This is a response to what I have seen here and at Open-derived FB sites.
I've fairly well had it with these people and, to a far less extent, with those intimidated to the point where they won't take them on. If you do determine to take them on, for what it's worth, you'll have me with you.
The shrikes penning venom, women and men, are powerful only to the extent that you pay them any serious mind.
They are nearly daily emotively myopic, self-indulgent (if not self-referencing). They'd rather allow reactionaries and misogynists to control the Court, Congress, and the Executive 'til our grandkids are dead in order to exercise their infantile reaction, not so much to this president's decisions, but more to their own piteous, now-aching 2008 misjudging this person some itinerant miracle-worker settling down for a time in the District, gracing us with his residency.
These people may well deserve generations of Court-affirmed horrific social policies, the certain results of acting on their cynical, nihilist advice. I sure as hell do not deserve it nor does my son, my wife, nor do any of my country's women, nor do our sexual and racial and ethnic and religious and economic minorities.
If these writers thought they had voted for a Jesus and got instead a sometimes left-leaning pragmatist, who is the president is, tough.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Poor Woman
Chicken Mãâàn
Dianne Schuch - Lindsey
nerd cred
jmac1949
Deborah Méndez Wilson
Salon.com
Comments
All politicians lie. We know this. All politicians are thwarted in what they want to do because they don't work in a vacuum. We know this, too. Has he done some good? Yes, in my opinion, for what it's worth.
And stupid.
I would have voted for the ultimate SLFC pragmatist, but she lost the primary.
It's frustrating that there doesn't seem to be a way of reconciling or resolving these two approaches. Discussions seem to come down to one side or the other repeating their initial argument in slightly altered form with greater emphasis. As an art of the possible adherent, that puts me Obama's camp. But in a few months I plan to blog about the nature of the argument forms themselves.
As for me, the pesident is solid and not a lesser of evils.
Your words are like cool raindrops on a hot, sizzling day to me, Jon.
That's all I need to know. Thank you!
R♥
Then there are those who knew and said, before he was elected, that he was not what they thought he was. Now, those who knew watch as those same folks who elected him the first time defend him and insist that it will be the end of the world (or something like that) if he is not reelected.
And for those who say there is no other choice, you’re just simply wrong. All it takes is marking a different spot on the ballot, or writing in a candidate.
Having said that, there is still the outside chance that in a second term, with no reelection to worry about, Obama might actually show some real leadership instead of capitulation to Republicans and abandonment of his supporters. It would sure be a welcome sight, for a “change”.
The reason the Tea Party has had so much influence on the Republicans is that they took votes away from incumbents. THAT is the ONLY thing that will change politicians’ behavior.
Does the fact that we are discussing the potential of voting for the greater evil or lesser evil have any meaning, any value at all? What’s the commonality in those two expressions?
Obama's record is very mixed. Good Supreme Court nominations, which may be the most lasting thing he accomplishes. I understand he's been very good for people at the very bottom of the economic ladder.
In dealing with Republicans he's been remarkably short-sighted and inept, continuously assuming that moderation would buy him something while instead it bought him absolutely nothing. As part of this process, he has been an insufficient advocate for some very reasonable liberal positions.
He has been behind the curve on gay rights, but at least he's been on the curve.
He's surrounded himself with conservative economic advisors, which has meant he's proceeded slowly at times he shouldn't. However, he's way better than Romney would be.
Keeping Guantanamo Bay open is strange, to say the least, but I don't know what he knows.
His decision to give himself the ability to assassinate American citizens abroad with zero due process, not even an order from a judge, strikes me as scary. If a Republican president did that, we'd never shut up about it. That whole lack of due process for American citizens thing is bad news, particularly from a legal scholar. It's not enough for me to wash my hands of him completely because doing so makes no logistical sense, but I can't really excuse it.
How's that?
As I am fond of telling a few people I know who are so myopic... "GROW UP! The last allegedly perfect man was crucified some 2000 years ago!"
Pleased to agree to disagree w you on this as frankly I never find you condemnatory w those w whom you disagree, nor shrill. Thanks for your comment; while I don't hold with it, I respect your mind and commitments a great deal.
I'm lucky because I live in California, a foregone conclusion so I can choose to vote for Green Party candidates, but if things get stupid in November and my vote might make a difference, I won't hesitate to vote for him a second time. Good post Jon!!
I can't quite figure what you think he's been so good on.
you have expressed your frustration eloquently and politely.
And I will vote in order to preserve whatever hope I have for the Court, where the fate of the poor and of women and other minorities resides.
I listen to conservative arguments, but I tune out the crazies on both sides. Discussion or debate are not their forte. I lose less faith in human reasoning that way.
