MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
What the hell is Barack Obama's presidency for?
By artappraiser on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 5:25am |By Gary Younge, columnist on "America's Dividing Lines" (based in the U.S.,) The Guardian, 23 Feb., 2014
His ascent to power had meaning, but now his interventions are too rare and too piecemeal to constitute a narrative....
Note: 2,082 comments.
URL:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/what-is-barack-obama-presidency-for
- Add new comment
- 4199 reads
Comments
"If there was a plot, he's lost it. If there was a point, few can remember it. If he had a big idea, he shrank it.,,,,,,,,,, It was he who donned the mantles of "hope" and "change"…………. if he can't reunite a divided political culture, which was one of his key pledges, and his powers are that limited, then what is the point of his presidency?"
He was the most aceptable to the king makers and the people loved him so he became the Ideal .... Pressure Relief valve for the building resentment of the financial meltdown.
He later became the supporter/ cheerleader of the NSA who would use the power given them ; to go after those who might challenge the direction he took the country. or go after those who might point out hypocrisy
That's what I'll remember him for.
by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:37am
The quoted statement is meaningless...and it's hardly a piercing critique. To it, I say, "So what?" Remember what De Gaulle said? "The cemeteries are filled with indispensable men." If you're looking for a savior, look to Jesus. Presidents aren't supposed to be that and mostly they are not.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 11:30am
I guess it's all in how you look at it. There's no question that the issue of Obama is polarizing, but to say he's done nothing at all is as dishonest as pretending everything he's done is a perfect play. It just isn't so.
LBJ had the benefit of residual grieving when he got all those things through, and he knew it. He also had a congress that understood, if reluctantly, the word "compromise."
No president has had a congress as hateful and recalcitrant as Obama has, but there's no question that he had distinct advantages that he blew early on. His cabinet choices sent up red flags and he wimped out on facing the Republicans head-on when they let the country know their main mission was not to rebuild a broken country but to destroy the uppity black guy in the White House.
Many of his choices are inexplicable and infuriating to all of us. Could he have done more? Maybe. Probably. Yes. But to keep pushing this idea that he has done absolutely nothing is as phony as making him a baggage-free hero.
I'm not surprised someone writing in the Guardian would go after him because he refuses to make Manning and Snowden American heroes, but really--attacking him because he said what he said about Mandela and freedom? Putting those two in the same company as Mandela is just painfully ludicrous.
I wasn't as impressed as you by the number of comments. I don't see comments as a mark of legitimacy on anybody's essay.
by Ramona on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:31am
Moreover...
LBJ had a roaring economy and a thriving middle class and no deficit hawks or raging right-wing movement...
He had a supine global economy in which we were the undisputed leader...
The civil rights legislations had--pardon the bad pun--a black and white clarity to them whose justice made it easy for people to grasp even when they resisted the change.
AND he plunged us into a DISASTROUS war whose effects, I fear, we still haven't overcome.
Yes, he said that when he'd lost Cronkite, he'd lost the American people, but he didn't back down from the war. He didn't move to pull out. He kept going and then QUIT.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:18am
A small detail re: Vietnam is that the spread of Communism was a threat to the region and ultimately our interests. The ironic fact is that despite the loss in Vietnam, it achieved our strategic ends by stopping the Communist appetite for expansion. Sadly, Pol Pot's savagery in Cambodia was likely what finalized that containment and both the Soviet & Chinese break with the new Communist states.
[the Soviet Union had a few more years trying expansion in Central Asia, Africa & Latin America - ironically Afghanistan broke their spirit for adventure as well. While we haven't lost as many lives in Afghanistan (nor killed as many), it's our longest war and along with Iraq probably our 2nd costliest - some expect the final tally will be "highest" - and I'm unable to point to any actual benefit past what we got past the first 2 weeks.]
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 11:33am
That's one version. Some have argued that it was our "secret" war in Cambodia that destabilized the government and led to the Pol Pot regime. I'm not going to get into a long discussion on the point. We can't replay history and we could both cite prominent historians on the issue without resolution. Just pointing out the disagreement.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:10pm
Certainly know that version - and don't want to pretend that my version tossed out here isn't a bit of a one-sided stinkbomb to make a point often ignored - there was a somewhat popular film a while back, Swimming To Cambodia, that did parley the view of some heaven on earth where Cambodians didn't know hate until the US destabilized things - which doesn't quite explain Pol Pot & the French and how so many people got caught up in a crazy blood-letting, nor does it much account for the crafty sometimes crazy Sihanouk inviting the Chinese & Vietnamese to set up military camps in the east in 1966 and use its port for supplies. And then he started attacking the peasants, which built up the local Communists more, and then he was ousted in a coup while in Beijing, he threw in his lot with the Chinese & Pol Pot's Communists who also invited in the North Vietnamese after Lan Nol's rash slaughter of Vietnamese. So there was a lot of intrigue & positioning, only part of it the US bombing that started with Nixon in 1969.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 3:49pm
Tell you what...
If the progressive community keeps wringing its hands about "how bad" Obama is, what a bunch of nothing his accomplishments are, we are going to be in for a rude awakening in 2014.
And just for the record, I'm NOT talking about what you might call "constructive criticism" or criticism that's backed with electoral heft to steer him left.
My ear to the ground suggests that the GOP--against all odds from our perspective-- could take both houses of Congress.
At that point, everything hangs on the veto and forget about appointments.
One point hasn't quite sunk in with the left, and it's the point made in that book Off Center. The GOP has found ways to move very far to the right, and push their candidates to the right, without suffering the normal electoral consequences.
