I think I've lost a few friends this week, you see I am a staunch Democrat/Liberal/ but NOT a hard left Progressive who finds fault in everything President Obama does "because damn it, he's just plain 'ole acting like George Bush". But that's okay, in the end I'll be correct in my unwavering support of the president.
Right from the start of Barack Obama's campaign, race was brought into the equation. The Left and Right brought it up but for different reasons. The Right fears Barack Obama's black heritage, they don't consider him "one of us", so if Obama is Bush light then why else would the Righties want to destroy him?.....The Moderate Left understands Barack Obama's black heritage, embraces it, AND can "feel" what is in his heart because of it.
I found this at Smartypants blog, she found it from Miranda who found it from a commenter named Tom at The Washington Monthly! YES, It's that good and must be shared, so pass it on bloggers! :-)
I quote:
The predominately white progressive intelligentsia don't see
Obama clearly because of our racial blind spot. We don't see the role
of race in how he seems to understand himself and how other perceive
him.
First of all, we think that he understands himself as one of us. A
progressive activist, heir to the radical and New Left movements most of
us were raised in. He is not; I think that he understands himself (and
certainly his real base understands him) as the first African American
President. We're thinking Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. We should be
thinking about Harold Washington, the first African American mayor of
Chicago. Washington was elected and immediately faced a solid wall of
opposition from most white aldermen in the city. Washington understood
his role as breaking down that wall of opposition and assembling a
governing majority, which he finally did after his re-election.
Unfortunately, he died shortly thereafter. By the way, one of
Washington's political strategists was David Axelrod.
How does Obama break the iron unity of the GOP opposition to assemble a governing majority in the US Congress?
If we progressives were not blinded by our own assumption that our
history is the only history, we might see how Obama may be seeing his
situation.
White progressives often think that African American elected officials
are politically naive. We will far more credit to Cornel West, who has
never been elected to anything, than to an elected state senator, or
even the President of the United States. We think that Obama does not
understand the nature of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell or Eric Cantor,
as though he has not sat across the table from them. He doesn't
understand how mean they are, we think.
Obama acts entirely within the tradition of mainstream African American
political strategy and tactics. The epitome of that tradition was the
non-violence of the Civil Rights Movement, but goes back much further in
time. It recognizes the inequality of power between whites and blacks.
Number one: maintain your dignity. Number two: call your adversaries to
the highest principles they hold. Number three: Seize the moral high
ground and Number four: Win by winning over your adversaries, by
revealing the contradiction between their own ideals and their actions.
It is one way that a oppressed people struggle.
Obama has taken a seat at the negotiating table and said "There is no
reason why we cannot work out solutions to our problems by acting like
responsible adults. That is what people expect us to do and that is why
we have entered into public service." That is the moral high ground.
Honestly, I have been reminded more than once in the last few months of
those brave college students sitting in at a Woolworth's lunch counter,
back in the day. Obama sits at that table, like they did at the counter.
Boehner and McConnell and Cantor clown around, mugging for the camera,
competing to ritually humiliate Obama, to dump ketchup on his head.
I don't think those students got their sandwiches the first day, but they won in the end.
Obama is winning. Democrats are uniting behind him, although some white
progressives think that they could do the job better. Independents are
flocking to him. Even some Republicans are getting disgusted with their
Washington leaders. Obama is not telling us about lack of seriousness of
the Congressional GOP; he is showing us the vivid contrast between what
we expect of our leaders and their behavior. The last two and half
years have been a revelation of the essential conflicts in our society
and politics.
If white progressives understood much about the politics of the African
American struggle in the United States, we would see Obama in the
context of that struggle and understand him better. And you don't have
to be African American to know something about the history of the
African American struggle. The books and the testimony is there. It's
not all freedom songs. But you have to be convinced that it is something
that can teach you something you don't already know.
Thanks to Tom, well said. Love it...