Fair enough. I was in a hurry to get out the door when I wrote that comment and I sped up toward the end. I also said nothing about drones. You're right - lack of transparency belongs on his Negatives list.
And, yup. I WAS saddened and disgusted when he repeatedly and repeatedly misused his bully pulpit and congressional super majority to "reach across the aisle" to achieve lackluster gains or outright betrayals. (many of which Kosh mentioned).
But, as they say "the proofs in the pudding" and who and what he truly is came clear: EXACTLY the same as every other Washington Dinocrat / Stealth Republican.
So, yeah that was me then, but now, through experience I've learned his true allegiance. Please note that I said I "learned", not that I "evolved" (like Obama's fake ass "evolving" opinions on gay rights which are now even left in the dust by the likes of V.P. Biden).
Yes, Jon... That was me. It will also be me that votes for a much truer and more rigorous progressive candidate this time. I might be fooled again, but it beats the HELL out of being knowingly stupid by repeating an action I KNOW will be counter productive to my beliefs.
In closing, I'll repeat the quote I left in response to your similar comments yesterday:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~ Benjamin Franklin
However, with your set-up, you only got two parties. Or however-many, depending on how you look at it, since all your legislators can do what they (or their legal bribers) want.
Man, they want to shut all of us women down. What started all this regression?
Hmm of course.. does not take a brainiac to understand that. Obama has been stopped by the other side in every endeavour he has tried.
I would not want to be in his shoes.
HUGGGGGGG
job. It is true that we do not know what he knows and how that affects his decisions. Even transparency is a subjective thing it seems. All I know is that I have seen several presidents go into office now, with the best of intentions and some of those whom I have supported have done more in the way of progress and betterment of this nation than others. I can pick them out and tell you who they are, but I think we all know which ones did not make that list. What I learned in politics a long time ago is that you can only do the very best you can, and that sometimes everything is stacked against those good intentions for a number of reasons, some of which are beyond your control. Moving among the snakes and power mongers (no offense to snakes) you understand better the language of power. How you have to stack the deck everytime you can for support and when you do, you risk offending and misusing the very thing which you stand for in the effort of the larger, perhaps greater good. Jesus was busy so he send someone else. So if you think Jesus was who you got, you did not. You got, again, a simply a man. Not a magical one, and trust me none of them are.
If we consider who we have to chose from, I am going to stick with what I know and what I know is that the Republican choices are no choice is you are considering humanity and what I would consider the moral choice.
The US has an interesting set up for governing and it is really just an experiment. It is not fool proof and it has now framed itself in a kind of declining spiral. Why? Those who need only power and wealth have corrupted so much of it to their own ends, that the rest of us who believe in the idea of democracy and that the people are the government and own the government are the naive children.
As the other side and our own side ramp up corruption to try and beat each other, it is always the rest of us who truly lose.
From the film, National Treasure, a quote from the Declaration of Independence: "Of all the ideas that became the United States, there's a line here that's at the heart of all the others. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security."
As for the fools who would vote for a third party candidate, all I can say is--you are only fooling yourselves! You and I know we have a two party country. Yes Obama disappointed me somewhat, but for the most part he has done everything he promised. He is not King, he is only the President, and still has to deal with a Congress which is totally divided. There is no doubt in my mind, who I will be voting for in November. As to anyone who thinks there is a better alternative, I feel sorry for them.
So far I've been called "myopic", "self indulgent", "infantile" and a "fool".
It's nice to see that Obama supporters are so open minded and never indulge in ad hominem attacks on people with whom they disagree. :rolleyes:
Now explain to me again how you and your comments differ from those of the asshats in DC? Cuz quite honestly y'all sound exactly like Boenher's.
But it remains to be seen what can be done in the face of the onslaught from finance.
And what about Obama...? Will he be left all alone at the party, the last "pragmatist" preaching the dying neoliberal credo? Will he continue to carry water for the banks? Certainly if he doesn't find some spine, and fast, they'll do him in. They'll force him to be a worse false front for austerity than the fake "socialist" parties in Greece and Spain.
Why so set on making it easy for him to screw you over?
"It's nice to see that Obama supporters....."
Generalize much?
Jan,
Jonathan has a particular approach he uses on his blog. He's not going to take you on in a major argument; he's basicallly going to say "thank you for disagreeing," assuming it's civil, which goes without saying in your case. You haven't been singled out; it's just what to expect here. I am not passing judgment on his preference, nor would I criticize you for passing judgment on his preference; I'm just letting you know in case you didn't already that that's how he always runs his blog.