IOW, they don't need the majority of "the people" on their side to win elections or pursue their agenda.
Moreover, the right, having incubated itself in the minority for decades, is composed of street fighters. Facts and other inconvenient things do. not. matter. to them, nor to the people who fuel their campaigns.
They have one person to every 10 of us, but that one person fights harder than 10 of us. Or at least in a more coordinated fashion. And they get us to do their dirty work for them, e.g., all the deep criticism of Obamacare as basically worthless from the left. What more could they ask for than for Obama's erstwhile supporters to turn against Obama and his signature achievements?
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 11:27am
Some on the Left lack perspective. Leaderless Occupy Wall Street could been predicted to fail. Identifiable leadership is needed to maintain struggles. Moral Mondays, Stop and Frisk protests and Florida's Dream Defenders have a structure.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 12:01pm
...If the progressive community keeps wringing its hands...They have one person to every 10 of us....
Who are you talking about here, Peter? Who said Younge was part of "the progressive community"? Who is "us"?
The largest party in this country is: INDEPENDENTS! They have all purposely decided they don't want to be part of either political team, so any lectures about getting on a Democratic team are lost on them.
Obama actually very much harnessed the Independent thing to win, he purposefully courted them with the whole post partisan message. People who would not consider volunteering for a political party went out and did campaign for him, because of that. (Bill Clinton did this two, via "third way" et. al.)
You all who consider yourselves the "we" and "us" and "the progressive community" ignore this in 2014 at your own peril.
Aside: There's special reasons this really is a personal point of complaint for me. I have been a registered Independent since 1980. I feel so strongly about our 2-party system being wrong for this country that I continued to be one when I moved to New York even though it means not being able to vote in primaries here (we had open primaries in Wisconsin, a very independent/Independent-minded state for most of its history.)
I have experienced the following on every left-of-center forum I have participated: a feeling that I do not belong, that there are many discussions that do not apply to me. Because all of the most political types all say WE have to do this or WE must do that as if everyone on the forum has a similar political goal, a goal that is aligned with the Democratic party.
I can't tell you how many times I have winced when I see people use derogatives like "Repugnican" as if they are sure nobody reading the site has ever liked or voted for a Republican candidate, and clearly seeing (including as a moderator getting private messages) that this "we" clubbiness eventually ends up with many people who might be interested in forming coalitions on specific issues going elsewhere.
Ironically, I have seen it happen in several forums that once the "we's" have chased away most of the people that they don't consider part of "we" political unit, with their "we must be united" behind "our" candidates talk, and how one must not say anything bad about "our" candidates, then everyone left starts complaining about how there is no diversity of opinion on the forum. Fancy that, wonder how that happened...
Transfer that all back to national politics. Can't tell you how often I have seen forums the day after the big election where everyone left says "I don't understand why our guy lost, everyone we knew was going to vote for our guy, they must have stole the election..." Well, of course, that was because you "we's" chased everyone away who wasn't willing to make happy talk about "our" candidate and hadn't a clue that there were people out there unhappy with some of your candidate's stuff.
I will end with the point that I personally find it really offensive when I get a lecture about how I should stop saying "bad things" about how a policy I don't like, or political spin I don't like, because my complaining in public about that policy will hurt the Democratic party. That I am welcome to criticize anything Republican or right wing, but I must work as sort of an unpaid propaganda aide for the Democrats and the left wing and not publicly criticize anything they do. Deep down and very passionately, I do not believe that is how a political system should work: the politicians work for me, I do not work for the politicians! And I would love to persuade some of you to stop being unpaid political aides as well, as I truly believe that is very unhealthy for our country, and not the least of which because it feeds the waste of trillions of dollars of wasted money, and the attendant masses of time and effort, on circuses.
(And furthermore, I tend to dislike the phenomenon of my-team-good-or-bad fans of professional team sports for very similar reasons. Some of the excesses nearly make me ill.
)
by artappraiser on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:36pm
P.S. Do those of you who find this column offensive really truly believe that those who promoted him as a candidate in print, or donated to his campaign, or volunteered for him, should just STFU if they are disappointed in him?
Attendance at pep rallies required all the time? Rah rah rah yay team...blah, meh...always hated pep rallies, a purposeful manipulation of emotion, often for nefarious purposes, a technique found quite useful by the most successful totalitarians.
No surprise that I very much disliked and was even dismayed by the big Obama worshipping pep rallies in 2008, though I thought he was an equivalent candidate to Clinton and didn't really care which one of them won. But guess what? I am very very encouraged by what some people who have been disappointed by that whole experience have learned from that experience. About what they should expect from and believe about a politician, especially one running for president.
I consider it a great thing for our country each time a citizen stops saying they "support" this or that politician as if they are one of the guy or gal's political operatives, and go back to expecting politicians to ask for and win their vote, and to do it all again the next time he/she runs by "supporting" his/her constituents.
by artappraiser on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:58pm
Don't fret, DoubleA, there'll always be a spot for you here in the Socialist Workers Party, where you can be truly alienated from both mainstreams and independents.
BTW, why not Green?
by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 9:27pm
It's not offensive. We will just wait to be pointed to the perfect candidate.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 9:43pm
Why do you need to even pretend or joke that there is such a thing as a perfect candidate? Employees are regularly both praised when they do well and criticized when they don't. They are applying for a job with you, and then if they get it, they are in your employ and you get to praise and criticize and analyze their performance. Politicans probably recognize that more than any other employee, for crying out loud, they are checking the polls every minute, they themselves are not at all expecting anyone's undying support and adoration. Obama himself was always uncomfortable with that. Sometimes it seems that only those on the internets who fancy their dream job as political operatives expect the rah rah routine.