Dervish Sanders Seeks The Assistance of Hasan The Carpet Merchant
-
Dervish Sanders: Bing Copilot AI, what was the deal with that last story
you told me? I regret to say it was very boring. I was waiting for
something exc...
13 hours ago
68 comments:
There is a difference between "winning over" your adversaries, and capitulating to them. With all due respect, I disagree with the President's MO as being something racially-grounded. I think that what he's doing has been done by many, many others, who scratched themselves up to the top of the heap-as in, he's catering the the ones who were there before him. Clinton, certainly, had a lot of this mentality. But Clinton, at least, drew lines and didn't cross them.
We need to have an honest discussion about the President's failures. Not a Klanbagger tirade, and not a whitewashing. An honest discussion.
This was GOOD!
As I keep telling my lovely husband when he calls me from his truck screaming after he heard something some white progressive said against the President, "just because they have a "D" next to their name, it doesn't mean they aren't a racist (or more milder, someone who is oblivious to the effects of race on our non-white citizens).
I have been shedding Progressives from my timelines everywhere. One guy is working so hard to primary President Obama it makes me sick. If he worked that hard to start a grassroots effort in his community to do...anything, he could change the world, but no he would rather sit at his computer all day and tell the world how bad President O is. It is pointless and frankly since Jane Hamsher from Fire Dog Lake called people like me "Mother Fuckers" is cringe every time I think I used to call myself a "Progressive". I am a Liberal, I am a Democrat, and I am not going to apologize for being a supporter of President Obama!
Black people in this country CAN NOT govern the same way as white people do. Too many left, right and center in this country still believe that black people don't have the 'right', 'intellect' or 'savoir-faire' to be in office. A Black man can not walk into a situation, start barking out orders and tossing around his clout. It can't be done...he would have been thrown out on his ear! If you think otherwise you know NOTHING about the racial attitudes of this country!
JR, it's an opinion piece, I share the mans opinion, and yes I think Democrats can have an honest discussion, and we will....
Mary I did a post on why Pres. Obama can not be the angry black president who forces his will upon the mostly white republicans in Washington. I get it, I just wish all in our party did...I'm tired and think I've stated my case for the president and why he deserves our support. I guess we can still have rational discussions, but I doubt any minds will be changed.
Is it only white people who don't understand his failures? Talk about reverse racism.
Never mind the "poutragers", as Smartypants so aptly calls them, who trash Obama for not doing the impossible and dismiss what he has, in fact, done. Those who accuse him of being a quasi-Republican cannot explain how a Republican would have enacted HCR (a flawed start but nevertheless a start, as Social Security was in FDR's time) or put Sotomayor on the Supreme Court instead of another Scalia. Indeed, it's they themselves who are the de facto Republicans -- by striving to undermine support for Obama, they increase the odds that a Republican will take the Presidency, which is near-treasonous at a time when that Republican might be Bachmann or Perry.
Lets see, Romney announces that corporations are people too and that corporations put money in peoples pockets...and not one liberal blogger happens to note that the corporations have 2.5 trillion dollars of cash sitting in their pockets that they have not passed out....
Nope, you play the race card against progressives. That will really get out the vote for Obama!
Its not about Obama, its about the country and the direction the country is headed in and the majority of Americans have concluded that Washington does not work and does nothing to benefit them.
You might find that you are driving your readers to Fire Dog Lake...
yes TAO, you're right, Washington is broken, but some seem to blame Obama cuz he doesn't scream and throw a hissy fit while pointing finger at the GOP. This is how they want him to act and I'm saying he CAN NOT act like that. There are many different subjects to talk about, I am only one person, so give me a chance. I liked this comment from Tom so I posted it.
If the shoe fits, good. If not then no worries. We have to face it, some of our own are turning on the Liberal and if that means a GOP gets elected in 2012 then so be it. I wonder who will scream the loudest.
thank you Infidel, I agree
With Jolly Rogers I agree. An honest discussion about his failures.