Jonathan et al,
There is one group here (mainly one individual, really) who thinks that Obama is too cavalier when it comes to civilian deaths in countries where we use drones, and that he's too free with military solutions in general without authorization from Congress or agreements with other governments. When added to hidden prison facilities for accused terrorists in the Middle East, the fact that Guantanamo is still open, recent changes in policy involving killing American citizens with no due process at all (even a court order), and a lack of transparency in these areas, Mr. Obama has been accused of, in essence, murder at will, and the accusers are of the opinion that these offenses are dire enough to withhold support from him at all costs.
There is some validity to this case. I don't think it's going anywhere in general, for three reasons:
1. Not enough people are aware of it.
2. Enough people assume, rightly or wrongly, that these killings are ultimately to protect American citizens from terrorism. The argument could be made, though I don't know with how much validity in this case because I'm not well enough informed, that there are limits to being willing to endanger the lives of American servicemen and women in order to spare civilians among populations he views as aggressive toward us (using troops on the ground instead of drones). There are multiple grounds to question the validity of this argument, though, so though I think the majority of Americans probably agree with it, it's more facile than we have a right to make it.
3. Not enough Americans care about these casualties to the extent of stopping them at the cost of screwing up aspects of American life, particularly when it comes to future Supreme Court appointments.
In other words, in order to vote for Obama we have to get our hands dirty and be responsible for voting for the man who has done this. That there are people who refuse to do this is not necessarily reprehensible.
I can understand taking either position. However, I think that whichever position you take, you have to be prepared to accept responsibility for your actions. That means that if you support Obama, you have to be prepared to acknowledge what the man has done that you're supporting and that you're supporting him anyway; and if you oppose Obama, you have to be prepared to be counted among those who didn't stand in the way of the consequences of a Romney presidency.
Somewhat less seriously, this happened in 2000 with Ralph Nader, with his supporters stating that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush. The extent to which they were wrong cannot be overestimated.
jesus.
tellin em to give it all away cuz
the end of the world is nigh, so ya better be like those lilies, baby.
sway in the wind...
the pneuma, the breath of
a soul such as Jesus's, as i understand him,
(and if he was NOT like i imagine him?..so what...)
would yell some stuff from his presidential pulpit
at those g-damn Pharisees his,
as Karl Popper said, his
"art of intellectual intuition, of visualising the divine originals, the Forms or Ideas, of unveiling the Great Mystery behind the common man's everyday world of appearances."
yessir. how would like socrates as vice president? haw.
@ Belinda T: This =
". But I do like his attitude that in order to move forward, we need to stop dwelling on everything that's happened from yesterdays which some obviously won't do because it suits their agendae that to control the masses, said masses must remain uninformed."
Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Encouraging that we ignore what he has or has not done is the freakin definition of wanting the masses to be uninformed.
2) I appreciate very much your raising the Nader apologists.
And I believe the O man deserves re-election.
Just a small, infinitesimal point:
A shrike is a voiceless bird. It cannot sing.
Unless I am very much mistaken, this is true in every case.
Sorry.
Thought you ought to hear it from a friend.
PW
He was an activist, a man of the people, a man among men.
A great faith healer. He did not have a negative agenda.
And as for giving it away, his way of handling life was all about the spiritual consequences of what we build on earth, not necessarily just because (as some interpret his way) the so-called "end of the world" was nigh.
So we are agreed in this: God help the religious so-called right if ever the actual Jesus were elected.
They wouldn't stand a chance! LOL
And the big investment bankers would pee their pants."Give it away!"
What use is stuff, anyway?
Can it truly make anybody really happy?
Doubtful.
**she said, self-righteously, cracking open her much-thumbed Thoreau**
Great discussion you've opened up, here Jon!
I notice some here suggesting that those of us asking others to reconsider their antagonism toward Barack Obama are saying the end of the world will result if Obama is not re-elected.
We are not.
But if a Republican wins, the impact on our nation will be significant. The impact on the federal judiciary alone, as you mentioned, should cause everyone interested in a progressive agenda…anyone interested in protecting our already besieged safety net programs …to do everything possible to insure a Democratic victory in November. Allowing a Republican to take the Oval Office would be a monstrous mistake.
The ones deaf to your arguments, unfortunately, are deaf by choice. There is no getting through to those people…and we have to hope there are not enough of them to cause the election to go to the conservatives. I am very, very apprehensive. I see so much of this going on here…and in local newspapers, I cannot help fear that the far left will, in fact, jump off that cliff. Thanks again for doing what you can to try to head it off.
There are folks whose standards even they cannot live up to, but they are so busy pointing the finger at others that they entirely miss how utterly they fail to demonstrate any understanding of anything but their own point of view.