I dunno, sometimes I wonder if all of ya who are so rah rah are getting paid to do it! It's not that common in meatspace; there people for centuries (millenia if you know Roman graffitti) are mostly known to complain about politicians, and only rarely praise them.
by artappraiser on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:23pm
I'm rah rah because I see people fighting back. My focus has been on voter suppression.There were people manning stations to look for Conservatives trying to challenge voters on Election Day. There were hotlines to report problems. We were happy to see the DOJ launch legal challenges. The GOP represents a clear and present danger to me.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:33pm
We couldn't even get a paper trail from the electronic voting machines. measure enacted nation wide when we controlled both houses. Because everyone but the naive, has figured it out, they only want our votes so they can enrich themselves and their closest rich friends anyway .
D = r, r = R D = R Go ahead you like this game. I have another Heads I win, tails you lose
by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 11:05pm
We are the employers, but a good employer understands that there has to be a mix of praise and criticism in order to get the most out of an employee. Same with politicians. It takes a lot of guts to become a politician and none of them go into it believing they'll do a bad job of it. At the same time, none of them are under any delusions about unconditional love from their constituents.
There are no perfect candidates, just as there are no perfect people. The presidency may be the highest office in the land, but they're not anointed, they're elected. They're not gods, they're people. They will never make everyone happy; nor will they anger everyone. Theirs is the one office that has to consider the wants and needs of all citizens.
We'll always have high expectations whenever a new president takes office. (I even had hopes that I was wrong about Reagan and GWB. Boy, was I wrong!) But I don't think anyone in this country expects perfection. We just want them to do what's right. When they don't (and they won't always) we should come down on them. But I don't see the value in dropping every ounce of support whenever they disappoint us.
I do believe strongly in supporting my party and the people I vote for. I think it's the only effective way to win and get things done. The Republicans understand this. It's why they win, even when they don't deserve to.
by Ramona on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 11:18pm
Strangely, AA doesn't seem to realize that she's saying what you're saying.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 7:28pm
Start a party and I'll bring the chips. I just never knew we agreed on this point of view.
by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:05pm
AA, I actually do like pep rallies but that's just me. (Not surprised? Hmmm) It's fine if you don't like them. I'm a Democrat. It's fine if you're an Independent. We don't have to agree on anything except the need to work for what we believe in. Sometimes that's even the same thing. But if it's not, that's okay too.
I don't know about anyone else but when I speak of "we" I don't mean we" as groupies, but "we" as people who are basically working toward the same goals. I think in the end we want the same things. I know for a fact if the Republicans win we will lose so much of ourselves it may be impossible to ever get us back.
I get frantic about that and when I see these blanket attacks on President Obama--the same attacks coming from the other side--I wonder how we'll be able to separate those animosities come election day so that whatever few advances we've made won't disappear again.
I liken it to soldiers on a battlefield grousing about the generals, working on ways to sabotage them, to give them their comeuppance. Their motives may even be righteous. The generals may be worthy of all that rage. But the soldiers are so busy thinking up ways to get back at the generals they fail to see the real enemy coming over the ridge. They die. The generals, of course, live.
by Ramona on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:19pm
I liken it to soldiers on a battlefield grousing about the generals
That whole analogy only works for me if you are an actual physical bonafide working member of a political party, i.e., go to the meetings, conventions, become a delegate. And even then, the traditional American way, they wanted the input from the soldiers.
I actually think the personality-driven hero/celebrity thing of our presidential elections went so very far from that quite a long time ago. They sell those personas like they do movie stars, and the rules for that game definitely are that everyone can criticize (see Woody Allen thread....)
by artappraiser on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:32pm
...only win elections when they galvanize enough non-working members to get to work winning the election.
How do you think Obama won? Yes, the "working members" worked their butts off, but it was the volunteers who gave time and money who really did it.
We hosted four Canadians who came down to D.C. to canvass for Obama, and they had to be sent four counties away because all the nearer counties were full up with volunteers already.
Look, I'm not arguing that you, or anyone else, has to be "rah-rah." I'm not very rah-rah myself. I don't particularly like grassroots political work. I'd rather read, argue on the Internet, or practice the clarinet. Almost anything, but...
But the fact is, this is how elections are won, and elections have consequences. Not all the consequences we might hope for, but still plenty of consequences. You know, like crummy health care overhauls...
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:48pm
Whoa!
Obviously, this strikes a nerve with you and you're saying many interesting things. You've also had some bad experiences on other forums for which I'm sorry (though clearly not responsible).
I'll say a few things in response in no particular order...
• If you haven't already, you might be interested in the rise and history of political parties in the U.S. You probably know that, in the beginning, the founders very much looked down on the whole idea of parties, or "factions" as they called them as being bad for the political health of the country and prone to corruption, etc.
However, as I read the history, they were soon accepted as inevitable and perhaps even necessary even by their strongest detractors, e.g., Jefferson. They were inevitable because groups of people found that they disagreed on points of great importance to them with other groups of people. These groups weren't monolithic in their thinking on all issues ever, but they were of like mind on certain key, overriding issues.
And they needed to act in concert, as a group, if they were going to defeat the folks with whom they disagreed at the polls and sway public opinion. So they quickly developed "newspapers" that helped them with this swaying and with responding to the "other side" quickly and efficiently.
• Given your dislike of professional sports, I hate to say this, but electoral politics is a "team sport." You don't win elections unless you get a lot of people pulling in the same direction and pulling the lever the same way. I know you know this, but given your comments, it's worth pointing out.
