The Progressive Case Against Obama

[NDP]

@lavenderviolet

I would disagree that conservatives always fall in line. I think it’s widely accepted that one factor in why McCain lost was his trouble with exciting the conservative base (hence why they went with Palin in an effort to try to finally capture the enthusiasm of the base).

2008 was the exception and conservatives have learned their lesson since then. I think the vast majority of conservatives are only lukewarm in their support of Romney (who, politically, isn’t much different than McCain) but because he represents their only hope of defeating the anti-Christ (i.e., Obama), they’re more than willing to look past whatever “moderate” characteristics he has.

Plus, there’s also the fact the GOP will likely control the House and maybe the Senate after November 6th. Romney is pretty much the type that bends with the wind so he’ll likely give the arch-conservatives in his party nearly everything they want. That’ll effectively negate any drift toward the center he might have.

[lavenderviolet]

@waterj2

So, if we want to prevent war with Iran, we should elect the candidate more likely to go to war with Iran, because that will galvanize opposition to the idea, and the President will be unable to go to war in the face of the awesome power of anti-war protests? Yeah, not really buying that.

I don’t think the author was referring just to Iran. I think he’s saying it’s more that if we don’t want to end up with endless war and authoritarianism, we need to give politicians a reason to think that they may actually be jeopardizing their chances of getting re-elected if they prove to be an authoritarian war-monger. To date, though, it seems most in society are pretty satisfied with continuing to wage endless war (apparently Obama’s kill list is expected to be an ongoing project for years - but does anyone care?)

[Ethilrist]

Yeah, darn that administration for not wanting to put bin Laden on trial, just because he’s been dead for a year and a half…

[wonky]

@lavenderviolet

As someone who was never a fan of Obama I wish that there was more civil discussion about these concerns and less focus on stupid side issues like “is he a Muslim” or “you must be a racist if you don’t love Obama”

So you keep starting threads to try to get liberals to stop liking Obama by saying he’s not all that liberal. How about you start a thread talking about why you “aren’t a fan” if he’s not that liberal?

At least you came back to this one, so that’s a bonus, I guess.

[The_Understander]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

These concerns are equally stupid. The US electorate doesn’t want a progressive President. They don’t want a right-wing president either, but if you hold out for Hippie Q. McFreakington, that’s what you’ll get.

IMO, if you hold out for “Hippie Q. McFreakington”, you get Reagan-Bush-Romney.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Yeah, that’s what I meant. “That” referred to a right-wing POTUS.

[The_Understander]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yeah, that’s what I meant. “That” referred to a right-wing POTUS.

Look, if you expect me to spend time parsing statements for their actual “intent”, I might as well move to Sweden!

[Ludovic]

Hippie Q. McFreakington

Damn, now I know who I should have written in as a protest vote Saturday for Circuit Court clerk, since only a Republican got on the ballot. Why should I care about the partisanship of a law official? This is Florida.

[The_Understander]

@lavenderviolet

longtime liberal presents a scathing rebuke of Obama

As someone who was never a fan of Obama I wish that there was more civil discussion about these concerns and less focus on stupid side issues like “is he a Muslim” or “you must be a racist if you don’t love Obama”

I refuse to rebuke President Obama because he was able to pass national health care, ended the stupid war in Iraq, ended the prohibition against homosexuals in the military, killed Osama bin Laden, supports greater regulation of the financial industry which caused the Great Recession, saved the auto industry, passed the stimulus (unemployment rate is below 8%, apples-to-apples, conservatrolls), and is willing to listen to people rather than dictate to them.

You are welcome to think what you like about racism being no factor at all.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/in-focus-racism-in-america_2012-10-28.html

A quote from the article:

Fifty-one percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.

[lavenderviolet]

Here’s a follow-up article about the reaction to his article:
“Why is the Left Defending Obama?”…

The President does not sit in the Oval Office and play a video game where he governs the country. The Presidency is constrained by the various checks and balances in our governance system, notably a partisan opposition and public opinion. Under Obama, that partisan opposition has been a right-wing Republican force buttressed by well-funded Tea Party activists. This has made it far easier for Obama to implement conservative policies. Under Mitt Romney, the Democrats will be far more likely to oppose Romney from the left, and the public will be much more likely, as it was under Bush, to mistrust its President and demand social justice.

One of the more intriguing arguments in this line came from a Canadian UAW member, Joe Emersberger, who actually tried measuring the difference between recent Republican and Democratic Presidents. He noted that Ronald Reagan was the worst President for life expectancy growth, income growth of the top one percent, deunionization, and closing the racial gap in life expectancy. But the second worst – for deunionization and share of income going to the top one percent – was actually Bill Clinton, followed by Barack Obama. George Bush did substantially better than those two on these measures, and surpassed Clinton in closing the racial life expectancy gap. This is quite possibly accurate – Clinton’s changed the country with NAFTA, a policy nearly as hostile to labor rights as Reagan’s embrace of union busting. George W. Bush though faced a hostile public and a partisan Democratic opposition. Certainly, this is not conclusive evidence, and I’m sure political scientist Larry Bartels would lay out different data. But it’s worth considering the power of this “resistance effect”. Partisan opposition isn’t worth nothing, and there’s no sense pretending it doesn’t matter.

