No SOTU analysis this year. If you want, you can google it up and you will come up with hundreds of analyses by hundreds of pundits who will spew inanities on President Obama's vision for the future of America. I am not playing that game. Fool me once, shame on you...
The reality is this: The address was a campaign speech, designed to mobilize the base of the Democratic Party, and to lure independents to the polls come November. Mission accomplished? Time will tell.
Don't get me wrong, the President knows how to give a good speech, and last night's address was no exception. The problem has never been the President's ability to deliver a rousing speech; it's been his inability, or unwillingness, to follow through. We have had plenty of examples in the President's first three years in office. Do we need yet another State of The Union address to prove that there is a chasm between the President's talking the talk and his walking the walk?
Actions speak louder than words, as they saying goes, and this is an example of President's Obama's actions, as illustrated on (Bill) Moyers and Company last Friday night.
I have no faith in President Obama to do the right thing, not 3 years into his presidency. Like any politician, he will say anything he thinks he needs to say to get elected and do anything he thinks will keep him in power after he is elected. Still, the alternative being President Romney or President Gingrich, with the possible impact their election might have on the composition of the Supreme Court, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils.
Life sucks, at least in political terms.
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Too Little, Too Late, If You Ask Me
Tom Foreman reports on cnn.com:
A president who could not achieve anything he could have achieved, had he wanted to, in the two years when he could count on a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House will achieve nothing noteworthy after both houses of Congress will have switched to the opposition, something very likely to happen in 2012.
Sigh.
Among the chief complaints of many voters: Obama has been too quick to compromise, too weak in taking on opponents and too much like just another politician intent on triangulating re-election, rather than being the transformative, bold leader they thought they were electing.If you ask me, too little, too late. If he gets re-elected it will be because the G.O.P. candidates are weak and ridiculous beyond belief. And yes, Obama would be a slightly better president than any Republican who might get elected. For the millions of Americans who are hurting and were looking for a "transformative, bold leader", it will be small comfort.
[...] The White House is now clearly launching an offensive aimed at shifting voter disappointment from their man to the opposition.
A president who could not achieve anything he could have achieved, had he wanted to, in the two years when he could count on a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House will achieve nothing noteworthy after both houses of Congress will have switched to the opposition, something very likely to happen in 2012.
Sigh.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
It's the President's Birthday. Yawn.
You can always count on The Onion to keep things in due perspective: Obama turns 50.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
What The H Really Stands For
The President's middle initial is starting to look more like an H for Herbert than H for Hussein. That would be Herbert as in Herbert Hoover, the president that led the nation to its greatest economic depression yet.
And I am not the only one to fear so.
And, as Hoover, he is almost certain to be end up as a one-term president, which means that things are only going to get worse for the next six years, at least.
The ship is sinking, start looking for a lifeboat.
And I am not the only one to fear so.
And, as Hoover, he is almost certain to be end up as a one-term president, which means that things are only going to get worse for the next six years, at least.
The ship is sinking, start looking for a lifeboat.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Another Open Letter to President Obama
Dear Mr. President.
Stop pussyfooting: Raise the damn debt ceiling already. You are a constitutional scholar, so you should know that the Constitution of the United States says that the national debt shall not be questioned. And, in fact, it never was. Particularly, it never was questioned by your opponents, who are now posturing as the most principled financial sages when in fact they raised the debt ceiling over and over again without batting an eyelid for decades.
You, Mr. President, like to call yourself "the adult in the room". That may be so. But you are not behaving like the type of adult anyone should take as an example. You like to say that you are seeking compromise because the House is in the hands of your opposition. It is true now, but it was not when you negotiated health care reform from a losing position, after surrendering to every demand your opponents made of you, even when the Democratic Party held the majority in both chambers of Congress.
Mr. President: If your goal was to show that there is nothing Republicans will say yes to, you have proved your point. Enough already. Let the chips fall where they may but, for our sake, it's time to move on.
Be the man we thought we helped elect. For once. Please. Or the only good thing that I'll be able to say about your presidency is that at least you weren't McCain.