• It's true--you and I agree on this--that Obama did court the independents and is basically a centrist at heart, if a little left of center. It is part of how he won, but he also spoke to the base (which is now disappointed in him). He put together people who might normally disagree on many things, but could agreed on voting for him. And this has given him tremendous grief as he's tried to govern from this center position and disappointed almost everyone on every side of almost every issue in the process. In the end, he seems to be about the only person in the country who believes in the value of this centrist, bi-partisan stance. Certainly, the other party never believed in it, even if its ranks of ordinary voters did and may still.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 9:49pm
But here's the thing and the heart of what I was saying...
Today's Republican Party very much understands this idea that electoral politics is a "team sport." And, as I look across the country, they have a pretty clear agenda on any number of issues. They've played this "game" hard at the state level and, through that avenue, have had a huge impact at the national level on issues that affect real people.
Moreover, and this gets to my real message, they have found ways to push an extreme agenda that relatively few people in the country support without suffering what used to be the normal electoral consequences for going out on a limb (right or left).
In fact, you should appreciate this if you consider yourself a centrist. The ballast of American politics, like the ballast in a ship, traditionally has tended to settle toward "the center." The center would punish extremist politicians by voting them out. Now, the GOP in particular has found ways to neuter the center's power and get elected while espousing extreme views.
Traditionally, any party that had turned in the buffoonishly wreckless performance the GOP House and Senate have turned in this past year would be doomed to oblivion. But I fear not and, in fact, worry they may well take over the House and the Senate in 2014. I don't have numbers or a library of links to "prove" this, but my reading suggests it.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:04pm
I think you're conflating what a candidate has to do to win with the separate issue of whether that should play a role in what we post on the internets.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:11pm
Bruce, I'm not trying to address AA's complaint about people acting as promoters in what they write on the Internetz. Reason being, I'm uncertain about it. If I'm giving you that impression, it's unintentional.
Generally, I'm for people writing whatever they feel, unencumbered. I'm for a productive exchange of ideas, though sometimes that just doesn't happen.
I am a partisan, so I tend to speak from that perspective, but I don't think that necessarily means one is sheep-like. After looking at an issue, independently if you will, I tend to come down on the liberal side of things, or what is associated with liberalism. That's how I think.
That said, I am confronted when I read. Meaning, I try not to reject what someone is saying reflexively even when my reaction is pretty strongly against. Sometimes, I'm more successful at this than at other times.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:33pm
Traditionally, any party that had turned in the buffoonishly wreckless performance the GOP House and Senate have turned in this past year would be doomed to oblivion.
Tom Toles explains why, it's the voters short memories:
by NCD on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:16pm
They are not a party. They may be many other fine things, but a party they are not. By definition. They've opted out of the party system.
To me, it's almost a meaningless term.
"What do Independents stand for?'
"They stand for independent thought. They take each issue, each candidate, and gather all the information they can and decide on the merits."
"Okay, then let's take an issue: abortion. What do Independents think about that?"
"Well, they think a lot of things, not just one thing like partisan sheeple."
"Okay, but give me some examples of what they think about this one issue?"
"Well, some are pro-life and some are pro-choice and some are a mixture of both and to varying degrees and in various ways."
"So, Independents can be found taking all the possible positions on the issue of abortion."
"Yes. They're individuals and each decides for himself according to his own lights. This is what makes them independent."
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 11:00pm
I wasn't intending to defend them as a party but was being facetious, trying to point out that in your statements you were speaking as if they didn't exist, much less being a majority either party has to woo in order to win races.
But if you want to hear some of my thoughts on that. I would first like to remind that that's not why I brought it up. I brought it up because they are a reality that you are ignoring in your original statement; you were thinking you can win with Dems alone if they just GOTV.
That said, I would say they are people who wait for candidates, and parties, too, to offer policy proposals and platforms and then they choose which ones of those they want to vote for each time.
It's very strange (not,) by doing that myself for a long time, I have found that lots of individual candidates who say they are members of one of the parties, advocate for positions that are quite different from what their party platforms say. So looking at the party platform or label is hardly as helpful as you imply in addressing what an individual candidate thinks about say, abortion or war. Far from it.
As for the Ind. label: You don't know what Bernie Sanders thinks about things? As far as your next-door neighbor who is not running for office, it's not your business what he thinks about things unless he wants to tell you or wishes to donate to a political candidate or party. Voting especially is sacredly confidential, and pollsters offer confidentiality. Even if your neighbor donates, there is no way of knowing for sure whether he actually votes for the same candidate, and that's the way it should be!
Partisans join parties. And our political system is unfortunately set up to totally cater to two of them. Parties which make little ideological sense but have crazy ideological ranges within them. So the actual partisanship often makes no sense and someone like a Whip or Leader can nowadays be driven to distraction, because there are many real opposing ideologically partisan parties within these two parties, often opposing. I used to think I'd get interested if there were at least 3 parties along political ideological lines: such as Conservative, Moderate and Liberal. But the older I get and the more I see, the more I'm with George Washington's feelings on the matter. The system certainly has gotten as insidious as he had warned, and even more so for crazy reasons he couldn't envision.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:33am
No, I was not. And no, I'm not thinking that, especially the "alone" part.
I DO think it's important, however, for the Democrats to GOTV and not be complacent or fatalistic or anything else that keeps them from the polls.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:37am
The easy answer to this "us" is this:
I'm talking about all the people who care about a list of issues--everything from abortion rights to voting rights--and who agree with the stance on those issues which Democrats generally take...and which Republicans almost always oppose.
Please note the word "generally."
