Obama: Disillusionment and New Administration - Page 2

Eh, I can see that Obama's definitely not stupid, but as far as corruption goes, that's something I'm always going to be on a hair-trigger with, when it comes to politicians.

Agreed. Nobody makes it the highest office in the land with clean hands. Call me cynical, but I believe that.

Cheney's corrupt. Inhofe's corrupt. That guy who was caught with his bribery money in his freezer was corrupt. What has Obama done to make you think he's on the take too.

That is all true. I was referring to major initiatives that created new wealth and new industries, not general achievements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
The EPA is a conservative notion... you know, being about conservation and all that.

Well, Teddy Roosevelt really kick started concern for protecting the environment, so she's not totally off base.

Certainly in the 60's and 70's you could broadly paint those who identify as Conservative with opposition to Environmental legislation.

More recently (the last decade) a lot of Conservative and Free Market thinkers have strongly supported Green industries and encourage businesses to evaluate their carbon foot print etc

Nothing. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to mark him as "Honest" and excuse things like Gitmo or the Patriot Act just because he'd abuse the Constitution with more tact. Assuming the worst about elected officials is kind of fundamental to American democracy.

Broadly speaking, PK is sort of right. The hard right nutfuckery of Reagan's party doesn't exorcise the fact that the EPA is a Nixon gig.

Dictatorships, which often skew conservative in practice if not in ideology, have a far better track record of environmental protection than liberal democracies.



Guess which one of these countries was ruled by a strongman and which one by a (hugely dysfunctional, as is very often the case) democracy.

As far as Obama goes, I think he's doing okay. The creation of an insurance mandate without a public option is monumentally stupid, and my feelings will very quickly turn to anger if he signs a bill that even approaches that. I am also always haunted by the idea that he was, in fact, bought and paid for by the banks. I don't think this is the case, but considering where a lot of his early contributions came from, and the silly putty stick they're swinging around impotently at the FrankenBanks, I would be lying if I said I didn't fear the possibility.

$9 billion in infrastructure money in the stimulus bill is also a crock of shit, especially when you compare it to the $90 billion China pumped into their infrastructure with their stimulus. Education, so far, looks to be a bright spot. People need to quit crying about the unemployment rate. All this jabber about the 'Great Recession,' no shit unemployment is gonna hit 10%. It wouldn't be a global economic disaster if finding a job was easy. The administration is handling that pretty well, I think, by pushing for extended benefits. Unemployment wouldn't be such a massive burden if people didn't have to contend with crushing health insurance rates (or massive debt incurred by lack of health insurance), but I digress. A lot of these jobs that have evaporated were transitory, low-paying deals created under the Bush administration's economic rush to the top (and fall to the bottom, for most people). 2/3rds of the wealth created during those 8 years went to the top 1% of earners. The middle class was squeezed on both sides, and job creation as a function of per capita wealth generation was negative. Employment numbers were based on a house of cards before the banks blew everything up. Employment will recover, don't panic (at least for the next 5 years; it is useful to think of this economic clusterfuck as historically parallel to the panic of 1931, which means that unless Team Obama gets their shit together vis-a-vis the banks, we'll be looking at a real Great Depression within the decade).

Wubba wubba WHA? I'm not going to flatly declare you wrong overall, but I know that the communist dictatorship that was Russia, and the other communist dictatorship that is China, both have shit-horrible environmental track records. I'm going to need citations beyond a photograph.

More to the point, that seems like a somewhat irrelevant comparison. As horrible as modern conservativism is, it's not fair to compare it to a dictatorship. And any party that throws in its lot with the pro-capitalist, manifest destiny agenda is going to be not so big with the environmentalism.

Obama's speech at the Equality March will be a big test for him for those of us waiting for him to sack up on gay rights.

China and Iran will eat this guy's lunch, then shake him down for spare change.

I can't help thinking (perhaps irrationally) that this is part of a strategy to effect real change. The people at large need to see the inevitabilities of the Bush policies which Obama is continuing for the most part to understand the need to completely reverse them, i.e. end the wars for real, break up the big banks, reinstate the top marginal income tax, pass a GENUINE job stimulus package without tax cut giveaways, Medicare for All, etc.