Sincerely,
[Name withheld]
Stop pussyfooting: Raise the damn debt ceiling already. You are a constitutional scholar, so you should know that the Constitution of the United States says that the national debt shall not be questioned. And, in fact, it never was. Particularly, it never was questioned by your opponents, who are now posturing as the most principled financial sages when in fact they raised the debt ceiling over and over again without batting an eyelid for decades.
You, Mr. President, like to call yourself "the adult in the room". That may be so. But you are not behaving like the type of adult anyone should take as an example. You like to say that you are seeking compromise because the House is in the hands of your opposition. It is true now, but it was not when you negotiated health care reform from a losing position, after surrendering to every demand your opponents made of you, even when the Democratic Party held the majority in both chambers of Congress.
Mr. President: If your goal was to show that there is nothing Republicans will say yes to, you have proved your point. Enough already. Let the chips fall where they may but, for our sake, it's time to move on.
Be the man we thought we helped elect. For once. Please. Or the only good thing that I'll be able to say about your presidency is that at least you weren't McCain.
Sincerely,
[Name withheld]
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
An Open Letter to President Obama
Mr. President:
I am a 46 year-old male who understands that if a couple of Presidents like you should succeed you, I will not retire at 65, nor probably at 70. Most likely, I will not retire in the United States; if I have enough to retire on anywhere else, I will have to leave, my money with me.
If you are really thinking of raising the eligibility age for Medicare and of cutting Social Security Benefits in your desire to be re-elected or to appear as an adult who is capable of striking political compromise with unrelenting opponents, then know this: you are a traitor.
If you think that traitor is too strong a word, please consider this: In doing what you propose, why even in simply proposing it, you are betraying the promise that past generations have made to future ones, that they would get what they had been promised, when they were due to get it.
Worse, you are choosing to cut benefits (because a delayed benefit or a smaller benefit are cuts) instead of going to get the money we'd need to keep things intact where you should be looking for it: reducing the size and the budget of the military, which are ridiculously bloated; going after corporations who export not only profits (to tropical tax havens), but American jobs (read "lives); taxing the truly rich at rates that would be higher than they have been since President Clinton left office, but still lower than the rates the rich have paid, even for most of the Reagan presidency. Those, may I suggest, are a few things that a progressive President would have fought for. Instead, you are ready to sacrifice the futures of people who have already sacrificed much and have little left to look forward but the hope of relative tranquility in retirement. In essence, you are saying to them that seniors have it too good, and that delaying their life-saving benefits for two years would be a step in the right direction.
If that is not betrayal, Mr. President, I don't know what is.
Moreover, the message you are sending to those who would vote for you or any other Democrat is this: Why bother? If electing a Democrat means that things will get worse just a little slower than under a Republican, and not better, than you are giving your party's potential electors a good reason not to bother. In fact, perhaps it would be better if the country went to hell faster, under a series of Republicans. That way we'll find out quicker where rock bottom is, and what will happen when we hit it.
I am a 46 year-old male who understands that if a couple of Presidents like you should succeed you, I will not retire at 65, nor probably at 70. Most likely, I will not retire in the United States; if I have enough to retire on anywhere else, I will have to leave, my money with me.
If you are really thinking of raising the eligibility age for Medicare and of cutting Social Security Benefits in your desire to be re-elected or to appear as an adult who is capable of striking political compromise with unrelenting opponents, then know this: you are a traitor.
If you think that traitor is too strong a word, please consider this: In doing what you propose, why even in simply proposing it, you are betraying the promise that past generations have made to future ones, that they would get what they had been promised, when they were due to get it.
Worse, you are choosing to cut benefits (because a delayed benefit or a smaller benefit are cuts) instead of going to get the money we'd need to keep things intact where you should be looking for it: reducing the size and the budget of the military, which are ridiculously bloated; going after corporations who export not only profits (to tropical tax havens), but American jobs (read "lives); taxing the truly rich at rates that would be higher than they have been since President Clinton left office, but still lower than the rates the rich have paid, even for most of the Reagan presidency. Those, may I suggest, are a few things that a progressive President would have fought for. Instead, you are ready to sacrifice the futures of people who have already sacrificed much and have little left to look forward but the hope of relative tranquility in retirement. In essence, you are saying to them that seniors have it too good, and that delaying their life-saving benefits for two years would be a step in the right direction.