JR, where has Obama capitulated? HC passed, SS and Medicare are NOT gonna be privatized (that is if you trust what the president says), the wars are winding down, the tax cuts WILL end (Not soon as we wanted, but they are NOT made permanent like THEY want)
your turn...
what failures?? Seriously!
We are a very impatient people, Obama has an 8 yr plan, give him TIME!!
ya know when the corporations put money into negative advertising, it means a citizen has to watch, listen, comprehend, believe..or not believe the ad. But all you really have to do is watch those clowns from the right in the debates to know Obama is the smartest man in the room and will slide to an easy victory. Get educated people, ignore the evil machine trying to feed you lies and distortions. Yes there will always be the stupid sheeple who believe the crap, but thats because they don't know how to think for themselves....
You hit the nail on the head Sue, we are a very impatient people. We want it done now and won't accept any less. I know from my own experience (my son) when you try to explain what the President has done and how hard it has been and in reality how long it will take to get REAL change, he shuts down and tells me he can't have a rational discussion with me. Huh? Then accuses me of being an Obamabot and starts talking about baseball. Hey, how about them Brewers! ;)
Like all meritocrats, I'm fine with people making the most of their opportunities, but I'm adamantly opposed to "equality of outcome," and you know "equality of opportunity" has become a liberal bait and switch justifying all sorts of affirmative action-type schemes. Equality under the law is good, equality under the eyes of God is a fact, but any other artificial imposition of "equality" is another word for tyranny. Such egalitarianism was tried and failed miserably and bloodily in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, so why is Obama so keen to introduce it here?
Certainly we should have an open and honest discussion of Obama's failures. Likewise, we should have an open and honest discussion about his accomplishments, which the "new" progressives seem to be as blind to as those on the right.
Blatant or latent racism is at the root of the problem on both sides of the equation, imo. Surely these folks were just as unhappy and dissatisfied with Carter and Clinton, and all previous presidents who just happened to be white. Surely they criticized these presidents for not delivering 100% of the goods 100% of the time and within 24 hours of taking the oath of office at that.
You bet'cha they did, but not to the same very personal, vicious and unreasonable degree in a never-ending chorus, often full of "misinformation," that we're seeing now. So, what would a social scientist be led to believe?
Their cries of "I'm not racist" ring as hollow as those from my southern racist kin.
Barack Obama is President and yes, there are a bunch of folks who would rather have a dumbass old white guy as President, someone like Perry who is going to brag about all the minimum wage jobs he created in Texas, or someone like Romney, who has done nothing but destroy jobs to enrich himself and his Wall Street buddies, then there isn't much one can do about those folks.
I didn't vote for a Black man for President, I voted for a SMART man as President. The bottom line is Obama has higher ratings than anyone currently in Washington by far....but he is going to have to run on his record and none of the republicans have a record to run on. But he is also going to run on Wall Street and big business money and he has got to live up to those promises and some of us don't like sleeping with the devil.
There is nothing racist about it...but as long as you paint with your broad brush you are actually hurting Obama not helping him.
Looks to me like you are trying to herd cats and Obama has no primary challengers so why kick folks out of the tent?
I've been reding the comments at The Peoples View, here's a good one...
japa21
" want to "compromise at all costs" and have sacrificed any "core principles" we may have ever had."
This phrase really ticks me off. I always used to consider myself a moderate, until I realized that all my principles line up with the liberal/progressive side of the spectrum. I still call myself "liberal" more than "progressive" although I will accept either description.
To say I am willing to compromise at any cost is an insult. To say I have sacrificed all my principles is slanderous. Those who know me from BWD's site, know I supported almost every compromise that the President has made. There are two reasons for that. The first is that none of them gave away as much as the PL would like to have us believe. The second is that by making those compromises he actually stood up for liberal/progressive principles, such as making sure the unemployed still received benefits, making sure our country did not go into default.
