The Progressive Case FOR Obama

Politics & Elections
1

Inspired by this thread: The Progressive Case Against Obama

Defeat Romney, Without Illusions about Obama

(Emphasis in original)

"This is not a contest between Barack Obama and a progressive candidate. The voters in a handful or a dozen close-fought swing states are going to determine whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to wield great political power for four, maybe eight years, or not.

"As Noam Chomsky said recently, “The Republican organization today is extremely dangerous, not just to this country, but to the world. It’s worth expending some effort to prevent their rise to power, without sowing illusions about the Democratic alternatives.”

"Following that logic, he’s said to an interviewer what my friend heard me say to Amy Goodman: “If I were a person in a swing state, I’d vote against Romney/Ryan, which means voting for Obama because there is no other choice.”

"The election is at this moment a toss-up. That means this is one of the uncommon occasions when we progressives – a small minority of the electorate – could actually have a significant influence on the outcome of a national election, swinging it one way or the other.

“The only way for progressives and Democrats to block Romney from office, at this date, is to persuade enough people in swing states to vote for Obama: not stay home, or vote for someone else. And that has to include, in those states, progressives and disillusioned liberals who are at this moment inclined not to vote at all or to vote for a third-party candidate (because like me they’ve been not just disappointed but disgusted and enraged by much of what Obama has done in the last four years and will probably keep doing).”

I disagree with the writer on what he asserts are some of President Obama alleged evils, but I can’t fault him for his anger — I spent a week, every single day, multiple times a day — calling the White House and his OFA HQ in Chicago unleashing my ire over him signing the NDAA.

But like him, I believe this election is much bigger than any of us individually, let alone our individual anger. It’s about the BIG things, most notably the Supreme Court and the generations of lives a regressive Right-wing stacked court could adversely affect on issues such as women’s reproductive freedom, equal pay for women in the workforce, workers’ rights, and LGBT rights to name a few.

Given the backwards, anti-science, anti-women, anti-worker, anti-equality direction the GOP has clearly laid out as their road map for the future of this country, there hasn’t been an election of this much importance in most of our lifetimes.

Please vote.

2

It is, to be sure, a bit sad that this election, more than many, involves a vote against the candidate who is worse, rather than one for the candidate who is better.

But Obama really has done a lot of good things. Health Care, ending the war in Iraq, the automobile manufacturers’ bail-out, the stimulus. Little things like the temporary immunity from deportation of illegal immigrants who came here when they were only little children.

He has tried to do much more, but has been blocked by some of the worst partisanship seen in America, ever. If you’re willing to judge a man by his aspirations, consider what Obama might have accomplished with a Democratic House of Representatives and a Senate that wasn’t mired by the filibuster.

Obviously, this could cut either way. Some of what he would have accomplished may seem odious to you! But it is, in the opinion of many, a reason to vote for him. He gave it his best shot. The Senate stopped him from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility; he undertook the first steps, and was made to stop.

Separation of powers is a hindrance and a god-send. Again, your choice.

3

There are a rare few of us who are actually quite happy with Obama and are not voting out of protest against Mitt Romney.

4

Oh trust me, I am absolutely voting for this extraordinarily-accomplished president to have another four years at the helm. I’ve previously posted extensive lists of his stellar accomplishments, of which there are many.

But this thread is for the left-wing (dare I say it?) nut jobs who think President Obama should have been able to walk on water and are pissed as hell that he didn’t. They wanted Muhammad Ali and got Mr. Rogers instead, and because of that they feel personally affronted and don’t plan on voting for him again.

They’re fool idiots and this guy explains what’s at stake with that attitude and behavior.

5

I don’t know that this is true, but I don’t know that I disagree with it either. It’s a bit vague, actually. I found a poll from January 2011, the earliest I could find with just a cursory search, that had Obama’s approval at 80% among Democrats. I would imagine it’s dropped since then but is still high. Certainly most Republicans are voting against Obama though. But just basing this on people I know who supported Obama in 2008, most people I know are quite happy with his performance and are thrilled to vote for him again. It doesn’t mean however that we bought into the whole “The One” nonsense.

6

I’m baffled as to why we even need to make the progressive case for Obama. I mean, what’s the other plan? Let Mitt Romney win, and then next time the Democrats will nominate Dennis Kucinich, and he’ll actually win? It’s not even like Mitt’s a Ron Paul type who agrees with progressives on a number of important issues. There’s really nothing where he’s to the left of Obama. Refusing to accept the absolute reality that our next President will favor drone strikes and warrantless wiretapping, can’t we agree that only one of them has ever vowed to “double Guantanamo”? And that that candidate is also worse on gay rights, reproductive rights, tax policy, voting rights, equal pay, immigration policy, Medicare and Medicaid, etc.