If that is not betrayal, Mr. President, I don't know what is.
Moreover, the message you are sending to those who would vote for you or any other Democrat is this: Why bother? If electing a Democrat means that things will get worse just a little slower than under a Republican, and not better, than you are giving your party's potential electors a good reason not to bother. In fact, perhaps it would be better if the country went to hell faster, under a series of Republicans. That way we'll find out quicker where rock bottom is, and what will happen when we hit it.
Monday, July 11, 2011
What Do You Call 288 People Who Work Tirelessly Against 98% Of Americans?
Congressional Republicans AND the President of the United States, that's what you call them. Funny how during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Republicans liked to call then Senator Obama the most liberal guy in the U.S. Senate. You know, a socialist.
But now, as the Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports, it turns out that Obama offered to raise Medicare eligibility age as part of grand debt deal. No, your eyes are not failing you.
Two years ago, this guy had the opportunity to lower the Medicare eligibility age when health care reform was on the table. Economist after economist after health care expert indicated that lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55 would have done more to lower health care costs in the country than the bill that actually made it into law. Many went so far as saying that Medicare For All would have been the best way to address the health care crisis that this country faced and is still facing. But the President, or Traitor-in-Chief, as I will from now on refer to him, gave the negotiating platform away to prove how liberal he was, presumably.
Two years later, and he still has not stopped betraying the people who put all their faith in him after eight years of nation-wrecking at the ends of George W. Doofus and Dick(head) Chain-him (and waterboard him, too, while you're at it). Not only did Obama blow the best chance this country has ever had for aligning itself with the likes of Germany and Japan, the countries that the best generation had reduced to rubble but 66 years ago or so, in providing decent, sure, and affordable health care to everyone; he apparently decided that seniors have it too good, and that delaying their life-saving benefits for two years would be a step in the right direction. Balancing the budget on the back of seniors? Good move, genius.
We do not need a Republican president in 2012. We need a Democrat with balls, a spine, and a heart for the little guy. Primary challenge, anyone?
But now, as the Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports, it turns out that Obama offered to raise Medicare eligibility age as part of grand debt deal. No, your eyes are not failing you.
Two years ago, this guy had the opportunity to lower the Medicare eligibility age when health care reform was on the table. Economist after economist after health care expert indicated that lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55 would have done more to lower health care costs in the country than the bill that actually made it into law. Many went so far as saying that Medicare For All would have been the best way to address the health care crisis that this country faced and is still facing. But the President, or Traitor-in-Chief, as I will from now on refer to him, gave the negotiating platform away to prove how liberal he was, presumably.
Two years later, and he still has not stopped betraying the people who put all their faith in him after eight years of nation-wrecking at the ends of George W. Doofus and Dick(head) Chain-him (and waterboard him, too, while you're at it). Not only did Obama blow the best chance this country has ever had for aligning itself with the likes of Germany and Japan, the countries that the best generation had reduced to rubble but 66 years ago or so, in providing decent, sure, and affordable health care to everyone; he apparently decided that seniors have it too good, and that delaying their life-saving benefits for two years would be a step in the right direction. Balancing the budget on the back of seniors? Good move, genius.
We do not need a Republican president in 2012. We need a Democrat with balls, a spine, and a heart for the little guy. Primary challenge, anyone?
Friday, July 08, 2011
Obama Is A Timid Right-Leaning Centrist Fool
The jobs report for June is out, and it's not good. Meanwhile the President continues to be a timid fool about how to boost employment. What we need is a national jobs program to rebuild infrastructure and help consumer spending. Many authoritative economists had warned him that he should have focused on boosting employment by initiating a recovery program centered around rebuilding and renewing America's crumbling infrastructure, But no, the timid fool has let Republican hijack the spotlight away from job creation and move it to the budget, the debt ceiling, and mounting deficits. So government jobs have actually declined in the 2 1/2 years Obama has been president.
