Trust me, I'm not giving the POTUS any slack. I'm still boycotting the love fest by not spending one minute of my time or one dollar of my money for campaign contributions for the Giant Presidential Mud Wrestling Marathon of 2012. However, I think given what's just broken over the wires, it's important to put things into context before the right wing hate machine goes into overdrive.
I can see the right wing spinmasters at their keyboards right now, sharpening up their punji sticks with the diatribes against Obama because of the guilty verdict delivered against Rod Blagojevich. Illinois! Most corrupt POTUS, ever !!! Of course this ignores U.S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, and Ronald Reagan, but we all know that GOP prezes can commit no sins. And only Democrats who're linked to whatever Mayor Daley (who I suppose was really running the country every time there was a D in the White House for the last 50 years) are guilty of the stains of corruption.
Since I'm originally a veteran of Chicago politics, I'll begin by telling you my story of volunteering for Dan Walker, who ran for Governor of Illinois in 1970. I was doing voting statistics on the South Side of Chicago, and I came upon some very curious anomalies. In some wards, there were actually more voters than there were people in the Census tracts! And turnout of registered voters historically sometimes approached 105%. Curious, indeed!
I called up Mike Royko, the famous columnist for the Daily News and Sun Times, and he just laughed. He was shocked, shocked! And then he told me that this was just the electoral landscape of the Windy City, and I might as well get used to it. Now mind you, Richard Nixon went after vote fraud in Chicago tooth and toenail, and the Windy City is a lot cleaner place these days electorally than it used to be. But I'm sure that the city of big shoulders, hog butcher to the world, still manages to hinky-dink the electoral results one way or the other from time to time. For all I know, I'm still voting the straight Democratic Party ticket (when needed) in Illinois even though I haven't lived there for 40 years.
But here's where the defense of Barack Obama comes in. Although Dan Walker went to prison after he was Governor of Illinois, the fact of the matter is, he went to prison for income tax evasion and not political corruption. One of the rules of good government politics in an Illinois, Louisiana, West Virginia, New Jersey, etc. is to vote for the guy who'll stay out of prison for the longest period of time. And in that respect, Dan Walker was the good government, clean, no-corruption guy, and for a good part of his term (at least while I was in Illinois), he did a damn good job of running a clean ship from the state capitol.
One of the ways in which the right wing hate machine twists things is that they don't want to talk about their rotten boroughs or their rotten politicians. Anyone in Illinois can tell you that the downstate Republican machine is just as corrupt as anything the Ds get.
Now, getting back to Obama, sometimes, just once in a blue moon -- a politician floats to the surface who's special, above the rest of the litter, and demonstrably superior in every way, shape, or form. The right wing can smear Obama with Tony Rezko all they want, but Rezko was Obama's neighbor, and dealing with corruption in Illinois is like breathing the air.
The main thing is, that when Obama was a state senator or a US senator, he transcended the usual humdrum bottom feeders in the system that usually define the level of politics in places like Illinois. And as far as I can determine, Obama has continued to maintain a very high standard of good government as chief administrator of the USA.
In Illinois politics as well as American government, people don't realize that in the real world, a POTUS or governor is not as much in charge of things as people imagine. For example, the US Department of Defense is an independent power in and of itself, and if you're the Commander-in-Chief, in reality this means that you don't dare go 100 feet near 95% of the balliwicks under the control of the Pentagon.
Better to let sleeping dogs lie where they are, as you never know when one of the dogs you disturb might turn out to have rabies. And so there is that policy of peaceful coexistence in American government. And we let the sleeping dogs lie, if we know what's good for us. For pure and simple survial, many times (regardless of party affiliation) it's a matter of survival and self interest not to get too curious about what might be happening in some departments of government that you supposedly control. And the media continues to spin its fairy tales. Look! Bright shiny objects! Fill in the blank for Anthony Weiner, Lindsay Lohan, or whatever.
The President of the United States does the best job he can with what he has to work with, and oftentimes the POTUS is placed into the position of First Reactor. Much of the time, places like the DOD are Johnny Carson, and the President is relegated to playing Ed McMahon.
So be aware of this when you hear F*x News go all nuclear about how horribly corrupt the Obama administration is. Having said all of this, this still doesn't mean that I'll necessarily vote for him.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Inverted Interrobang
kenneth houck
Paul Fassett
Donegal Descendant
Steel Breeze
l'Heure Bleue
Salon.com
Comments
He stays calm, focused—gets what he can and gives what he has to in order to make deals.
