these articles/youtubes about how dissapointed the left is in Obama! LMFAO at Obama, hasn't done jack!

Is this as good as it gets from DarrinS?

[Winehole23]

being an asshole seems to be the only song in your playbook.Pity you don't do conversations. I'd say you're missing out, but you probably wouldn't get it anyway.

[Winehole23]

What can I say? You bring out the best in people, micca. You share that in common with DarrinS, jack, WC and mega-jerks like gtown.

[Ignignokt]

This guy can't stop thinking about me even when i'm gone.

[Winehole23]

You came right back. Were your ears burning? :lol

[DarrinS]

Is this as good as it gets from DarrinS?

Who wrote the original two articles I posed? Hint: They weren't written by Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

[admiralsnackbar]

Who wrote the original two articles I posed? Hint: They weren't written by Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

They may as well have been. They were written by progressives/socialists (ie, the extreme left -- as opposed to Limbaugh/Beck's extreme right) who are unhappy with Obama's centrist tack. That you make more of that to glibly suit your ends is, I'm learning, par for the course.

[DarrinS]

They may as well have been. They were written by progressives/socialists (ie, the extreme left -- as opposed to Limbaugh/Beck's extreme right) who are unhappy with Obama's centrist tack. That you make more of that to glibly suit your ends is, I'm learning, par for the course.

:lmao

[doobs]

Has Bill Maher finally figured out that he's not a libertarian?

[admiralsnackbar]

:lmao

If Obama pisses off extreme right wingers for doing too much and extreme left wingers for doing too little, why have I misused the term "Centrist?"

From the DarrenS handbook on rhetoric:

When all else fails, resort to smugness.

[coyotes_geek]

If Obama pisses off extreme right wingers for doing too much and extreme left wingers for doing too little, why have I misused the term "Centrist?"

That's a pretty broad definition of "centrist". Do you think that Bush was a centrist too?

[ElNono]

My scorecard, based on things I deemed important before the election:

Positives:
- Gitmo: Lots of political prisoners freed.
- Healthcare: He made it a priority to reform a broken system.

Neutral:
- Gitmo: He said it's going to be closed by the beginning of next year. I'll move this entirely to the positives once I see this happening.
- Economy: I don't think he made things worse. I also don't think he made things better either. We were going to be in a hole no matter who won.

Negatives:
- Healthcare: Having Pelosi orchestrate this was bad news. But you can't remove responsibility from Obama. He's got complete control and can't get it done. Furthermore, the proposed legislation is shit, and he is going along with it.
- Iraq: We're still there. Enough said.
- Afghanistan: The actual war we should have fought from the beginning. We're still there, we're backing up a corrupt government, and there's no discernible progress.
- Executive powers: Still insisting and rehashing with the same Gestapo-style bullshit from his predecessor. :td

I'll update the post if I think of anything else, but I think those are the salient points...

[admiralsnackbar]

That's a pretty broad definition of "centrist". Do you think that Bush was a centrist too?
Given the context I provided, I'd say the definition is fine by me, CG.

With respect to Bush, considering he successfully alienated the majority of the electorate to satisfy the whims of a minority, no -- I'd have to say that he fails even the modest requirements I set for a centrist as a moderate.

Obama's hasn't been in office long enough to bear out my estimation of him as an according-to-Hoyle centrist, but I don't find the Keynsian bailout --in theory, mind you... don't get me started on execution -- incompatible with centrism with respect to fiscal responsibility.

And I happen to believe that socialized health care would not only be cheaper for the individual, and in line with a US majority desire, but better for businesses and entrepreneurs. So while socialized healthcare smacks of "pinko," I don't think it's fiscally irresponsible (again -- in theory. Who knows what the final bill will look like) or inconsistent with anything Bill Clinton aka "Mr Centrist" would have done.

[coyotes_geek]

You seem to be disqualifying Bush from being considered a centrist because he wasn't popular. Shouldn't being a centrist and being popular be mutually exclusive things? All the Keynsian bailouts Obama is using now were started by Bush. Lefties had their issues with Bush on Iraq and all the social wedge issues. Righties had their issues with Bush on things like spending and immigration reform. So if there's dislike on both sides, and actions in the middle consistent with being a centrist, shouldn't Bush be considered a centrist? Albeit a highly unpopular one.