I am not even sure he means well any more. He is just another centrist fool in a long string of foolish presidents. Makes Nixon and Carter look like progressive giants.
I am not even sure he means well any more. He is just another centrist fool in a long string of foolish presidents. Makes Nixon and Carter look like progressive giants.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
What Took Him So Long?
President Obama has finally seen the light, on equal rights for gays and lesbians at least. He has come out against the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act, an attack on the rights of fellow human beings that anyone with a conscience not ruled by their belief in the supernatural has considered unjust and unjustifiable for a long time.
Better late than never.
Better late than never.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Social Security in the Cross-hairs, Again
While the news has been monopolized over the last few days by Rep. Giffords's failed assassination attempt, another assassination attempt is going on, this one in the rooms of Washington D.C.. The target in the cross-hairs? Social Security.
I use words like assassination and cross-hairs fully aware of their incendiary power, but using blander, more politically correct words would not render justice to truth, because there is a large number of politicians, not all of whom are Republicans, who are intent on killing Social Security as we know it, eager as they are to transfer its huge wealth to the coffers of private corporations.
The slashing of Social Security benefits, or the proposed increase in the retirement age, are just the first steps in the dismantling of a system that has served American seniors well for almost four decades, the real intent being the ultimate death of the publicly financed system and its replacement with a fully-privatized one.
In utter disbelief, progressives have seen President Obama, the supposed paladin of the middle-class, steadily retreat to the position of those who would destroy Social Security as we know it. He did so first by instituting a fiscal commission with the responsibility to find ways to balance the budget; given its highly tilted composition, the commission unsurprisingly came up with cuts to Social Security as a a preferred method for achieving the desired result. Then, under the protection offered him by his commission's findings, the President has been moving ever more to the right on Social Security reform, to curry the favor of deficit hawks and his Wall Street uberlords. As Austan Goolsbeee, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers said in reply to a question by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the future of Social Security: "[T]he president has always said, let's not automatically rule everything out before we even begin." How does that sound to you for making a stand against the attempt to kill Social Security?
For more on the assault on Social Security, read Robert Kuttner's Zero Hour for Social Security.
I use words like assassination and cross-hairs fully aware of their incendiary power, but using blander, more politically correct words would not render justice to truth, because there is a large number of politicians, not all of whom are Republicans, who are intent on killing Social Security as we know it, eager as they are to transfer its huge wealth to the coffers of private corporations.
The slashing of Social Security benefits, or the proposed increase in the retirement age, are just the first steps in the dismantling of a system that has served American seniors well for almost four decades, the real intent being the ultimate death of the publicly financed system and its replacement with a fully-privatized one.
In utter disbelief, progressives have seen President Obama, the supposed paladin of the middle-class, steadily retreat to the position of those who would destroy Social Security as we know it. He did so first by instituting a fiscal commission with the responsibility to find ways to balance the budget; given its highly tilted composition, the commission unsurprisingly came up with cuts to Social Security as a a preferred method for achieving the desired result. Then, under the protection offered him by his commission's findings, the President has been moving ever more to the right on Social Security reform, to curry the favor of deficit hawks and his Wall Street uberlords. As Austan Goolsbeee, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers said in reply to a question by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the future of Social Security: "[T]he president has always said, let's not automatically rule everything out before we even begin." How does that sound to you for making a stand against the attempt to kill Social Security?
For more on the assault on Social Security, read Robert Kuttner's Zero Hour for Social Security.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Funny? Not quite.
When there is so much truth in comedy, laughter often leaves to make room for tears. Read Andy Borowitz's take on President Obama's "tax deal" with his Republican überlords.
Incidentally, I thought this was the President who said something like "our job is not to get re-elected; our job is to get results for the American people." Or something to that extent.
Incidentally, I thought this was the President who said something like "our job is not to get re-elected; our job is to get results for the American people." Or something to that extent.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Republicans 80,000,000,000 - America's Middle Class 0
The President, this President, is a tool.
With some help from some corrupt Dems, but mainly of his own doing, President Obama has once again agreed to capitulate to Republican demands: The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are going to be extended for 24 months, in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. That is good news for the unemployed, and even better news for people who did not need more money in the first place. Notice how the deal is lopsided in favor of the country's true owners.