Most of my friends out here in the “real world” are conservatives. They are in my age group; they are white; and they are male…almost the conservative dynamic. As far as they are concerned, Obama is a traitor to America…leading it, in their opinion, far to the left, to the point of espousing socialism. They hate him because they see him as trying to “ruin” conservative initiatives and replace them with liberal ones.
The liberals I “know” (mostly people here in cyber-space in OS) seem to hate him also for betraying liberal or progressive principles…for giving in too much to rightwing demands. They see him as a traitor to America…leaning too far right…replacing progressive initiatives with conservative ones.
Makes you think George Orwell was too optimistic.
When it comes to the Blogojevich conviction, I have seen no evidence that our President had anything to do with it.
:D
My objections to Obama have been best expressed by Kemstone. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I'd look at his latest post. Essentially, Obama seems to make concessions that buy neither the country nor his Presidency anything, like he's trying to appeal to a moderate base that doesn't exist.
Of course I'll vote for him before I'll vote Republican, unless the GOP hits us with an unforseeably liberal candidate.
Second point: Having studied the issues from every conceivable angle I have come to the conclusion that anyone who wants to be president of the United States is categorically unfit for that position because you have to be out of your fucking mind to believe that any human being has the ability to fix all of the problems the next president is going to have to address....and being out of your fucking mind disqualifies you from serving in that position.
Let's face facts. The LAST president who was in charge of the store was probably Harry Truman, maybe Ike, but certainly not Kennedy or anyone after him. Harry went head to head with the military and headed them off at the pass, sending Dugout Doug to the showers. Eisenhower stepped in it when he didn't step on Eugene McCarthy. Kennedy succumbed to the military myth with the Bay of Pigs. Johnson was run into the ground by the generals and after that it's clear the inmates were running the asylum.
The job is not doable by anyone....Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, left, right or center....so this quadrennial best pig contest is nothing more than a sideshow distraction.
The problem is the system, not the people in the system, and the system went haywire so that only haywire people can still pretend it works.
Obama, you see, like Carter and Clinton, was an accidental president. He didn't expect to win the nomination, but he hoped to position himself for a first run in 2012, assuming the Republicans won in 2008.
Like Carter and Clinton, he was a relative outsider who was suddenly the front runner on the inside track and, like Carter and Clinton, his electoral victory was based on personality, not policies.
Carter lost his re-election bid because of his performance in office. Clinton kept his job on the basis of his performance.
Now we have a real conundrum....a personable president who hasn't performed up to anyone's expectations but has still done more than anyone expected.
There's no one in the Republican field who has anything like Obama's personal charisma; the only question is whether that's going to be enough to outweigh the performance questions.
I will vote for him again because the Republicans are only offering us pygmies, with no offense intended to the pygmies.
As far as corruption charges go, those who call Obama corrupt never would cast a vote for him anyway, since their biggest problem with him is that his skin tone is corrupt, so to speak...
The rest of the population who aren't white supremacists don't really much care about how corrupt Obama may or may not be, that I can tell.
It's all about the economy, I think.
I expect Obama to eke out a re-election win, but I don't think that anyone will be EXCITED to cast a vote for him. And I'm with you -- I'm not giving him another penny or another vote.
What dismays me is that those who would have excoriated bush the lesser for the cut and paste (from another blogpost) below, are willing to turn the other cheek in the case of obama:
A VERY wise woman on another blog posted this:
"And bear in mind what has transpired under Obama:
Not one Wall Streeter has been convicted of stealing hundreds of billions in those secularization of mortgaged-back securities; however, a guy stealing $1 recently will serve up to 3 years in prison.
Obama gave $800 billion of TARP to Wall Streeters, who then declared $6 billion in bonuses.
That Obama has more troops overseas than when he took office, after promising to bring the troops home.
Obama refuses to make a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren.
Obama failed to propose a single-payer healthcare bill.
Obama not only extended tax cuts for the rich, but also reduced the estate taxes, benefitting the 0.6% of the rich enormously.
Obama has already agreed to spending cuts of $2 trillion without requiring any increased tax revenues.
Obama has already signaled that he intends to lower the corporate tax rate instead of raising it.
Obama is planning to raise the retirement age, costing each of us $63,500 in retirement benefits!
Obama is negotiating deep cuts in Medicare and Medicare for the closing of some tax loopholes, such as the home mortgage interest deduction, etc.