Did I miss some redeeming feature of the Bush Administration that made not voting for Gore a worthwhile means to advance progressive ends? The Democrats responded by nominating Kerry and Obama. I think getting Obama as a candidate was probably a pretty decent thing, but obviously it’s not good enough for some people. And it really wasn’t worth the debacle of eight years of Bush the Lesser.

Anyways, the Lawyers Guns and Money blog is always good for a rebuttal to Matt Stoller’s stupid article and similar arguments.

7

I’ve lived through 8 presidential elections and I’ve never heard anybody say that a current presdiential election is going to be the least important of our lifetimes, or that it’s going to be of roughly average importance. Whichever election is currently taking place always seems to be the most important one.

Your list of reasons why this election is so important seems to be short on specifics. “Equal pay for women”? They already have it; it’s not in danger. “Anti-worker agenda”? What, specifically, is the next President going to do with regards to workers? Like Bill Clinton, Obama’s Labor Department has been mostly silent in prosecuting violations of labor law. In what way would his second term be better than Romney for workers?

The polls show it’s likely that the Republicans will still hold the House majority and Democrats will still hold the Senate Majority in the next Congress. Given that, they probably won’t pass major legislation, just as they didn’t in the one that’s about to end. Hence the President won’t have much effect on domestic legislation, because there won’t be much of it.

8

The president still nominates Justices to the Supreme Court, though. Barack Obama’s putative nominations will indisputably be better than any that Romney might propose. That’s not even a controversial assertion.

The country will not be safe from the specter of plutocratic theocracy until the Republican Party has been buried at the crossroads with a stake through its heart, its head cut off and placed face down with its mouth stuffed with garlic. Until this has been achieved, EVERY subsequent presidential election will continue to be more important than its predecessor.

9

Actually, the 2000 election seemed like a yawner . . . until the results came in, or didn’t . . .

10

Not just the Supreme Court, but Federal Court judges, as well.

11

Well, not with a good many of us, to be sure, but I’m pretty sure there are a few members of the SDMB who would find it highly controversial.

At the risk of Godwinizing the thread, this quote of Bertolt Brecht seems appropriate:

“Don’t rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.”

12

Obama’s views aren’t substantially different than any other Democratic candidate for president. Why were you voting for them?

When was the last truly progressive candidate? I can’t even think of one off the top of my head. They’ve always been centrist liberals. You can’t get elected unless you are centrist.

In other words, I don’t think this election is any sadder than any other.

13

What exactly is the justification of the belief that the Democratic party will answer losing the re-election of a left-centrist, moderately accomplished President by going further left?

14

At least as interesting a question is what happens if all the money Darth Rove raised, all the money the Kock Brothers and their ilk poured into it, and all the voter suppression crapola…if none of that actually works, and they lose anyway…whither the Pubbie Party?

Or perhaps “wither” is the better word. Dare we hope? We do dare, do dare…

15

To be fair, Republicans believe that every electoral loss stems from not being conservative enough.

Yes, there is a case to be made for Obama. The Fair Pay Act, Health Care Reform, ending the Iraq war, NOT starting wars in Libya, Syria, and Iran, NOT knuckling under to the big oil interests regarding Keystone, etc. But it is equally valid to vote against the other guy. Whether it is more important to give Obama a second term or deny Romney a first term is a matter of semantics. Obama MUST be elected or Romney MUST be defeated- take your pick.

16

(Daily Kos cartoon, rabid radioactive lefty cooties…)

17

Well, you’re hardly going to convince them by calling them idiots!

There were arguments against the bailout from the left too. Greg Palast neatly illustrated one on Democracy Now! here. Tim Vine also discussed how a far greater proportion of the stimulus money went to white owned businesses and businesses with a greater percentage of white employees (construction) than any other federal expenditure. The traditional left perspective would have been to nationalise a failing industry or at least allow for an employee purchase of the company - IIRC Reagan had record bailouts too. Healthcare has been gone over too: the compromise proposed by the Heritage foundation and not supported by a single Republican is essentially a gift to the insurance companies and resembles only a few working healthcare models worldwide (Andorra and Singapore, if I’m not mistaken).

Even here, Obama’s position has long been apparent (though not exactly articulated often). He didn’t oppose the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, as long as they were on the mainland. See here.

That said, I agree with the fact that progressives have to be pragmatic.

18

I know, right? Finally, a thread for the idiots.:smiley:

19

Yes, what Obama needs is Noam Chomsky campaigning for him!