Obviously, these are principles the PL would have been willing to sacrifice. The public option was not a progressive principle, obtaining health insurance for 32 million people was. The PL is too caught up in specific tactics or policies to understand what principles really are. Principles are what we strive to see happen in our society. I don't see single case of the President sacrificng those principles. In fact, they remain a centerpiece of everything he does. All his actions are geared toward achieving those principles, even if it means achieving them a little slower than some people would like.
To demand that everything happen right this minute would actually have caused much of what has been achieved to have never been accomplished.
TAO, if you are speaking to me and this post having an effect on whether or not some readers will turn from Obama, then you are giving me way too much credit. My humble little blog is hardly gonna change minds. LOL!
Tom's comment is what it is, his opinion. I happen to agree with most of it, but my progressive friends who visit me daily and have criticized Obama on occasion, KNOW I do not put them in the racist catagory. Nobody on my bloglist is a racist and I never accused anyone of being a racist.
In Tom's comment he says..... "The predominately white progressive intelligentsia don't see Obama clearly because of our racial blind spot. We don't see the role of race in how he seems to understand himself and how other perceive him."
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see that as calling the hard left progressive a racist.
The charge that the "new" progs are racist is not without reason. How else can you explain all these vicious personal attacks on a black president? We didn’t see such with Clinton or Carter and surely these white presidents failed to deliver ALL that these whiners think they deserve, which is virtually everything.
I don't see it Leslie. I think these hard lefties are so desperate for a true progressive who will make all their dreams come true, someone like a Bernie Sanders, but I don't see that happening anymore than I see a green party candidate winning. So why not just accept it and move on. Work hard to elect progressives to Congress, that seems more realistic to me.
I think I've lost a few friends this week
That is so silly. I keep hearing of people being de-friended on Face Book. I don't use Face Book, but I hear the rumors.
Why? Because you said something I don't agree with! Asshole! I don't have that same opinion as you! Get out of my life! Asshole!
It is the stupidest, most childish thing ever.
I routinely enrage both liberals and conservatives. If everyone was like that, no one would speak to me at all.
Hello?
John you are enraging me right now cuz I think you just called me an asshole..and stupid
Hello???
just kiddin!! LOL
John - You picked up on one of my biggest pet peaves about farcebook. I actually got unfriended due to something I posted on my blog about Michael Vick. Agreed, it is HIGHLY childish and retarded to boot.
The way I see it, if someone unfriends you because of something you said, they were NEVER your friend in the first place.
All the more reason why I pick and choose my farcebook friends carefully, now.
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
Thomas Jefferson
I have defriended people on FB, not because they disagreed with me, but because they were abusive to me or my other friends - or they were trolls.
When we voted for Obama we all wanted all these wonderful things.
We wanted out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We wanted single payer health care. We wanted the Bush tax cuts repealed. We wante gay marriage recognized and DADT repealed. Unions want card check legislation.
The right owns the Supreme Court so health care reform will probably die there. The card check legislation will never go anywhere. But it looks to me as if the courts are being used to make tough decisions instead of standing up and saying this is the way it's going to be because I'm Commander in Chief.
Nobody in Congress other than a batch of tea baggers will vote to cut anything so they all agree to a committee to make recomendations and allow cuts to automaticaslly go through so none of them have to take a stand.
I want my president to take a stand. I of course will support and vote for him in 2012. My difference with Obama and his team are methods and not goals which I believe I share with him. In the end, Obama has to do things the way he thinks will be most effective. Hopefully history will prove his method correct. I do wish democrats would show unity and start pandering to grass roots people like me though.
Well either stay home next November or vote for Ralph Nader or someone like him and deal with president Bachman Tom.
She's the kind of kook Obama has to deal with to legislation of any benefit through.
yeah. I'm ticked that things I believe in and Obama could control haven't been done. I also have a knowledge of how politics work from a local perspective. You have to deal with the devil sometimes. Obama isn't the enemy. Even though it seems he panders to them at times.
Such egalitarianism was tried and failed miserably and bloodily in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China,
No actually it wasn't because the people who ran those countries had the very same human failings the rest of the human race did.