Large corporations are earning record profits while unemployment is 9.1%.
Obama has consistently appointed Wall Streeters to his economic advisory team instead of voices of labor like Robert Reich.
Obama is planning to allow the repatriation of corporate profits overseas at 2.5% in taxes instead of 35% or 38%.
Obama is not proposing a massive jobs bill.
Obama fails to fight for the middle class, taking a strong position and using the bully pulpit, when the American people would support such an agenda.
Obama threw Anthony Weiner under the bus. Have you ever seen a Republican throw Senator Vitter under the bus?
Obamacare benefits the big insurance and pharmaceuticals, and its provisions for pre-existing conditions do not take affect until 2014.
Our country is lapsing into another recession, or a depression, and Obama has not proposed anything to avert such.
What has Obama done to change the imbalance of trade with China?
Obama is unlawfully supporting mililary operations in Libya, without receiving Congressional approval."
I would add that it is generally acknowledged that obama inherited two wars, now we have SIX ongoing (not counting other illegal covert ops, elsewhere).
Furthermore: "Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&hp
obama, simply, did the nixonian ploy of ignoring that LEGAL advice.
Bagram prison, now,holds, illegally anywhere from two to ten times the number of prisoners, than Guantanamo, which is still open, despite obama promises to the contrary:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=546
Sorry, all, but I'd rather deal with the insanity of the republican'ts, than reward a commander who is a unrepentant compulsive liar,and when he's not lying, he's prevaricating, dissembling or spinelessly compromising with those on the lunatic side of the aisle.
Finally, electing any of the lunatic repugnican'ts would, hopely, lead to disastrous mid-term elections for those on he right, and though my hopes continue to dim, maybe a more moral democratic majority Congress to establish some degree of checks on executive abuses.
Yes, I, also, voted for him, but I won't reward such behavior with a second term.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.'"
Sorry, the liar doesn't deserve a second term.
AND, frank, the left did NOT throw obama under the bus, obama threw the left under the bus.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president and to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American public."
- Teddy Roosevelt, in 1918 during the First World War.
Sagemerlin hit the nailhead squarely.
Cool.
You addressed none of them.
Instead you chose to take a cheap shot, implying that because I live outside of america (by choice), I am not qualified to make such a judgment.
First, I think he's been a large disappointment to progressives. I certainly would have been much active, public, and partisan than what we've seen him do.
Second, I feel fairly secure about Obama's chances of taking Oregon in 2012. What his chances are in more marginal states are, I don't know. So, from deep blue territory, I don't have any problems not being his #1 best fan.
Third, it's a long time from now until November, 2012. If lefties like me don't put pressure on him, then we're acting as enablers of bad behavior. Because we always know that bad behavior WILL occur in DC unless there's a mighty roar of the people.
Palin, the Supremes, and all the other reasons for supporting a D president are obvious arguments for supporting Obama. But at the same time, I don't want to elect a Democratic president who's more conservative than Bill Clinton. And in many ways (particularly civil liberties for me) Obama has been a worse president than Clinton or Bush.
And let us not forget that I assess the chances of another recession/depression during the time period of 2013-2017 as 100%. I believe that the fire next time will make the current economic malaise look like a walk in the park. So you have to balance out a Republican president in the next term with who will hold the bag for our economic woes the next time the crapola hits the fan in that department.
All of this makes me a profound Obama agnostic.
My opinion about Obama is that he seems to be worse than Bush, if we think about the wars, which are now going on. I'm not much disappointed, because I expected the things to go like this.
I am working on a major piece on this subject. Look for it under Alan Milner, not sagemerlin, but not yet.
Monarchies become oligarchies become republics become democracies become anarchies become demogogic tyranies, become dictatorships become monarchies, and the circle begins anew....
Looking forward to the article, as I have had much discussion with Alan on subjects unrelated to this one.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/29/koh/index.html
"As Barack Obama himself has repeatedly shown, and as his underling Koh has dutifully learned, one does not advance in Washington power circles by adherence to any sort of principle or actual conviction. One accumulates power by saying anything and everything necessary to acquire and hold onto it: one key reason I now all but disregard what Obama says, and watch only what he does."
There is not much to add to that.
Maybe there is one thing to add. It would probably better to change him for *any other candidate*.
That guy seems to be quite dangerous. He has got abilities to cheat people. Many people believed, what he said. Now it is the time to watch what he did.