I still believe. It has only been a year and though I'm apoplectic with rage at the inaction, I'm still hopeful that this is all deliberate and not a gross miscalculation by the Clinton-era advisers (Emanuel, Larry Summers, etc.) he seems to be listening to.

You're right, yt. You are still experiencing irrational exuberance. Unless this guy reshapes his hard earned 'empty suit' rep, and fast--he's done.

I love his approach to how this fell apart on Tuesday. It's not our fault, it's that of the voters.

At least this guy isn't as delusional as Howard Dean was on Hardball the night of the big loss. Dean was saying that it was a good thing that the Dems lost, so that this big messy health care bill could go down and a new one could rise up in it's place.

What?

Obama could ship over 1000 self-contained shower units to Port-Au-Prince...and the tabloids would scream 'Ethnic Cleansing!!'

So you're saying that his plan is to keep things the same and let things stay shitty so that we would finally realize that if we leave things the same then things will be shitty?

He has the majorities in the legislature, he had the public behind him, he had all of these things, yet he changed nothing and has accomplished very little, yet you blame it on the media and the evil republicans/tea baggers instead of perhaps the real reason of his ineptitude.

I couldn't believe Dean was seriously making that argument.

That too.

And, Electrichead, either I've run out of the ability to communicate or you didn't read what I wrote. Or maybe the picture as I see it is too complex to dash out in my short breaks between deadlines at work.

I'm sure that you're fine and it's just me. It's just that you railed against the previous administration to no end, yet here your guy is doing the same or similar, yet you are giving him a slide because you think he will change at some point. When do you decide that this administration is more of the same?

Full disclosure - I did NOT vote for Obama. I am NOT anti-Obama by any stretch; while I certainly would support his platform in an ideal world, fiscal conservatism has become important to me and the funding of the ambitious programs he's like to initiate seemed a bit foggy.

That said, I think he's been a bit less than expected. The Dems and Obama had the bully pulpit and IMO got knackered by the far right, which is disappointing.

"We" didn't let that happen. The people in charge did, and the people in the middle didn't/don't give a shit that our democracy has been sold. Bread and circuses keep the majority happy, and the lunatic right-wing fringe wants us to move FURTHER towards some crazed sort of theofascist oligarchy.

That leaves a disturbingly small group of people ACROSS the spectrum who are aware and concerned about this. People just want to play XBox and stare at American Idol, I guess.

It's rare that I root for Chris Matthews, but he was right on in implying that Dean was being disingenuous and/or delusional with that argument.

Well, how many times do you see that happen? It's tough to feel that your voice is heard or really matters when you make $50k and can basically only write an angry letter, whereas Big Pharm can drop twice your annual earnings into a politician's war-chest.

He's only been in office for little over a year now, so it's way too soon to be putting him on the chopping block like this. Obama's received far more scrutiny than any other President right out of the gate, and most of it has been unfounded, petty, and nauseatingly hateful. I know the man doesn't walk on water, but I'm very optimistic that he knows what he's doing. I believe he has the countries best interests in mind with all of his plans/actions, while the GOP are clearly concerned with only themselves. I'm very proud that we have him as our President, but it's embarrassing as all fuck at how much bullshit is said about him, and those who are doing so don't even bother trying to mask the hate that's fueling their words.

Obama and his administration still have my support, but not blindly so.

1 Year Grade: Incomplete... because he hasn't even finished unpacking yet.

Health Care aside, I'm fairly encouraged from what's come out of The White House today. Obviously, there will have to be a lot of follow-through but the apparent promotion of Volcker's ideas could be the beginning of a shift in the way the administration approaches Wall Street.

At any rate, I'm not weeping on the floor like the folks over at Daily Kos.

http://www.esquire.com/features/peop...ma-father-0210


This is a pretty great article I think the people who participate in this forum should read.