What really gets my goat is that when an inkling of awareness comes over them, instead of making an effort to deepen their understanding, they double down on intentional ignorance and keep harping on the same points. This seems to be the the same sort of failed argumentation made on either extreme of the political spectrum. I am a liberal and I am proud to have been liberal all my life. Liberals get things done that help people have better lives. I have more to say, but Comcast is about to cut my connection, so I am posting. BBL
So apt and spot on!
The aim is to maintain the fear which every totalitarian government from Nazi Germany to Stalin's USSR knew is vital in stemming protest and maintaining a police state. The quick brutal violence of the various local police forces in quashing (coordinated by the federal Home Security sector) the rather mild peaceful protests of the Occupy movement easily signals the rise of the police state and the death of the right to publicly protest.
And Obama has been totally silent on this fundamental issue (and factoring his persecution of whistle blowers) and positively instrumental in further wreaking huge damage on basic rights. This is not trivial, it is fundamental.
Apisa is correct in one aspect. Obama is the lesser of the two evils. But when one evil means standing still to be crushed totally and the other indicates jumping off a cliff to absolute death I cannot see the point of a choice.
How do you think the right would feel if they busted their ass for Romney and he turned around and said "Ya know, we got a budget deficit and I've decided to tax the rich. We can afford it!"
Inconceivable ain't it?
We on the left are the ones who always shit on - because the Dems think our votes are always in their pockets. Well maybe in order for things to really change, they have to get a lot worse before they get better. It is the young which must lead - and I have little hope anymore.
When I see and smell a huge steaming pile of excrement I do not consider it nourishing and have the good sense to walk away.
That said, there are paid gofers all over the media, including the net, doing the big money's propaganda. R
Fact: Obama professed, profoundly so, to be a progressive seeking change. His entire campaign rhetoric was “hope and change” and is still today (I can provide sources on any of this or any of the claims I level if you’re interested).
Progressivism: the principles and practices of those advocating progress, change, or reform, especially in political matters. Below are some hardcore facts. As you read them, pay attention to the theme of the day.
Fact: Obama promised to increase capital gains taxes for those with higher incomes, in essence, taxing the rich as fervently as they do the poor; a progressive idealism.
Fact: That has not happened
Fact: Obama promised to eliminate capital gains for small businesses; a progressive idealism
Fact: Obama only extended some miniscule previously won efforts.
Fact: Obama promised to intercede in the massive foreclosure efforts by the elitists; a progressive idealism
Fact: Obama has done little to aid the individuals in need of assistance with home loans and it’s well documented that it’s next to impossible for most to renegotiate their loans. BUT, we all know where that vast majority of TARP went to; banks, auto manufacturers and insurance companies.
Fact: Obama promised to increase the availability to assistance in poor communities to develop businesses in those impoverished communities; a progressive idealism
Fact: Obama has partially made this come to pass. However, at about 20% of the promised level and Congress is waiting for HIM to move forward.
Fact: Obama promised to end income tax for senior citizens making less than 50K/year; a progressive idealism
Fact: Nada
Fact: Obama promised to repeal Dubya’s tax cuts for higher income; a progressive idealism
Fact: Nada
Fact: Obama promised to eliminate many exemptions and deductions for high income earners; a progressive idealism
Fact: Nada
Fact: Obama promised to increase union strength by making it easier to unionize; a progressive idealism
Fact: Nada
Fact: Obama promised to eliminate the Social Security tax cap for those earning 250K or more; a progressive idealism
Fact: Nada
Fact: Obama promised to prevent failing companies from giving executives bonuses; a progressive idealism
Fact: Nada
Fact: Obama promised to allow people to import prescription drugs AND he promised to restrict the large pharma’s form blocking the production of generic drugs; a progressive idealism
Fact: Nada
This list is quite lengthy, so I’ll give you a link to a very non-partisan site so you can view them yourself at your leisure. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
To be fair in this, there are indeed promises kept by Obama. However! If you look at the pattern above and compare those he’s kept with those he’s not, the disturbing pattern appears, a pattern of a tidbits of progressivism mixed with obvious overall support for corporate America. Perhaps it’s me, maybe I am expecting too much out of the term “progressive,” I dunno. But I view progressivism as progress, change and reform for the benefit of the majority of people. Does the pattern above appear to be such? Not in my eyes and logically P=E, P=R, therefore E=R does not logically support P=E, BP=R.
Politics cannot always be broken down to pure logic, but the point is, that Obama platformed on progressive ideals for change and I do believe, that since he was speaking to the public who elected him, that he too viewed progressivism as I; progress, change and reform for the benefit of the majority of people. So! Why should I settle for his massive list of broken promises (especially those for individuals) because he’s the alternative to worse?
We’ve been doing that for decades and look where we are now.
There are alternatives to accepting the status quo