Stalin never saw the Slavs nor Eastern parts of his country as true equals like he did the Georgians.
Also Stalin like Mao created and nurtured a cult of personality, which is the exact opposite of egalitarianism.
Stalin used his secret police to attack ethnic groups;
Mass operations of the NKVD also targeted "national contingents" (foreign ethnicities) such as Poles, ethnic Germans, Koreans, etc. A total of 350,000 (144,000 of them Poles) were arrested and 247,157 (110,000 Poles) were executed.
He shipped millions to Siberia just because of their ethnic background;
After the brief Nazi occupation of the Caucasus, the entire population of five of the small highland peoples and the Crimean Tatars – more than a million people in total – were deported without notice or any opportunity to take their possessions.
As a result of Stalin's lack of trust in the loyalty of particular ethnicities, such ethnic groups as the Soviet Koreans, the Volga Germans, the Crimean Tatars, the Chechens, and many Poles were forcibly moved out of strategic areas and relocated to places in the central Soviet Union, especially Kazakhstan in Soviet Central Asia. By some estimates, hundreds of thousands of deportees may have died en route.
Not quite the way you presented it.
Joesph Stalin was a street thug who used his position post civil war to achieve power then ruthlessly consolidated that power, egalitarianism be damned.
Mao followed Stalin's idea of proper communist thought which was nothing like what Lenin nor Marx thought. Mao like Stalin used purges mass expulsion to prisons and violence to force his ideas on those who refused to follow the accepted path. No egalitarianism was really ever tried in either case, just lip service and distorted ideas.
Sort of like how the far right claims to follow the constitutional ideas of the founders,while denying the rights, including their numerous and onerous voting suppression campaigns to deny the true expression of democracy in America.
They do this because, like Stalin and Mao, the far right fringe behind the Club for Growth ideology and teatard movement would lose if the true will of the people were expressed.
..... so as usual your factiod is way off.
Sue: where has Obama capitulated? ...SS and Medicare are NOT gonna be privatized... the wars are winding down, the tax cuts WILL end... they are NOT made permanent ...Obama has an 8 yr plan...
Every time the Republicans have taken a hostage the President has capitulated. Every time. SS and Medicare aren't going to be privatized -- they're going to be cut. Cuts from the "super congress" only need a majority to pass.
DINO Max Baucus was on the Simpson-Bowles commission and he has now been appointed to the super congress! What this means is he's going to join with the Republicans and approve: (1) raising the SS retirement age (2) cutting SS (3) cutting Medicare and Medicaid.
We're going to get either: The automatic cuts (which includes deep cuts to social programs as well as cuts to the military), or DEEP cuts to social programs, including SS, Medicare, and Medicaid (I think it's going to be the later).
FireDogLake, btw, is calling this commission "Catfood II".
I was working on a post about how Obama wants to cut SS and Medicare... I would have finished it up and posted a link, but I'm having mouse problems (the right-click button isn't working). I have to stop in town tomorrow and pick up a new one.
btw, I disagree that the wars are "winding down", the bush tax cuts will be extended a second time, and Obama's 8 year plan is going to be cut short... he's a one-termer for sure once the economy crashes again.
Infidel753: "...it's they themselves who are the de facto Republicans -- by striving to undermine support for Obama, they increase the odds that a Republican will take the Presidency, which is near-treasonous at a time when that Republican might be Bachmann or Perry."
Infidel753 hit the head right on the nail!
Newest poll numbers show Mr. Obama dipping below 40% approval. No sitting president has ever been re-elected with approval numbers like that. But then again, Mr. Obama is a long game player.
It's a looooooooooong way to November 12, 2012.
All I can say to our liberal friends who a moving away from President Obama is this:
Think about what the newly elected GOP governors did in their individual states and picture that happening countrywide.