Unfortunately, we're now at a place where the person's party counts as much or more than the individual. "Moderate Republicans," as it were, have been neutered and driven from the party and Congress. Nor do the remaining ones tend to rebel when they don't like the leadership's position, unless they are further to the right than the leadership. Voting for an individual Republican, however much one may like him or her individually, simply gives the TP one more vote in Congress.
On the Democratic side, you don't find this. If you like independent-minded folks, you will find them on the Democratic side--which is another reason I support the party and its candidates. To the degree they have any party discipline, they promote programs and issues I support and can block harmful GOP moves.
by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 03/02/2014 - 4:28pm
Peter, I agree with you everything you wrote about the GOP, but I dispute your conclusion about what the left should do. Do those right-wing fighters you mention hesitate to attack their own party? Hardly. They have have been going after centrist Republicans for decades, and their criticisms of Boehner and McConnell are much more savage than the left's criticisms of Obama.
So I draw the opposite conclusion. If you want to recruit Democratic streetfighters to counter the Tea Parties, you can't muzzle the left wing. You have to let it loose.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:30pm
What do you do when the majority of the left wing has no use for Democrats? I see a lot of dissatisfaction among the left, but no solutions. And no candidates that suit them. Not among the Democrats, anyway.
Their solution is to start a third party, which would be fine if it weren't 2014 and we weren't in a battle like the one we're in.
by Ramona on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:47pm
Sure there are. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are two in Congress. Do you mean presidential candidates? That's never easy. The right has put up plenty of hopeless candidates over the years, from Barry Goldwater to Rick Santorum.
I agree that the left wing is disorganized and aimless right now, but the solution is not to repress criticism of moderates or start third parties. The solution is for the left to become more organized and more focused. Sometimes it takes dissatisfaction with existing authority to inspire that kind of change.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:59pm
Bernie is an Independent, and yes, I mean presidential candidates. The left is very focused. They're almost as distrustful of the government as the right and are working just as hard to tear it down. They also hate moderates. That would be most Democrats. It should be interesting.
by Ramona on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 8:18pm
Michael,
based on his decades-long polling experience, Andrew Kohut of Pew/Gallup argued in Feb. 28 op-ed WaPo that Democrats already have been getting more liberal; might be of some interest to you to counter or agree or inbetween. It is nuanced, he compares with GOP, reflects on how the power in the Dem party still rests with moderates & conservatives but is heading in a more liberal direction, how GOP still seen as more extremist, etc.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/03/2014 - 3:17pm
We are always going to be in this battle, because this is how both the left wing and the right wing, of the same vulture; that preys upon the working class, stays in power.
The Capitalist Party; keeping the working class disorganized and attacking one another, takes the focus off of the real controllers of their government.
Allowing the people to have their wishful belief, in a system really geared to serve the vultures interests and not the peasants; keeps the peasants somewhat calm, but heated up enough to fight amongst themselves . The plutocracy knows it isn't threatened, as long as the peasants believe it isn't a futile exercise.
Like some carnival hucksters, who suckers people into playing their games. "Boy you were really close that time; try again"
by Resistance on Mon, 03/03/2014 - 6:01pm
Although I definitely agree with your first paragraph, and I can't completely disagree with your second paragraph (although I disagree with what I perceive to be the implied "both parties are the same" bit of it), I become increasingly concerned with what you're implying in the 3rd and 4th paragraph. We definitely should keep trying.
*Lesser of two evils is an idiom and not to be taken literally. I feel I have to say this, and I also anticipate this caveat being ignored.
(Edited to add 4th point)
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 8:16am
Michael, you're a far more knowledgeable student of electoral politics, and the history of same, than I am, but here are things I'd note:
• I don't think we want to follow the example of TP because they've boxed their party into a corner from which it will be hard to emerge. They don't have a national message they can win with. Ted Cruz talks a lot, but how much does he get done, other than hold things up and eventually lose?
• The only reason they've gained traction, as far as I can see, is that they've played hard at the state level and then basically gerrymandered the hell out of the state. This allows them to send very unrepresentative representatives to Congress. They're a bunch of hot house flowers who can't survive outside of the green house.
• I could be wrong about this, but within the TP, they stay on message. Maybe they eat their own, too. Not sure.
• AA would be even unhappier because she already thinks there's too much party discipline and ideological purity tests in the Democratic party or among progressives. Wait until she meets the Democratic "Ted Cruz" wherever he or she is.
• At the risk of incurring the wrath of Big Foot from Canada once again, I think the GOP has an easier job of it. Their principle duty is to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop!" There's very little of a constructive nature that they want to do. They want the government to do less. Blocking legislation is easier than, say, passing health reform. So they can afford to be steered by a bunch of yahoos with bad breath. The Democrats can't.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 7:43pm
Ramona, I see a large number of comments on an op-ed as suggesting that it has struck a chord, that is all. Could be a chord of agreement or disagreement.
I look at an essay like this one as political news. Meaning: this guy who once was a supporter is mightily disappointed in that he didn't get what he thought he was buying. He gave it a considerable amount of time but now feels he should speak out. I wonder how many others out there are like him. And what their disappointment is teaching them about what they will buy next time.
I don't see commenters here (at Dag) offering up examples of what Obama has accomplished as addressing his essay at all. Younge himself includes a short laundry list of what he thinks Obama has accomplished.
As I see it, if I were to sum it up without some of his nuances, he's basically complaining about expecting and wanting something more than a technocrat, along leadership skills lines. And seems he's really still a believer that someone with the right leadership skills can be more of a uniter.