My disillusionment is not with Obama. Obama, at the end of the day, is nothing. He's the figurehead of a hopelessly broken and withering system. My disenchantment reaches far deeper. It finds root in the foundations of the America we live in today. I find that the things that I believe in, the beliefs and ideals that I treasure, are not what this nation represents. And I'm not sure any nation upon this Earth correctly articulates those beliefs either.

I find myself more and more withdrawn from the concept of being a citizen of this nation. I don't believe in its economics, I don't believe in its commitment to social justice, I don't believe in the lip service it practices in regards to democracy, I don't believe in its arbitrary lines drawn on a map. I find myself in a state of disbelief with the state itself.

Over the past few months I've begun to think that the future of civilization isn't in a bureaucracy or a political party. It isn't in a Parliament or a House of Representatives. It is us and the people we interact with everyday.

'Exhausted' Lady Sticks It to Obama

This is making it's way around the Web, but here's the Gawker posting:

http://gawker.com/5643127/exhausted-...yline=true&s=i


At first I wanted to tell this person that no one is going to tap their toes together and make the Recession magically vanish. But listening to her again, I realized something that Henry Hazlitt of all people wrote in "Economics in One Lesson". That book is constantly cited by Right Wingers because it takes a cold Economist's eye to Government efforts to regulate and direct the economy. But even he admitted (in ONE passage) that Economics has nothing to say about the social consequences of unemployment, or of an industry or company becoming obsolete.

I think so many people have become accustomed to a way of life that is unsustainable, that they simply can't believe everything won't go back to like it was before. And Obama is a big lightening rod for these people.

So what do the Chewers think now? Is Obama Carter II? Is he effective and in 2012 we'll al happily vote him a 2nd term?

I think people are disconcertingly myopic, and I fail to see what politically viable options Obama had at his disposal to mitigate the economic hardships of the middle class during this recession. I want to know, what should have been done? I hear conservatives say we shouldn't have bailed out the banks, and we shouldn't have passed the stimulus, but while I can see how that would at least superficially lower our deficit, I fail to see how that would have done anything good for the economy.

I'd love to get a 'what if' machine and show those that are complaining the loudest the other possible realities that could have happened to the US and its economy at this stage - like a horrific crippling Depression where the woman in the video above is actually daydreaming of the luxury of eating hot dogs and beans while she boils shoe leather or her pet dog for dinner.

There's a new paradigm coming for the US and the middle class will bare the brunt of it regardless. The good times aint comin back people. History's shifting.

I'll vote for him in 2012, because he's the best man for the job who'll be running that year.

And yes, I have no idea who the Republicans will field in 2012 and I don't care, because they cannot field a single person who I'd trust with a state let alone an entire country.

At this point, I would vote for Mike Bloomberg if he chose to run as an Independent in 2012, and I kind of hope he does.

Anyone who chose not to immerse himself in the Obama advertising (let's be honest: Presidents no longer "campaign", they are advertised like commodities. Some might say they ARE commodities) and instead read his serious literature would have quickly realised that he is nothing more than a traditional - as well as eloquent - centre right Democrat.

All this talk about “change”, “a new dawn” and [retch]“Camelot revisited”[/retch] was little more than entry-level PR for the moo-cows to gawp over. Look, if you’re coming off the back of one of the most craven and duplicitous presidents in history the first word you’re going to use is “change”. Change, change, change, change, change. McCain and Obama used that word so often they probably needed physio to deal with facial Repetitive Strain Injury. Indeed, there was so much Change in the air you’d be forgiven for thinking Thomas Jefferson and Ché Guevara were duking it out for the right to lead the Revolution and tear down the established order.

The first change Obama should have brought was, ironically, the one he was least able to – stabilization and structural revision of the markets so that the criminal short-selling activities that brought down Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers (thus stealing trillions from the bottom 98% of earners across the globe and killing perhaps millions in the Third World) can NEVER happen again.
Obama is a product of the financial institutions. They are his benefactors (they preferred him to McCain so he won and profits and rewards have skyrocketed since his arrival). Sans balls of adamantium this was never going to happen. So we remain wide open to attack by speculators. He also allowed the people who created hedge funds to write the laws governing hedge funds. But this is not a conflict of interests and you’d be a fool or a Communist to think it is.