That should scare the shyte out of everyone.
w, I find it interesting you follow firedoglake. Well for me and my house I follow the White House website for up to date and factual info. When the president says he will only go to providers for cuts to Medicare, I believe him. The difference between the left and the far left is simply they think Obama is a liar and I do not. The president has not done a thing to SS, Medicare and Medicaid, but the far left is already slamming him for what they BELIEVE he will do in the future, NO TRUST. It's not just the left who want government hands off SS, M and M, it's probably 90% of the country...so the president is not stupid, there will not be cuts that harm seniors, and there will not be changes that harm Obamas chances for reelection either. He will be reelected, you can take that to the bank...
Sue, I found this over at Frum Forum and thought you enjoy reading one of his commenters:
anniemargret // Aug 9, 2011 at 11:21 pm
The problem as I see it, is that the GOP ‘leaders’ or establishment conservatives are still hiding under the rock. They’re scared to death of bucking the Religious Right and/or the T.P. which is basically the same thing in many cases.
They’re cowards. They know their party has drifted into dangerous waters, of real extremism – the fact that we are talking about religious beliefs entering the political chorus of voices in the year 2011, says it all. As I said earlier, the GOP is a religious party with political overtones.
Within days of becoming President they were looking for any reason to disqualify Obama because he wasn’t ‘Christian’ enough. Who gave them that authority? Who? These are the Pharisees of today. Shame on them all.
The only reason they don’t come down hard on Jews is because of biblical literalism – they waiting for Christ to come again into Israel – a la the Rapture. Otherwise, the Jews would be similiarly lamblasted for not being ‘christian enough.’
When the lefties took over the Democrats in the 60s,it went thru a cartharsis. As a result, leftists do not dominate the Democrats. The hard right has dominated the GOP for years and there is no easing up.
They are unfit to govern. They don’t have the guts to stop their own brand of radicalism…as we already saw with the odious & destructively insane T.P’ers.
Wow. Someone here actually admits to reading FDL? Out loud? In front of God and everybody? That's grounds for a divorce! I deleted them from my blog roll a couple of years ago mainly because they seem to have a little problem with something I hold very dear - truth. To say nothing of Hamsher being . . . well, I'll let that one go.
Shaw, you need to relax, we voted for Obama in 2008 because we were voting for change we could believe in....
In 2012 we will vote for Obama again because he is now, the lesser of two evils.
Those poll numbers are depressing, to say the least. But as you say, it is early and I think a lot of people are just fed up all around, so he - being the target - gets much of the anger. Hopefully he'll get some fire in his belly.
What bothers me about the Leftbaggers is they really seem, for the most part, to be alarmingly naive about the political process, how our government works and even the country's history in so many cases. Not only would a third party candidate ensure a future worse than what we've already seen, I think they need to stop and think: The Republicans are loving the disaffection. It plays into their hands just beautifully.
I was active in the 60s and cheered when LBJ announced he wouldn't seek reelection. So, look at what we got. I learned a life-long lesson. I can't have it all my way and the grass isn't always greener on the other side.
Well girls, the poll numbers will change, just like they've been doing. Obama will make choices we love and some we hate, but he is our president for the next 5 yrs :-), so I plan on staying positive, reading the positive blogs, and enjoying my president while we have him. We are lucky aren't we!?! It's much more fun this way....
TAO, I'm not buying that Obama is the "lesser of two evils." I refuse to succumb to the thinking that he's the enemy.
Like Sue and Leslie, I listen to and read what the super liberals say about him and his weaknesses and his caving and his nonleadership and everything else the far left and right are throwing at him.
I sometimes want to throw up my hands and be the complete cynic and join the chorus of disgruntled lefties.
Then I come across an article like this, and I'm more convinced that we are not seeing the proverbial forest for the trees.
Great link Shaw. Somehow I missed that one.
I liked the link also Shaw. It didn't say it this way but I compare it to Jackie Robinson having to take the taunts of the jerks when he broke into the majors.
I still wish Obama would take a harder line against those who use bigotry to discredit Obama and his agenda. The bigots aren't going to vote for him anyway. the strategy is his to implement though and it's probably worked just as well as my more combative approach would have.