Also politically, I difference I see is that so far, Obama is not making ground as good as Bill Clinton did in his second term, not reducing the opposition to the 35% incalcitrant enemies and a 65% approval. He's got a 50/50 problem, and I think people like the disappointed Mr. Younge are part of that. He still has a chance to change that, and hearing out plaints like Younge's might be part of that process.
by artappraiser on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:46pm
Disappointment is a terrible thing. It's almost as terrible as turning over the entire government to the Right Wing. How is this news again? Is he the first or the one and only to feel disillusioned or disappointed because Obama isn't who we thought he was?
I didn't see any nuance in that essay, and that's my beef. Obama and the Dems have let us down. We get it. But this is an election year--a very important election year, as Peter reminds us. We could lose everything but the presidency, and then what?
A wholesale gripe like Younge's does nothing to make things better. Stick with the individual issues, work to make them right, and give credit where credit is due. That's the honest and productive way to make change. This wholesale bashing only serves to give the other side the impression that they were right all along, and that kind of confidence gives them the strength to do a full-out vanquish.
It only serves to demoralize the rest of us, and we don't need any more of that. There are distinct and valid issues to address, but there are also successes that need to be played up. We can talk about both and still be true to ourselves.
by Ramona on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 3:18pm
I think you're mis-reading Younge and in a fairly dramatic way.
Younge IS a partisan and is disappointed in Obama because he hasn't lived up to the partisan progressive ideals Younge felt Obama represented and promised.
Look at his disappointments...
• Too much deportation
• Too many anti-labor trade deals
• Inequality
• 31 million still uninsured
This is a good beginning list of the ways progressives have been disappointed in Obama. Add in Gitmo and Afghanistan and almost selling out Social Security, and you've almost got the lot of it.
And he mentions in so many words "progressive change." He says it, outright. That's what he thought, expected, hoped Obama would bring. His disappointment in Obama's "technocratic" approach to government springs from his partisan, progressive stance. He thought Obama stood for something--progressive change-- and he's disappointed that he didn't turn out that way (thus far).
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:15pm
OK I give you that he is interested in "progressive change." My mistake on that. I still think you presume a lot by thinking he should be part of "the team."
So let me get this right. He is an op-ed columnist whose job is to say what he thinks on politics in America. And you think he should not say what he really thinks about Obama, but because he is interested in "progressive change" he should be a loyal shill for Obama and the Democratic party? And only point out the good things he thinks they do and not say anything about the things he thinks are lacking or wrong or failing? He's part of the "we" and he should check with the Powers-that-be before he says anything? He shouldn't dis anyone who does some things "progressive" and some things not?
Also, as a side thought: do you really think you really know far better than him the effect that his opinions might have on the American politick? That he's not aware of the effects on putting this kind of "meme" out there at this point in time? That he didn't consider that? You don't think he hoped it would be pointed out to Obama himself or at least people in his circle?
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:26am
You didn't get the memo? Democrats aren't allowed to complain in election years because it will hurt our chances. The other years, no one listens because it's too soon after the election & need to give our politicians a chance.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:15am
I thought from Christmas to New Years on off election years was designated as the official complaint week. Right in the middle between elections. As long as you don't say anything that would ruin the holidays.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:09am
I don't know if it's me or you that's changed, but I find myself agreeing with you nearly 100% recently, and I find it quite disturbing…
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:45am
I'm bothered too - perhaps I should turn my asshole dial up to 11?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:54am
It's worth a try.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 1:12pm
A loyal shill? Who suggested that here? I think both Peter and I are arguing that there has to be some fairness in any discussion about Obama. Yes, by all means, point out the bad, but when someone like Younge writes an entire column generalizing about how terrible Obama's term in office has been without counter-weighing it with some of the good things that have come out of it, it sounds very much like any other Right Wing tract.
The attacks on Obama from both sides are like no other I've ever seen in my many years of political involvement. They're relentless and, to my mind, often unfair and uncalled for. That doesn't make me a shill to say this. I can say it and still not agree with, and argue against, many of his decisions.
Anyone who writes opinions wants to see their words make a difference. Even those of us who write opinions but aren't well known want passionately to get through to the lunkheads leading us in the wrong direction. I'm sure Younge is as passionate in his beliefs as anyone, but when he's just one more in the wide, wide world of generalized Obama-bashing he leaves himself open for some justified criticism. (Criticism--something all opinion writers expect going in, by the way.)
by Ramona on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 8:40am
Younge does note achievements, he just doesn't think there are that many of them:
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 1:29pm
he can take credit for the deficit shrinking
You say that like it was a GOOD thing...
by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 1:32pm
No Younge says that like it was a good thing. So Younge gets a minus stroke on the classic liberal front, and a plus stroke for being more of a moderate, er., Obama type!
Good point to point out, Jolly.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:13pm
Younge does note achievements, he just doesn't think there are that many of them:
A loyal shill? Who suggested that here?
I read Peter's comment here that way, I was of course, hyperboling it for effect:
I will add more hyperbolic effects, this is the way I take that sort of comment: anyone progressive needs to get on board and start praising the lord.
I also don't get why it's bad, Ramona, to point out, like Younge is doing, the contradictions between what Obama says and what he has done on certain issues. That makes for an informed body politic! He is cracking down on immigration. He is less of a civil libertarian than his grand speeches. Peter was basically saying: "we" need to be positive about him, so more people are fooled into thinking he is with them on policy, that's the way "we" win, and if we don't, everything will get worse. And I say that's playing politics. I don't want to play politics. That part of the reason I and others are Independents, Ramona, we don't like continually playing the politics game. I want to know the reality of policy and government.
