I’ve really enjoy watching Obama in action over the past several year. He’s a political genius and it bug me that so many of his earlier supporters can’t seem to grasp this.
Thanx for this wonderful synopsis outlining the cleverly achieved accomplishments of this president at great odds against.
That list I posted previously? Pffffffffff the work of a kindergartener (me) compared to this:
That must be why he’s maintains such sky high approval!
The problem is that the author just assumes that there will be a payoff at the end of this. That Obama will be rewarded for his maturity and political tact in these hard times. I don’t think that is a good assumption. Being the adult in the room doesn’t mean a damn thing if you lack results (“Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” – that statement could kill him). He got less than two years of Democratic majorities before the public voted (or allowed though voter apathy) a Republican Congressional wave. I’m sorry if I can’t get on board with assuming that voters are going to be giving him an E(lection) for Effort this time around either.
Democrats made the grave error in 2010 of not realizing the depths of the depravity that Republicans would go to. Have you not been paying attention to what’s been happening all over this country where Republican state legislatures and governors are being recalled and picketed and “enjoying” near-single-digit approval ratings?
Some of us have been screaming from the rafters that this is what Republicans would do if they were given the opportunity, but we weren’t believed because most people need to see things with their eyes or feel it in their pocketbooks.
They’ve now fully laid their cards out on the table. Break the backs of unions, firing teachers, police & firefighters. Completely eliminate Medicare and replace it with a fucking voucher system (did you miss the outraged seniors at town halls earlier this summer?).
And the piece de resistance? Bringing us to the brink of default and causing one of the ratings agencies to strip us of our AAA rating for the first time in our nation’s history.
Don’t kid yourself. A few internet pissers and moaners notwithstanding, this time Democrats won’t be so naive.
The point of the article is not “Obama’s brilliance wins elections for Democrats.” The author was clearly awake and lucid for the 2010 elections where we lost seats (you can tell, because he talks about them). The point about electability is that the vast swath of voters prefer competence to passionate speechifying and prefer Presidents to work with legislatures and for legislatures to work together to improve conditions in the country. And therefore “no drama Obama” is more broadly appealing than “Kucinich with a tan” would be, even if the latter’s positions were more to the liking of the progressive base.
But that’s not even the main point of the article, which is that the very loud, very vocal, very “disappointed” weenies of the left, who write OP’s and blog posts and MB screeds like this thread’s Opening Post are suppressing voter turnout among the very portions of the electorate likely to vote Democratic. In fact, the messages like “Obama is a disappointment/sellout/capitulator” and “Reid is a pussy” and “Pelosi is incompetent and should retire”* do much more than Republicans ever could to win Republican majorities. Because that kind of talk doesn’t convince the minority right wingers to stay home, but it does take the enthusiasm out of those who might prefer Dem policies but are now convinced it doesn’t matter.
So well done, OP. I hope you canvas real hard for those local Democrats, because a good portion of the electorate you’re canvassing has also processed your ‘Obama is teh suxxor’ meme as well, and now you’ll have to work against your own propaganda as well as Fox News’.
*I saw that one a lot during the 2009-2011 period when she was leading a House majority to send record levels of progressive bills to the upper house
^^^STANDING Ovation^^^
I don’t see our country’s problem’s being solved by disappointment or umbrage or outrage or self pity… but there seems very little political sentiment that isn’t made up of one or more of those.
See, I’m not talking about the Republicans. I’m talking about Obama. Are the Republicans worse? Sure. They always have been. The difference is tey’re successful now. They’ve figured out that all they have to do is throw a tantrum and the president will split the difference with them.
So why did you vote for Obama? Were you just voting against the Republicans? Was it really just empty partisanship. That doesn’t seem like a good reason to vote for someone whose most famous speech denounces empty partisanship. Was it because he promised to close Guantanamo? It’s still open. Was it because he would avoid “stupid wars?” We’re attacking Libya because the dictator there is a Really Bad Guy. Was it because he said he’d like a single payer but would settle for a public option? Waht we got was a wormy dog’s breakfast of bad ideas from the Heritage Foundation. The public option was taken off the table to appease senators who had no intention of voting for it, and denounced it as tyranny. I’m not going to wring my hands and say what bad people they are. I’m going to wonder what they’re learning when that behavior is rewarded.
The Republicans don’t exist in a vacuum. They don’t do things that are ineffective if they can help it. If you’re appalled that the debt ceiling rise had to be negotiated, you can’t praise the president for negotiating. Even if the Republicans weren’t bluffing, it is not praiseworthy to do what they want. I was going to say “back down” there, but of course to back down you need a position to back down from. There is no escaping the fact that the political mainstream is going to defined as the spectrum that lies between Eric Cantor and Barack Obama. If they’re going to demonize him anyway, why should he allow them pull the country to the right?