Russell at Obsidian Wings put it best: "I must have missed the memo where the Democratic POTUS is the Republican leadership's marketing liaison."
Progressives are at a loss for words to describe the betrayal they have had to endure for the last 23 months. Reagan must be celebrating the Republicans' good fortunes in hell.
With some help from some corrupt Dems, but mainly of his own doing, President Obama has once again agreed to capitulate to Republican demands: The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are going to be extended for 24 months, in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. That is good news for the unemployed, and even better news for people who did not need more money in the first place. Notice how the deal is lopsided in favor of the country's true owners.
Russell at Obsidian Wings put it best: "I must have missed the memo where the Democratic POTUS is the Republican leadership's marketing liaison."
Progressives are at a loss for words to describe the betrayal they have had to endure for the last 23 months. Reagan must be celebrating the Republicans' good fortunes in hell.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A Diplomat I Am Not
My letter to the White House on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Dear President Obama:
Your first two years in office have been truly dsappointing for progressives. A watered-down health care reform that leaves predatory insurance companies and health care providers in charge, relief for Wall Street and not Main Street (like many Americans, my mortgage is under water, why not allow me to write off my loss, as a one-time measure?), the Afghan War surge, and overall timid policies that have contributed to the resounding Demoratic losses in the mid-terms.
Don't you think it's time to mobilize your base, by sending them the signal that you are working for them and not for the über-rich and powerful?
If the GOP insists that the condition for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for the middle-class is also to extend them for the richest 1-2%, then I am willing to give my tax cuts up. Let all tax cuts expire, then let the Senate introduce a bill to give the middle-class even bigger tax cuts, and let the GOP. vote against such a bill. Let the American people understand who the GOP really works for, and maybe, just maybe, Americans will vote for you and Democrats in 2012. As the lesser of two evils, obviously, but an easy choice nonetheless.
Sincerely,
Dear President Obama:
Your first two years in office have been truly dsappointing for progressives. A watered-down health care reform that leaves predatory insurance companies and health care providers in charge, relief for Wall Street and not Main Street (like many Americans, my mortgage is under water, why not allow me to write off my loss, as a one-time measure?), the Afghan War surge, and overall timid policies that have contributed to the resounding Demoratic losses in the mid-terms.
Don't you think it's time to mobilize your base, by sending them the signal that you are working for them and not for the über-rich and powerful?
If the GOP insists that the condition for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for the middle-class is also to extend them for the richest 1-2%, then I am willing to give my tax cuts up. Let all tax cuts expire, then let the Senate introduce a bill to give the middle-class even bigger tax cuts, and let the GOP. vote against such a bill. Let the American people understand who the GOP really works for, and maybe, just maybe, Americans will vote for you and Democrats in 2012. As the lesser of two evils, obviously, but an easy choice nonetheless.
Sincerely,
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Dumb and Dumber
This just in from David Axelrod, about the fact that the Obama administration will "have to" cave in to Republicans pushing for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for those making over $250,000.
"There are concerns," [Axelrod] added, that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point." [via Huffington Post]
Axelrod's logic is appalling because it fails to recognize that the security of the middle-class which he and the President are so concerned about (in words) depends to a large degree on increasing revenues by repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy 2%. Now I do understand that passing tax cuts for the middle-class will be harder if the administration chooses not to appease Republicans, but let Republicans show the nation whose interest they are truly working for. Eventually, if they don't want to be "repealed" themselves two years from now, they would have to cave in themselves.
The problem with Obama is not that he governs from the center or that he is a pragmatist. The problem is that he has no principles strong enough to endure assault, no balls, and no fire within.
"There are concerns," [Axelrod] added, that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point." [via Huffington Post]
Axelrod's logic is appalling because it fails to recognize that the security of the middle-class which he and the President are so concerned about (in words) depends to a large degree on increasing revenues by repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy 2%. Now I do understand that passing tax cuts for the middle-class will be harder if the administration chooses not to appease Republicans, but let Republicans show the nation whose interest they are truly working for. Eventually, if they don't want to be "repealed" themselves two years from now, they would have to cave in themselves.