[PixelPusher]

Who wrote the original two articles I posed? Hint: They weren't written by Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

Stop pretending you didn't get the point of what I posted.

Your usual MO around here is post right wing agitprop about how Obama is Marxist/Fascist/AntiChrist who will destroy America and whatnot. But you're not really a Birther or a Teabagger - you're just obsessed with Barack Obama, and the steady stream of anti-Obama drivel coming from the rightwing noise machine isn't nearly enough to satisfy your hate-fapping needs.

So now you're reduced to trolling HuffPo and other leftwing blogs for bitter or even tepid dissapointment in Obama from the left. Nevermind that it contradicts all of your previous right wing apocalypto bullshit...as long as it's about Obama and it's negative, you will post a link to here on SpursTalk. Always. Every fucking day.

Don't forget to add TMZ and Perez to your feeds - you might get lucky and catch some 3rd tier celebrity making a catty comment about Michelle Obama's arms or something.

[admiralsnackbar]

You seem to be disqualifying Bush from being considered a centrist because he wasn't popular. Shouldn't being a centrist and being popular be mutually exclusive things? All the Keynsian bailouts Obama is using now were started by Bush. Lefties had their issues with Bush on Iraq and all the social wedge issues. Righties had their issues with Bush on things like spending and immigration reform. So if there's dislike on both sides, and actions in the middle consistent with being a centrist, shouldn't Bush be considered a centrist? Albeit a highly unpopular one.


I don't know, CG -- I'm not sure you can talk about centrism without addressing the idea of popularity given that centrism is more defined by the forces it moderates (to my mind, at least) than by any taxonomy or credo. If Bush had left office a popular president, I think I'd have to agree that he was a centrist on some level because he was able to satisfy the needs of a broad spectrum of a diverse polity. I can already feel that definition alone is incomplete considering Carter was an unpopular centrist, and Hitler was a popular leader who was by no means centrist, but this is politics, not math.

So I guess I'd ask you: how would you define centrism? It seems hard for me to call Bush a centrist exclusively on the basis of his reaction to our economy shitting the bed, given his repeated and egregious failings as a fiscal conservative and his positively left-winger expansion of government. TARP may have been the right thing to do fiscally speaking when both administrations did it, but that doesn't mean that the conditions that led to its necessity ever should have been allowed to exist.

As to the war, it was criticized by both sides, not just the left, so I can't agree with you there. I agree dissent began with the left, but once the WMDs vanished, it became a steady bipartisan erosion of support -- on moral grounds for some, on economic grounds for others, on both for most.

None of which brings me any closer to point, but I have work to do, so this will have to do it. Good to see you around, man.

[hope4dopes]

I don't know, CG -- I'm not sure you can talk about centrism without addressing the idea of popularity given that centrism is more defined by the forces it moderates (to my mind, at least) than by any taxonomy or credo. If Bush had left office a popular president, I think I'd have to agree that he was a centrist on some level because he was able to satisfy the needs of a broad spectrum of a diverse polity. I can already feel that definition alone is incomplete considering Carter was an unpopular centrist, and Hitler was a popular leader who was by no means centrist, but this is politics, not math.

So I guess I'd ask you: how would you define centrism? It seems hard for me to call Bush a centrist exclusively on the basis of his reaction to our economy shitting the bed, given his repeated and egregious failings as a fiscal conservative and his positively left-winger expansion of government. TARP may have been the right thing to do fiscally speaking when both administrations did it, but that doesn't mean that the conditions that led to its necessity ever should have been allowed to exist.

As to the war, it was criticized by both sides, not just the left, so I can't agree with you there. I agree dissent began with the left, but once the WMDs vanished, it became a steady bipartisan erosion of support -- on moral grounds for some, on economic grounds for others, on both for most.

None of which brings me any closer to point, but I have work to do, so this will have to do it. Good to see you around, man.He was elected twice with the help of a sizable crossover vote,it's hard to say what's a centerists is when the people aren't given much of a choice.

[boutons_deux]

dubya lost in 2000 by 600K votes

dubya won in 2004 due to the bogus war and with the smallest margin of any re-elected President.

he deserves fully his shitty reputation and wide-spread, long-lasting disapproval.

dubya was not in any way a centrist. Losing the popular vote in 2000, he assumed he had a overwhelming mandate to whatever the fuck he wanted to do. he did, and he failed miserably