I wasn’t really looking for a “perfect liberal president.” I was just looking for someone to the left of George Bush Sr. As far as sitting out 2012, I won’t, because I have always been a loyal Democrat. I can’t speak for all of Obama’s voters, who perhaps haven’t been voting as long as I have. If this is going to be your attitude, I expect a lot of them will stay home, or write in Cthulu, or vote for some fringe party. Treating your most loyal suuporters as if they’re the enemy is generally a bad electoral strategy.
This is what is so fucking frustrating to me. I expect better from SD posters. You were provided cites to prove beyond any doubt that this characterization of Obama “splitting the difference” with Republicans is Flat. Out. Wrong. Yet you persist. Why?
How long have you been around these parts? Because if you’d been paying attention at all – hell, if you had even bothered to read this thread – you’d know exactly why I voted for Obama. And while I will never shy away from the fact that I’m about as partisan as they come, and I would never dream of putting Sarah fucking Palin within a thousand miles of the White House, I actually researched my ass off about Barack Obama and chose him because he had a history of working successfully across party lines. Maybe that wasn’t a quality in him you admired, but I placed it at the top of my list, because this nation was too fucking divided and I thought he could help bring us together. Clearly I underestimated the venomous hatred of the Right.
None of the above. And what Senators learn(ed) and have always fucking known is that politics is, always was, and always will be about negotiation. Give a little, get a little. Ask for more than you know you’ll get and “settle” for more than what you expected.
Where would you have gotten that idea?
We. DIDN’T. Do. What. They. Wanted. Go back and read the link xenophon41 said was “required reading”. Obama played these guys. Played them like a goddamn fiddle. Do you have a vested interest in not seeing that or something?
He’s NOT pulling the country to the right. Go back and read the link I provided to the mind-blowing list of liberal/progressive legislation Barack Obama passed into law? Do you have a vested interest in ignoring those massive accomplishments?
You clearly have no clue what you were looking for, because you got a president that’s so far to the left of George Bush Sr., that if he moved any further left we’d be living in Socialist Denmark. Yet you persist in refusing to see that. You persist in a completely false notion of who he is and what he’s done because you’d rather buy into media hype than do your own research and learn the truth.
As for my attitude, you do see where we are, right? It’s the fucking BBQ Pit, dude. If you can’t stand heated arguments about politics, I suggest you stay out of this particular forum.
And I’ll be damned if I’m going to bow down to your loyalty, if your one vote alone doesn’t amount to a drop of water compared to the hundreds or thousands or millions of other potential voters who stay home because they aren’t “loyal” Democrats and now you’ve convinced them that Obama’s really a worthless piece of shit and we may as well have GWB back for all the difference he’s made.
Your vote isn’t all that matters. If you want to talk about attitudes that make people stay home, I suggest you turn the mirror on yourself more than me. At least I’m fighting to get the truth out there and not perpetuating falsehoods.
I thought this was a well-written and reasoned piece. My favorite part was:
Bloody hell, it’s hard to post whilst laughing this hard. You clearly have no idea what European socialism entails. Obama is barely to the left of Norman Tebbit.
Oh, and on the debt thing? He signed a bill that gave far more to the Republicans than the ones he refused earlier. That’s not compromise, that’s shooting himself in the face.
Oh I don’t, do I? My family in Denmark would find that notion amusing.
Wrong. But I’m not at all surprised.
I wonder why I bother to post at all if you people aren’t going to read what I’ve posted?
Post #138. This link. Come back when you’ve actually read it.
I imagine they’d be surprised to hear you call Obama a socialist. That means you are either a tea partier or* a fucking moron.
Because your TL;DR posts full of formatting and colour changes remind me of Stoid. You are one font change away from becoming as insane as her.
No. Summarise in a couple of paragraphs why Washington’s own Ken Livingstone can’t get UHC, or raise taxes, or shut up.
*Non-exclusive or, obviously.
I’m sure they would. . . IF I had called Barack Obama a socialist, you fucking moron.
Jesus Christ, learn to fucking read, you dickhead.
My god you aren’t just a stupid jackass, you’re a jackass who doesn’t seem to realize that people can actually go back to posts and see with their own eyes that you’re a fucking liar. Save for a couple of places where bold or italics was used for emphasis, there’s not a single “colour” change in that entire post. Not only that, the article I told you to go fucking read, is summarized in a quote box.
Your refusal to actually read at all, let alone read for comprehension is not my problem. And since you’ve now publicly admitted that you’re a douchebag liar, I won’t be wasting another keystroke on your sick ass.