For Peter: I will meanwhile continue to look at and take seriously "deep criticism of Obamacare." That's something I think is good for the country. I really don't give a shit about supporting Obama or Democratic personalities if they don't want me checking out the down side of their programs, if they aren't interested in fixing the downside of their programs. I don't give a damn if the right wing is talking all bad about Obamacare, especially because it's already enacted into law! It's a reality I and others have to deal with. Especially once complex laws are passed, I really don't get why we still have to be promoting every bit of them without question and lauding their sausage makers. If people don't like some of the things the law does, they need to shuddup and laud it anyways because the Republicans are attacking it? That is so warped about getting a government that works! You're continually playing a political game about government and not talking about the actualities of governing. When do we get to complain about a law that has been passed by "the team"? How long do we have to wait, through how many elections?
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:02pm
AA, my point from the very beginning is that progressives who ONLY look at the downside do us all a disservice. That's a far cry from "Please don't say anything bad about Obama."
You can keep finding articles about how bad Obamacare is, and I'll keep wondering why you're so opposed to highlighting the success stories. There are many now. The ACA is in its infant stages. It will get better, but only if people recognize that there are going to be bumps and bruises along the way until they get it right.
If we keep attacking it in its infancy it'll never get to grow into something more useful. Every attack against it is fuel for those who want to repeal it. They'll use those attacks, no matter where they come from, to prove to us all that "nobody wants it." Attacking certain aspects of it is fair game, but in order to give it any chance at all, the criticism needs to be constructive and useful.
I feel the same way about the attacks on Obama. Give us something more than "Obama is not who we thought he was and we're so damn mad at him." It's been done.
He deserves criticism on many, many issues. He has failed us too many times. He has also found a way to accomplish some important things despite the most crushing, deadly opposition and he deserves credit for his successes, however slight.
As to governing sans politics. Good luck with that. Political gamesmanship is entrenched in this society and the only survivors are the ones who know how to play the game. I hate it, too, but it's a fact. Our constitution, vague as it is, strives for purity, but the ones who have sworn to uphold it are fallible human beings. They will get it wrong, over and over. Our only chance is to elect people who will at least try to get it right.
by Ramona on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:33pm
Yes. 100%.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 8:41pm
However, you are also unwilling--or unable--to address critiques of your critique.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 8:43pm
Let's discuss "loyal shill-dom" whether hyperbolic or not.
AA sets up a dichotomy between the Democratic Party and the ordinary voter. On one side, you have operatives like Axelrod and his minions...on the other side, you have the average voter who gets to decide whom to vote for at election time.
AA seems to get agitated when ordinary voters take part in politics beyond just voting or blogging and actively try to get their candidate elected or re-elected. Or even defend their candidate against criticism they feel is unjust or slanted. To her, this is doing Axelrod's job for him and, somehow, distasteful to her.
But this is a ridiculous dichotomy.
I vote Democratic for a very simple reason: In general, Democrats support positions on key issues that I support. And I support these positions because I think they are good for me, people I know, and for we, the country, IMHO, of course. I also support these candidates because they counter other politicians whose positions are abhorrent to me and which are bad for we, the country, IMHO.
It would be silly for me not to argue for the policies and candidates I support. This isn't "shilling"...it's supporting, being engaged. If AA brings up nonsense criticism of Obamacare, I don't have a problem pointing it out. Her constant refrain that it's settled law and doesn't need defense has some merit but largely ignores the last five years of our political history. In fact, one of the reasons the program has had problems is the active opposition to it in quite a few states and in the House, which has tried with ever fiber of its being to find ways to make it fail.
So let's get to Younge. Younge's article regurgitates the same litany of complaints about Obama we've heard now forever, but wraps them in a bow with the headline: Obama doesn't stand for anything. This has also been said forever, but it's Younge's only attempt at originality so it deserves a little time.
Maybe it's the hour, but I honestly don't know what this criticism means or amounts to. I'm trying to ponder it, but nothing comes. He's president, not an advertising slogan. He set out a bunch of goals, some of which he's met, others of which he hasn't. In some cases, he's made contrary decisions. Some of these decisions have been very disappointing.
So what?
But what light does Younge shed on any of this? None. There are a million things Younge could have assayed about any of these disappointing decisions that could have illuminated some or all of them. Instead, we get this great nothingness about Obama not standing for anything. For my money, you could almost lay this one down right alongside "Barry, the communist, is dismantling our way of life."
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 9:31pm
AA, I'm trying to stay calm about this...
But frankly, you've replaced what I said with all kinds of things I didn't say.
That's insulting to me.
You haven't taken the time to read, to try to understand, or even respond to the points I've been making.
You haven't even queried me, as in, "Is this what you mean?"
Instead, you've set up your pet hobby horse, put me in the saddle, and begun lecturing me about what sorts of oats he likes to eat.
Just by and by, this whole thing about Younge is ridiculous because I wasn't--in my original post--even critiquing him or his article.
Now you claim I was and, ironies of ironies, you scold me for my (non-existent) critique as if I, Peter Schwartz, have no place criticizing "my betters." Or something.
To wit:
Maybe I do and maybe I don't. But surely, had I been critiquing Younge's article (which I wasn't) I would have had the right to do it--yes? Or are Younge's words somehow sacrosanct? Is he somehow above me?
I mean, we can have critiques of critiques, can't we? We can have critiques on the impact of critiquing, can't we? We can have critiques on the impact of not critiquing, yes? And on and on. That's the Talmud (to a degree).
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:10am
We can have critiques on the impact of critiquing, can't we?
Yes, you can. But not if you're part of a we, apparently. Then you always have to be careful of the political ramifications of your criticism, as part of the great we who is going to win elections, in order to do : what, exactly? And that takes us nicely back to Younge's essay who was basically asking: what is it that Obama really wants to promote, to do?