But you all have to admit we all dig it when President Obama does rip on righty. His poll numbers go up and we all write blog posts about how great it was.
Shaw this post IS that comment from Tom! See, all the BIG bloggers read me! ;-)
Shaw,
Believe what you want but the reality is more and more Americans have less faith in Washington's ability to make a difference in their lives...
I will vote for Obama, but until I see him come up with a policy that I believe is going to make a difference, AND I SAID A POLICY, I DIDN'T SAY A LAW, because I know full well how politics works and I don't need Leslie to educate me, but once he comes up with a concrete policy that I believe will make a difference, then all he gets is my vote....
So far all he has offered is neo liberal prescriptions....if I wanted Bill Clinton in the White HOuse I would have voted for Hillary in the primary.
That makes me a lot different than your stereo typing of the hard left doesn't it?
Sue, it sounds like you think following Firedoglake is a bad thing?
In the "evolved" thread Shaw said, "And Jane Hamsher's name leads all the rest".
I clicked on the link and saw an article titled, "Jane Hamsher Is A Parasite On The Democratic Party and the “Progressive” Movement!"
I don't follow firedoglake, but I have seen Jane Hamsher on MSNBC and I've never heard her say anything I've disagreed with. Calling her a parasite seems quite out of line to me.
In THIS thread I noticed that Tao mentioned firedoglake. Then I did a Google search because I remembered that a conservative Democrat had been appointed to the "super congress" but I wasn't sure who.
When I did the search the firedoglake article I previously linked to came up near the top.
That's why I linked to it... not because I "follow" FDL... although I'm still not sure why that would be a bad thing... unless you're in agreement with the "Jane Hamsher is a parasite" article that Shaw linked to?
I also do not follow the White House website. Of course they're going to put a positive spin on everything they're doing.
Sue: the president says he will only go to providers for cuts to Medicare, I believe him.
In your post titled, "Here's the Truth", the author you copied said, "The President agreed to no Medicare benefit cuts in the trigger. None. The cuts, if they automatically happen, would go to whom? The providers".
But that is ONLY if the Super Congress can't reach an agreement and cuts are "triggered". If the Super Congress CAN reach and agreement they can agree to ANYTHING... including raising the SS retirement age and cuts to M&M recipients (not the providers).
President Obama isn't a part of the Super Congress and has no say in what they decide to cut or revenues they decide to raise (if any -- but there won't be).
There very well could be cuts that harm seniors, and there very well could be changes that harm Obama's chances for re-election.
If such a bill reached his desk I think he would sign it. Why? Because he thinks he can use the Clinton strategy of triangulation.
I really wish I could "take it to the bank" that Obama is going to be re-elected. But I'm convinced he's going to be a one-term president. Not 100 percent convinced, but definitely more than 50 percent convinced.
I think it's going to be impossible for Obama to get re-elected once the economy nose-dives.
I don't like FDL, don't like Hamsher either. I like staying positive and reading positive. You can read whatever you want w. I don't fault you for that.
I don't believe Obama will sign any bill that changes SS and Medicare, just my opinion.
Sue,
If you think carefully, are you sure the last bill he signed may not change SSN and Medicare? What if the super committee does not reach an agreement?
I like you faith.
Rah! Rah! Rah!
Hmmmm....39% approval rating,thats getting close to Jimmy Carter territory.
Rusty,
If Obama is not careful, this insane Republican House may cause Obama's approval rating to drop down into Bush territory, God forbid.
For Obama to succeed he must offer classical liberal solutions to the nations problems.
However, as classical liberalism is little understood by today's "masses", {as well as much of academia's so called intelligentsia} largely due to the dysfunctional federal educational system since the 60's, there is little chance of his succeeding.
Time for another day perhaps.
Worship at the alter of Palin, Bachmann, Ghost of Reagan, ET AL (IE the teabagistani crowd) and expect people to think you are rational. Good luck with that.