The problem with Obama is not that he governs from the center or that he is a pragmatist. The problem is that he has no principles strong enough to endure assault, no balls, and no fire within.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
If President Obama Keeps Ignoring Nobel Winning Economists, Why Do We Keep Saying He Is A Really Smart Guy?
It seems to me that when a smart lawyer gets advice from Nobel-prize winning economists to change course on many of his ill-advised policies (the advisors being foxes in the henhouse like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner), he should take it. President Obama is such a lawyer and Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman are two such economists. He routinely ignores these top world economists' advice. Either he is not smart, or he is taking us for a ride.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Obama v FDR's Majorities
I stumbled across a really interesting comparison of Obama and FDR's presidencies, and I completely agree with the writer of this post, who says: "So the point isn’t about the size of majorities. It isn’t clear Obama would have been in any better shape had he had FDR’s majorities." You have to read the post to find out the rest of the compelling opinion.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Truth About President Obama
On Wednesday, President Obama was a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It was a weird interview, which started fairly jovially and ended with the president looking annoyed at Stewart's line of questioning, with the host calling the president timid in his policies in spite of the promise of audacity which he used as a backdrop for his campaign.
Just over a week earlier, the always fiery David Michael Green had already explained why the president's performance fell so egregiously short of the high expectations progressives had two years ago:
But, wait! Green has another theory about the president's failure, and it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he may be right.
Just over a week earlier, the always fiery David Michael Green had already explained why the president's performance fell so egregiously short of the high expectations progressives had two years ago:
Perhaps a better explanation for the failure of Obama and his ilk to fight hard for the country’s welfare and for progressive values is that he is no progressive at all. I’ve been arguing that for a long time, and he is certainly helping to reaffirm that notion right now by appealing a federal court decision ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, a policy which he claims to oppose. But, in fact, the Obama ideology ship sailed a long time ago. He previously also went to court defending the Defense of Marriage Act. He bailed out Wall Street a hundred pennies on the dollar, and demanded nothing of them in return. He has tripled the US presence in Afghanistan, and is bombing the snot out of Pakistan. He has not closed Guantánamo, and has an even worse record on civil liberties than Bush and Cheney did. His health care bill is a total gift to insurance corporations, and now we’ve just learned from Tom Daschle that the president had never considered the public option at all, having cut a deal with those corporations in advance promising that there would be no such component in the legislation. And so on, and so on. Stupid voters make the erroneous assumption that politicians like Bill Clinton are liberal because they are Democrats, and because the right and the media keep telling them that these guys are liberals. Most of the country has now done the same for Obama, but of course the opposite is true. So maybe the explanation for his failed presidency is simply that he has adopted the same regressive policies that have been killing the country for three decades now.
But, wait! Green has another theory about the president's failure, and it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he may be right.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The President Who Does Not (Want To) Get It
One of these days, if and when I get past the unbelievable sense of disappointment, I might get around to commenting on the stupidity and the lack of empathy of a president who, after treating the people who were instrumental in his election like the drunk at the other end of the counter, tells them that they are irresponsible and that they should buck up (after his chief of staff called them retarded, and his press secretary called them the professional left-wing, or something to that effect.)
In the meantime, I am going to leave it at Greg Sargent's eloquent rebuke of the White House and its tone deafness on what progressives are "whining about."
OK, I can't resist the urge, such is the level of my frustration and impatience with this White House: The President and the Vicepresident are either playing dumb, or they are dumb altogether, when they say that folks like me are whining because we did not get everything we wanted. (Or, an even scarier and more offensive prospect, "change you can believe in" was all about misdirection.)
I, as many folks like me, am not complaining because I did not get everything I wanted: I am complaining because I did not get anything I wanted.
Obama's appointments have been dis-appointments, from Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, to Tim Geithner and Larry Summers at the helm of the economic ship.
The advice the President has gotten from his Chief of Staff has been dismal, with plenty of critics coming out of the woodwork now that Rahm Emanuel is on his way out, if this Financial Times article is to be believed.