The less said about the way the financial aid programme was pushed through behind closed doors in a completely undemocratic fashion the better.
The next major change on the horizon was healthcare and he did a complete 180 on his campaign pledge (after his backers threatened to switch sides to the Republicans) of not taxing benefits which enraged the unions.
No change on defence. Indeed, he seems to be spending a touch more in relative terms. Clearly he does not have the courage to take on the Pentagon and release a huge chunk of money into the economy. Why America needs to be armed to the teeth is a bit of a mystery as there is no military threat off the horizon – let alone on it. However, the US could create THE WORST kind of threat if it continues to expand its bases into Eastern Europe. It is not well known that Gorbachev was given a personal guarantee that the US would not seek to move assets into former Eastern Bloc countries by George Bush. This is part of the reason the Russians are so mad over the US’s “missile shield” programme which is purportedly there to protect Western Europe from Iranian missile attack. Firstly, no one with any credibility believes Iran has the technology or the desire to threaten Europe. Secondly, anyone with any knowledge of strategic military planning knows that a “missile shield” is a FIRST STRIKE WEAPON. Remember, Bush & PNAC took the brakes off nuclear warfare and claimed the right to unilateral nuclear first strikes (irrespective of whether the “threat” is a nuclear or non-nuclear state). Up to now Obama has shown no desire to step back from this radical position. So, right now there are people sitting in the highest offices of the Pentagon who believe the US has the capability to launch a full scale thermonuclear strike on Russia, “decapitate” the command structure and then knock out what nukes come back the other way with its missile shield. Is it surprising the Russians are a little upset?

Staying with the military Obama has followed the Bush doctrine of launching indiscriminate missile attacks on Pakistan (when Petreus arrived in the Middle East one of his first messages was from Pakistan pleading for an end to the bombing).

Beyond the military (although not too far away) – Obama has shown a lot of interest in nuclear power. I’ve discussed the insane perils of such in a previous post.

He is committed to maintaining the status quo over the Palestine/Israel issue. By cutting the democratically elected Hamas out of the negotiations the “Peace Process” is doomed. But that IS the plan. Continue to allow the Israelis the right to expand its illegal settlements, steal water, brutalise the Gaza Strip, buy a mountain of US weaponry whilst convincing the US people that it is committed to peace by cleverly rigging the negotiations. But this is NOT a tin-pot dictatorship. If the US seriously wants peace in the Middle East it has to deal with Hamas. There’s no way around it. We Britis prevaricated for decades over the Northern Ireland issue (“we don’t deal with terrorists”). Eventually we gave in and opened official talks with the IRA. Consider the transformation of Northern Ireland since that decision was made and then think of what came before.

On Iran Obama continues to rattle the sabre (I’m not sure Iran is anywhere near the level of nuclear capability that is being reported). The leader of the most militarised and interventionist nation on the planet says Iran can be welcomed into the NOT-a-member-of-the-Axis-of-Evil-club if it says sorry for being Evil, quits trying to make a bomb to defend itself and opens its (oil) markets up to outside investors.

The crazy irony here is that technically speaking Iran is an ally of the US. The US doesn’t want it as an ally – or a public one, at least. But it’s worth recalling that post 9/11 Iran gave the US permission to fly over its territory to attack Afghanistan. The Iranians also act as a buffer preventing the unwelcome expansion of the Taleban to the west. The Iranians have been warning about the dangers of the Wahabbists for decades. Indeed, in his last major speech before his death Ayatollah Khomeni warned the world about their potential for trouble-making.

From what I’ve read the US plan is to go ahead with the gas pipeline linking Turkmenistan and India via Pakistan and Afghanistan (hence the rapid rise in troop numbers). The reasoning behind this seems pretty simple: India is a huge consumer of energy. Currently it is buying colossal quantities of oil from Iran (which mitigates – slightly – the effects of sanctions on the Iranian economy). By providing an alternative energy source the US hopes to sever the economic ties between Iran and India so as to starve Iran out. It’s Iraq post Bush I all over again. So, we can expect another UN/Lancet(?) report in the future claiming 500,000 infant deaths linked to lack of medical supplies.
I can’t think of anything else at the moment.