"I also do not follow the White House website. Of course they're going to put a positive spin on everything they're doing."--WD
And Jane Hamsher doesn't spin to to put Mr. Obama in the worst possible light?
"Worship at the alter of Obama (a politician) and expect people to think you are rational. Good luck with that.--Anon
What worship, anon? The right has been using that tired old inaccurate meme for 2 1/2 years to describe Mr. Obama's supporters. And both parties do it. How often do the liberals refer to Reagan as Saint Ronnie?
I do not worship anyone, living or dead, (with the possible exception of the doctors who saved my life.)
Our friend and fellow blogger, Sheria, has an excellent post up over at The Swash Zone that will shed some sense on this discussion.
I read some comments before you deleted them. What an echo chamber you have. At least right wing wackos will argue with people, not just delete them. What are you afraid of?
SAPS: Sorry, I don't recognize the name. But just a thought: people have a right to run their house any way they want to. I doubt seriously if Sue is scared of you or anyone else. Cleaning the stalls of muck is a necessary evil if you don't want it to smell up the place. There's no law that says one has to tolerate every idiot that comes in the front door.
sappy, I doubt you read any comments that were deleted. I delete troll lisa and I don't have to explain why to you.
Rusty your ignorant comment is deleted for calling President Obama a disrespectful word. It's not allowed at my house.
Leslie,
I just read your post at MMA.
It is very good. I did not know this side of you, but it was awesome.
Shaw: And Jane Hamsher doesn't spin to to put Mr. Obama in the worst possible light?
I'm not a regular reader of FireDogLake, so I can't say for certain... but I seriously doubt it. What would Jane Hamsher have to gain from doing such a thing? If there is any chance at all of Progressives getting anything they want from the president, I'd say that chance is a hell of a lot higher with a Democrat in the WH over a Republican. Unless she's an idiot or a Republican subversive, I think she knows she's more likely to get results with constructive criticism... which is what I suspect she practices.
John Myste: Why thank you. Maybe I have a split personality? Actually I take my blog pretty seriously. I just come here to play. ; )
w-devrish: Hamsher supported Obama and as soon as he took office, she turned against him. Trust me when I say there is nothing "constructive" in her criticism. It is biased and often misleading and unfair. She also has a reputation for being very personally nasty to not only Obama but to people who don't agree with her, even threatening them - seriously. She really is a very vicious piece of work.
I would like to formally apologize if I in any way implied that Sue, one of the brightest people I know, is anything but bright.
Lisa, thanks for pointing out that I needed to clear that up. I am glad I could help, and if you need anything else let me know. I am here.
Rusty,
I would like to reply to you. I really would, but it would seem your comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Better luck next time, eh?
Tom,
I would like to reply to you. I really would, but it would seem your comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Better luck next time, eh?
Lisa,
That's a fake John.
Everyone else, John is not John. I am. Or if John is John he is not me. I am John.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
well lets see, I will probably put moderation back on... I need to put up a new post too but don't know what to write about, I'll work on that...
John you didn't offend me, I was just jokin' with ya. Lisa is so jealous of my fun blog cuz hers totally sucks weinie... buh bye lisa...
Sue,
I never suspected that I did offend. I think Lisa may have :).
Is lisa still coming here begging for attention?
She has her own blog where she and her fellow Goopers laugh at cartoons and think they're discussing the great issues of the day.
LOL!
I'm still your friend.
I don't blame progressives for being frustrated and even angry with Obama. I've called him a corporatist myself, but nothing worse.
But one perspective needs to be understood.
The system is rigged and Obama could fail in many more ways, no matter how well intentioned he may be.
That said, I will vote for him because the republicans are the enemies of democracy and must be defeated, or at the very least hampered.
thanks Dave, that says it all. I will definitely vote for him, if I was a Republican I would vote for him too. The clowns in the GOP field are the most incompetent I've ever witnessed..
Post a Comment