Happy now, Enderw24?
[QUOTE=Shayna]
you got a president that’s so far to the left of George Bush Sr., that if he moved any further left we’d be living in Socialist Denmark.
[/QUOTE]
Riiiight…
So, he’s not a socialist, but if he moved any further to the left you’d be in socialist Denmark. Presumably because of all the other politicians that are much further to the right than that. You should probably pay attention to what you say, if you want anybody else to listen.
With your misinformation and partisan hyperbole, you are just as bad as the Tea Partiers you despise.
As for the colour change thing, my mistake. You just bolded and enlarged a link. Because, presumably, you think we’re all to stupid to notice a link. So, I apologise for saying you changed colours. You are, however, still batshit crazy in a way that only Stoid can match.
You provided opinion pieces from the Atlantic. Good opinion pieces, from a great site, but they are not citations. If you want to make the case that Obama didn’t give away the public option without getting any votes, you have to make it yourself.
So you were opposed to empty partisanship, but you’re celebrating… empty partisanship. The deal was a bad deal. Any deal would have been a bad deal. Obama never stated plainly that it is inappropriate to have to negotiate a debt ceiling rise. Even if he was forced to later, he would still be able to establish that it was a hostage situation. And you really think he played the Republicans? That’s stupid. The triggers are meaningless, as they were for Gramm-Rudman and every other congressional abdication act. They can always just appropriate money for the military after the committee fails.
I saw them, and was aware of them, and they are not as liberal as you say. They would not have been considered liberal even ten years ago.
You mean because I won’t take the word of some other person that Obama is really very liberal. So liberal that Guantanamo is still open, that we’re in another (third) war in the Middle East for no apparent reason, and we got Bob Dole’s health care plan.
To paraphrase: “Stop criticizing the president! Look at how bad the other party is!” I’d be on board if I thought it would work. But I think the Republicans tried that a few years back, and it didn’t work out too well for them.
Hey, you remember that kerfluffle about Lyndon Johnson during the primary? You know, when we were reminded that Lyndon JOhnson didn’t pass the Civil Rights Act out of the goodness of his heart? What was the lesson in that, do you remember?
I have to say that I’m enjoying seeing Shayna in election mode. It’s got me looking forward to trying to kick some ass next November. And really, after a bit of a left-wing backlash against Obama’s debt ceiling deal, I’m noticing a bit of an anti-backlash as people have been noticing that Obama basically let the Tea Party take a self-congratulatory victory lap after he beat them.
Along those same lines was a piece by Kevin Drum earlier today:
You’re living in a fantasy world. And it’s a fantasy built on a lie. Obama started out asking for a clean raise, and has several times throughout the process pointed out the history of the thing, and clarified for Americans (because the news media do a bad job of this) what the debt ceiling actually is and why it’s a separate issue from deficit reduction.
Had Obama refused to negotiate until he was “forced to later” you know as well as I that you would be whining along with the other Disappointed Ones about Obama’s “naive belief that Republicans would ever be reasonable” and how his tough talk is all hot air.
Obama consistently confounds the GOP and finds ways to neutralize their idiocy, usually having to drag half of his own party along with him. Somehow, while fighting one and a half political parties, he manages to produce that long string of legislation that’s not quite liberal enough for you.
Frankly, I don’t care if you’re too fucking stupid to appreciate what the man’s done and how he’s managed it. I do care that you’re part of the problem when you join Republicans in spreading the message that “Democrats suck.” I do care that you depress voter turnout by convincing other ignorant people that the Democratic leadership are worthless.
Fuck you. If you can’t crawl under a rock until December 2013 and spare us all your crying and pouting, then at least bitch about Republicans a little more and Democrats a little less.
How do you think the President gets the job? Hereditary monarchy?
No, we have a tripartite system in which each branch has its own responsibilities and prerogatives, and in which conflicts are resolved either by established procedures or by negotiation, or, as we’ve seen here, by standoff. Neither the President, Congress, nor the Supreme Court is in overall charge, and none tells the others what to do.
Even on that you’re factually in error. A number of people did get elected on that platform. Far more did not. But “the people” chose them all, and gave them the responsibility to work together.
Nothing does. It doesn’t work that way. The President can and often does *ask *Congress to pass a law, and that alone is often adequate persuasion. Also, as the nominal leader of his party (parties don’t *legally *even exist in the US system, believe it or not), he sets their agenda, and the members of his party in Congress normally work to enact it.
That’s one of the saddest statements I’ve come across lately, not to mention one of the most willfully ignorant. Our government has come a damn long way and done a damn sight many things in over two centuries, and it for damn sure ain’t “the same shit”. 
What makes you think so? Not the evidence, surely.