Obama's approach on health care and financial reform, in pursuit of the mirage of Republican support, was comparable in ineptitude and lack of foresight to Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy. He gave up his negotiating strong points before the negotiations even began. The common thread in both instances is the choice of leaving the foxes (Republicans and Democrats) in charge of the hen-house. The last thing I wanted was more insurance involvement in health care, and that is exactly what we got. No price-controls, no meaningful bans on rescissions (you will see), no public option. In financial reform, no caps on credit card interest rates, no sensible barriers to the size of financial institutions, no meaningful help for people in financial distress. The list could go on for pages, but I am too frustrated and too upset to continue.
If the President and his advisors have any sense left in them, they will realize that his favorability ratings have tanked, the Democrats' prospects are grim for November, and my sentiments about his presidency are shared by many, not because we are whiners, but because we thought we had elected not Anthony Robbins, but FDR. And our discontent is not due to a single factor, but to the sum of the President's actions over the two years since we celebrated the most exhilarating moment in recent political history.
If the President's goal was to appease his enemies, he is fighting a losing battle, and a mighty foolish and hopeless one. And if his desire to appease them is so overwhelming that he will go to any lengths, including insulting the intelligence of those who most believed in him, without ever throwing them a bone, he will be a one-term president, and deservedly so.
In the meantime, I am going to leave it at Greg Sargent's eloquent rebuke of the White House and its tone deafness on what progressives are "whining about."
OK, I can't resist the urge, such is the level of my frustration and impatience with this White House: The President and the Vicepresident are either playing dumb, or they are dumb altogether, when they say that folks like me are whining because we did not get everything we wanted. (Or, an even scarier and more offensive prospect, "change you can believe in" was all about misdirection.)
I, as many folks like me, am not complaining because I did not get everything I wanted: I am complaining because I did not get anything I wanted.
Obama's appointments have been dis-appointments, from Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, to Tim Geithner and Larry Summers at the helm of the economic ship.
The advice the President has gotten from his Chief of Staff has been dismal, with plenty of critics coming out of the woodwork now that Rahm Emanuel is on his way out, if this Financial Times article is to be believed.
Obama's approach on health care and financial reform, in pursuit of the mirage of Republican support, was comparable in ineptitude and lack of foresight to Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy. He gave up his negotiating strong points before the negotiations even began. The common thread in both instances is the choice of leaving the foxes (Republicans and Democrats) in charge of the hen-house. The last thing I wanted was more insurance involvement in health care, and that is exactly what we got. No price-controls, no meaningful bans on rescissions (you will see), no public option. In financial reform, no caps on credit card interest rates, no sensible barriers to the size of financial institutions, no meaningful help for people in financial distress. The list could go on for pages, but I am too frustrated and too upset to continue.
If the President and his advisors have any sense left in them, they will realize that his favorability ratings have tanked, the Democrats' prospects are grim for November, and my sentiments about his presidency are shared by many, not because we are whiners, but because we thought we had elected not Anthony Robbins, but FDR. And our discontent is not due to a single factor, but to the sum of the President's actions over the two years since we celebrated the most exhilarating moment in recent political history.
If the President's goal was to appease his enemies, he is fighting a losing battle, and a mighty foolish and hopeless one. And if his desire to appease them is so overwhelming that he will go to any lengths, including insulting the intelligence of those who most believed in him, without ever throwing them a bone, he will be a one-term president, and deservedly so.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
President Obama Pisses Me Off. Again. (UPDATED)
If you thought President Obama was going to appoint progressive replacements for the people that are leaving the administration. His nominee to replace Pete Orszag as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget? A guy who does not believe that deregulation is to blame for the financial crisis that crushed the world economy. I am not kidding.
Fortunately Bernie Sanders, one of the few honorable and sane senators left around, will vote against his confirmation.
**************
Update: Cenk Uygur has a very good post about Obama's love of the establishment at Huffington Post.
Fortunately Bernie Sanders, one of the few honorable and sane senators left around, will vote against his confirmation.
**************
Update: Cenk Uygur has a very good post about Obama's love of the establishment at Huffington Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)