In other words, as Glen Ford put it, Obama is not necessarily the lesser of two evils, he may be the “more effective evil”. He puts the left to sleep (whether by defunding progressive groups or allowing the destruction of Occupy encampments), and the left is where the resistance to imperial tendencies currently resides. It is this problem, of how to organize large groups of people into a political force for justice, that should concern us.

[DianaG]

“Waaaaaaaah… progressives SAY they have principles, but then they vote for Obama anyway! Hypocrites!!!”

Whatever. Yes, I’m voting for the imperfect guy who more accurately represents my views. Presumably so are you. This is some disingenuous bullshit.

[babygoat666]

@lavenderviolet

Here’s a follow-up article about the reaction to his article:
“Why is the Left Defending Obama?”…

This is even more retarded than the first article. Shame on you.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

“I’m not voting for Obama because life expectancy!”

[wonky]

@DianaG

Whatever. Yes, I’m voting for the imperfect guy who more accurately represents my views.

Mitt Romney represents all views. Conservatives on Mondays…

[Chimera]

I have never understood this counter-productive cut your nose off to spite your face bit about voting for the guy who despises everything you stand for because they guy who is closer to your position doesn’t slavishly follow YOUR position.

[DianaG]

That’s because nobody actually thinks that way. This isn’t about getting anyone to vote for Romney, it’s about getting people to stay home. It’s a cheap, tacky, and completely transparent ploy by people who know that their candidate is unsellable.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@DianaG

That’s because nobody actually thinks that way. This isn’t about getting anyone to vote for Romney, it’s about getting people to stay home. It’s a cheap, tacky, and completely transparent ploy by people who know that their candidate is unsellable.

A quick look at a poster’s posting history can tell you a lot about them.

I think you are absolutely correct.

[NonaSequitur]

Yes, Obama is marginally better than Romney, but he is only considered liberal because the boundaries have been moved ever rightward over the last 20 years. It’s hard to deny that he is cut so much slack because he has a D after his name. Just imagine if Bush were:

As ineffectual/ corrupt in his handling of the economic crisis (no prosecutions, appointing people who were instrumental in enacting the policies that led to the crisis in key positions, enacting housing policy designed more to help the banks than homeowners, not attempting to do anything substantial about unemployment)

Declared the right to kill anybody (American or not) deemed a terrorist without due process and had already done so (including a 16 year old boy) because killing is more efficient than torture, I guess.

Expanded the use of drone warfare to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and who knows where else.

“Reformed” a broken healthcare system by delivering millions of new customers to the very companies responsible for the dysfunction, while not even pretending to advocate for a public option.

Presided over a record level of deportations.

Launched an (inexplicable) crackdown on medical marijuana.
Dems would be screaming bloody murder, like we did when Bush was doing his warrantless wiretapping. But with Obama, we’re quiet because the Republicans have become stark raving mad.

Because I don’t live in a swing state, I feel completely comfortable in not voting for a man who has asserted his right to be judge, jury and executioner of anyone he wants. I will vote for Jill Stein.

And still that I understand that Romney will bring us to a terrible place just a little faster, in a more transparent way. But my question is how do we stop this trajectory if both parties are headed in the same direction, only one more slowly than the other? Because we know that voting is not going to do it…

[NonaSequitur]

This guy pretty much sums up my feelings on the election:

I also don’t get the economic concerns that Republicans have about Obama. With the exception of Obamacare, essentially the same thing as Romneycare and very much based on a Heritage Foundation plan, Obama’s economic plan has been to continue GW’s policies. Tax rates have been kept constant, right where GW left them. The bailout was kept the same. What exactly did he change?

Which leads to the same question for Democrats too: what exactly did Obama change? From where I’m standing, on the economic front, all I can point to is that Obama has, if anything, done less to rein in financial abuses than his predecessor did.

After the dot com implosion, there were prosecutions. After the much bigger mess from
2007 to 2009, crickets. Similarly, when the dot com implosions were played out, none of the perpetrators were given handouts. After the 2007 meltdown, not only did Obama continue GW’s bailout giveaways, he expanded them and has encouraged the Fed to do the same. If there’s one class of Americans who are doing particularly well, its the folks who were most complicit in creating the mess the rest of the country is in.

I can say about the same thing with respect to social policies, foreign affairs, etc. All of which is to say, there are a lot of people out demonizing one of the candidates, a candidate who is following their party’s prescription as well as any of their own party’s standard bearers, simply because he belongs to the other party. And there are a lot of people supporting that candidate, that candidate who in deeds stands against what they stand for, simply because he is, nominally a member of their party. The reason we live in lesser times is because, collectively, we are lesser people.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/11/obama-romney-enthusiasm.html?m=1

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

To paraphrase (and somewhat plagiarize) a Stephen Colbert quote:

Yes, Obama duped *liberals *by not doing every single things they want. So now, they’ll all vote Republican or third party or abstain from voting. It’s like when I want some bread, I won’t settle for half a loaf. Instead, I will have a muffin made of broken glass.

The difference is that some Liberals love the taste of broken-glass muffins. It tastes like principled pragmatism.