But would you vote to re-elect him in 2016 and 2020?

You and me both, buddy. He's done some things in NYC that I disagree with, but he's done a lot more that I do. And whether we are on the same side of the issue or not, Bloomy is very vocal and transparent about where he stands and why. It certainly helps that he's a billionaire and isn't reliant on campaign finance funding from lobbying groups. I wish that all politicians could be so open and honest.

Pseudo off topic, but Woodward's new book on the Obama admin comes out next week.

The maxim of the more said the less you should listen has never been more true. Jesus christ.

As far as Obama goes, if 2008-2010 has done anything, its underlined the fact that the way the Senate works is fucked up. When our democratic system hinges on the uniform consent of representatives from territory compromising less than 10% of the US population, than something is wrong with our democratic system.

Yeah Geoff, didn't you know kids today can't read more than two paragraphs of information without needing to text someone on their mobiles or update their facebook status or any other number of myriad things their preciously short attention spans require? Remember your audience sir!

Well what's the point in expressing a political idea in a form longer than what will fit on a hand-written protest sign? This is the 21st century!

YEah that leads to Mob Rule and you know what that leads to ? HITLER OMG!

Oh come on, Geoff''s post was a rant. A non-factual, unsubstantuated, looney rant. It isn't exactly Common Sense.

EDIT: OK, maybe loony was too harsh.

As someone who voted for Obama knowing that he was much more conservative than me, I was prepared for many of the disappointments of the last 20 months. Still, in 2008 I had faith that in an Obama presidency we would see moments like the race speech, in which Obama would use his rhetorical skills to overcome controversy and prejudice. Meaning, we would have a president who accomplished his aims not just through dominating news cycles, but through educating the nation. I don't mean to say I wanted a president who patronized the country. Rather, I believed Obama had the unique ability to address something like the oil spill or the Park51 project by raising the political discourse above talking points, which would lead Americans to come to their senses. Clearly, I was naive.

Seeing as Obama has proven (predictably) conservative and (to me, at least) shockingly inept politically, I can easily see myself not voting for him in 2012. I increasingly believe that liberals need to be as uncompromising as gun-rights or anti-abortion advocates. If that means voting for third-party candidates with no chance, so be it. However, the major argument that I can see for continuing to support Obama is judicial appointments. I think it's safe to say that if Al Gore or John Kerry had been president when O'Connor retired and Rehnquist died then the Citizens United decision would never have happened. That alone is enough to earn my begrudging support for the Democrats.

And yeah, I too would like to see Bloomberg run as an Independent in 2012. Undoubtedly I would have a litany of complaints against him, but I admire the hell out of his support for Park51. But more importantly, he seems like the most credible threat to the this country's debilitating two-party system.

Considering most of the options for a Republican Presidential candidate in the next cycle, I'll more likely be voting against them than for Obama. Then again, it's looking like a real possibility that I will choose not to vote in a Presidential election for the first time ever. That would be sad, but I'm having real trouble marshaling any ability to believe in anybody anymore.

That's not just sad, it's kinda silly. Voting will at the least make SOME difference, no matter how small. It's not like your voting for a guy and a clone of the same guy. What's not voting gonna accomplish?

I mean, I get how fucked up the situation is, but deciding to retreat from it all isn't gonna help. The other side won't, that's for sure.

Bolster the small amount of sanity we all have left?

Sanity that would be quickly shredded should low Democrat turnout result in Tea Party candidates gaining even the slightest of footholds in the government.

Here's a better alternative then: bury my head DEEP in the fucking sand for the whole cycle and then just vote straight down party lines (Dem).

Better option. It's not savoury, but I can't fathom ANYONE saying they're too disillusioned to bother voting given the ghouls and monsters waiting to take advantage of a Democratic failure.

This is how we got Scott effing Brown in the Senate. Disillusioned left-leaning voters not showing up because "wah wah they're all corrupt/boring" is exactly what the right wants.