No shit. I’m trying to tell Frank he’s an idiot for saying that LBJ passed big legislation with more conservative Democrats in the House and Senate.
But I do maintain that critics of Obama go off their rocker when he does anything too popular.
Well, to be fair, the Republicans can’t give their social conservative supporters what they want on abortion, because so many of them are single-issue voters who will drop out of politics as soon as abortion is outlawed. That’s why they keep pecking away at abortion … they don’t WANT to kill that golden goose. “Roe v. Wade” is matched only by “Citizens United” as a gift to the Republicans from the Supreme Court. Gay marriage might be a similar issue … outlaw it and another big chunk of single issue voters go buh-bye. Social conservatives are screwed by their one-issueness … thank God!
I wanna add to the pile-on, this oughtta be put on a sticky on the Great Debates board. So succinct and to the point.
The way I read Greenwald’s piece, that’s exactly his point.
It’s clear to me that Greenwald is more “liberal” than Obama. For instance, on civil rights issues (wiretapping, detentions, etc.), he takes the strongest positions I know of, strongly criticizing/condemning Obama (just as he did with Bush) while remaining logical and consistent. I like his arguments because they come from a place of ideological purity – I don’t necessarily agree with him, but find he’s well worth reading.
Whether or not he qualifies as a “whiner” is an opinion you form yourself (I’d say not); to call his positions/arguments “inane” is ignorant.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
I wanna add to the pile-on, this oughtta be put on a sticky on the Great Debates board. So succinct and to the point.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t even notice a pile on over this, but I wanted to add that you agreeing with Der Trihs on this subject is really shocking. I’m shocked…SHOCKED I SAY! What next? Gonzomax and Le Jac join the pile on as well and agree with Der on this subject?? :eek:
-XT
His approach was to wrap one of those bear-sized arms around somebody’s shoulders and say “Come, let us reason together.”
If that didn’t work, find a way to humiliate him into acquiescence.
I’ll alert the media! 
Note that I didn’t call Greenwald a whiner, but I did call his argument inane. I stand by that for the same reason I’d call any serious use of that fallacy ‘inane’. Greenwald isn’t just saying Obama’s not as liberal as his base, he’s saying Obama isn’t a liberal or ‘progressive’ at all, and he casts the President as a cynical pol concerned only with reelection and defense of the status quo. Worse, he ignores Obama’s entire first half term to claim that the President never offers “…impassioned defenses of the Democrats’ vision on anything…”
Inane, ahistorical and stupid.
Damn spellcheck. :mad:
No matter how far to the Right he is, he’s still light-years Left of anyone the Republican party put forward.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it every time threads like these pop up: We didn’t vote for Obama because he was perfect- we voted for him because he was better than the other choices.
Considering that he’s mostly continuing Bush policies and helped cover for Bush, I don’t think so. And his unwillingness or lack of interest in standing up to the Republicans means it doesn’t matter much what his opinions actually are.
Which is as it should be. We elect a leader doesn’t necessarily mean we follow, the President has no authority to overwhelm the majority opinion, he has the opportunity to change that opnion, if he can.
So you’d feel better if we had a Quaker in the Oval Office? I’m sure he’d be known for his honesty and supporting the left…
Well, I have no desire to parse your posts finely enough to show where/why I interpret them as I do, so I’ll just say that our perceptions of what you expressed differ. In the same vein, I have little desire to argue Greenwald’s positions – not only would it be way too time-consuming, but I doubt I could do them adequate justice. Besides, he’s quite prolific; you can read them yourself. So your opinions (on Greenwald, anyway) stand, I disagree, and I have no problem with that.
I never thought Obama was a die hard liberal. Who did?
The folks who voted for him because he was a liberal should have fallen out early and often in the mid-term and actually voted for a congress that would pull him to the left. But the real depressing fact of left end politics is that mostly we don’t give a shit unless we are rabidly pissed off about something.
The US is a right wing democracy. That is an uncommon animal, most of the democracies in the world are way left of us. Our center would be the staunch conservatives in most democracies. Obama is just a bit left of center. Probably the best we on the far left could hope for.
But unless the left gets its ass in gear, and into action, the right will march on back into office.
Tris
I see what you did there. But he did do a powerful lot for the citizens of the country, to protect them.
Sadly, the modern Republicans want to tear it all down, from the EPA to the various consumer safety groups.
By the way, Johnson traded accepting the Vice Presidency (a bucket of warm spit) as final payment for every political debt he had ever garnered in his long career. He had the best personal ballance of payments in influence of any president since Washington.
Tris
Quite a few folks, actually - who saw in him what they *wanted *to see.
That’s a pretty common problem in election season, but if you point it out to those who suffer from it, get ready to be jumped upon.
We should never elect anyone who actually wants the job!
Maybe that’s the disconnect: liberal and progressive aren’t equivalent.