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:07pm
If you think disappointment in Obama--by his supporters--or former supporters--is "political news," then you've been sleeping with Rip Van Winkle.
You wonder "how many others out there are like him"? Even if all you read was Dag, you'd have lost count by now.
It would be interesting to know what this is "teaching" him about what he will buy next time. It would have been interesting to hear him provide insight about anything.
Unfortunately, any sort of insight that might have made this worthwhile article is missing. All we hear is his whine echoing about the great nothingness of his bland, blanket condemnation of the Obama WH.
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 8:37am
Here is some data on Black unemployment under Obama compared to previous Presidents.
Today the President was talking about the business and philanthropic organization program "My Brother's Keeper" aimed at directing black youth in the right path.
Obama's Attorney General is also mounting legal challenges to voter suppression efforts led by the GOP.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 9:18am
There would need to be analysis on how many people have dropped out of job search vs. previous eras, as this time the effects seem particularly entrenched.
In any case, I'm not much interested in comparing Obama to previous presidents - there's plenty that can be done to improve the current situation, including some long-coming focus on priming black employment specifically announced the last few days - so kudos, hope it goes somewhere.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 11:11am
Signing a long-overdue minimum wage law for public workers ain't nothin', either. You know Bernie Sanders isn't always happy with the prez but this time the prez listened, and it made Bernie happy.
by Ramona on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 12:27pm
I'm afraid that's not a done deal yet, and it won't be happening any time soon. Here's what was reported yesterday by CNN:
Edit to add: The bill that raised it to its current rate of $7.25 (from $5.85) was signed by GW Bush (but passed by a Democratic congress).
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 3:14pm
The bottome line--neither in 2010 nor 2012 (to my recollection, correction solicited) did Obama campaign for a single house member, and certainly not on a national level.
A full-throated plea for a working majority would possibly have changed the math you allude to...
He really has been late to the understanding that political parties exist for a reason...
by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 3:16pm
Obama campaigned for Periello in 2010 right here in Charlottesville. He did not, however, campaign for Douglass in 2012, as far as I know. I can't speak for other races, but I doubt Periello was the only candidate he helped.
Edit to add: Evidently, he also helped Gerry Connolly in 2012, but since he was also running for re-election, it's a little harder to tease out who-helped-whom. The Wall Street Journal seems to think that Obama helped Connolly, at least:
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 3:41pm
Let us be thankful for small favors...he still folded up the campaign apparatus until trying to resurrect it with Organizing for America, which essentially is what I was pissing and moaning for.
by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 3:52pm
Apropos of this conversation, I received the following e-mail from Joe Biden just now in my inbox: "Give this President a better Congress".
Edit to add: I know you're all jealous that Joe Biden is personally e-mailing me.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:22am
I ran over to my email box to see if I had anything from Joe, but so far no luck. Damn! I did have notes from Barack Obama, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brasile, Carl Levin, and someone named Michael Langenmayr. They all wanted money. Sometimes I wonder if they're even really my friends.
by Ramona on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 10:20am
Okay, I got it. It arrived at 10:58 AM. Joe wants at least $10, but it was signed by Joe so I'll stick it in my autograph book and maybe sell it on eBay in a few years.
by Ramona on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 11:16am
Name dropper.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 1:13pm
Your full throated post was right on the money. We lost the momentum, to gain back those years, we lost with Bush, when the leader of the Democrats thought the fight was over and him acting as though we won .. now go home. Obama thinking he could reach across the aisle to end the war and bitterness . What a putz
by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 6:22pm
Well, if we accept AA's analysis--that Obama won, in part, by courting the independents and "Obamacans"--and if we remember what he said in 2004 about blue and red states--and factor in some of the things he wrote in his books...
...then it's not surprising he felt his popularity and mandate were based on his willingness to "reach across the aisle." Listen to all points of view. You could even say that had he not tried to reach across, he'd have been untrue to his political stance and much of what he'd said to voters.
It's fair to say he didn't expect the cold and hostile reception he received. And it's probably fair to say that he didn't see 2010 coming (how many did?). And I might agree that he was too slow to learn. But given how he won in 2008, I don't think it was unreasonable for him to think he could pull it off.
Sometimes, slow learners are called principled, but maybe mostly when they win or go down in flames. Keepin' keepin' on is a little messy and ambiguous.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 10:36am
That was part of my argument addressing some of your points. I would like to point out, though, that it is not Younge's, not at all. He wants to hear again what principles and policy the president really is for. He sees a profound sense of drift in principle and policy. While posing as the ally of the immigrant he is deporting people at a faster clip than any of his predecessors; while claiming to be a supporter of labour he's championing trade deals that will undercut American jobs and wages. In December, even as he pursued one whistleblower, Edward Snowden and kept another, Chelsea Manning, incarcerated, he told the crowd at Nelson Mandela's funeral: "There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba's struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people." He might as well be asking on each and every policy issue he brings up: "which side are you on, brother, which side are you on?"
I often noticed that in courting all voters, Obama often got as vague as he could get. I suspect Younge mistook what Obama admired about Reagan and JFK.
You were right to point out to me that Younge asks for a more "partisan" communication. I still think it is very unwise for people to want to silence complaints about dissatisfaction, though, partisan or non-partisan or anything inbetween. Complaining forces politicians to make clearer what they really are up to, and who they are really courting. It should not be the job of op-ed writers or internet commenters or voters to "support" them and cover up dissatisfaction so that maybe the "we|" can snag some low information voters.
That is not the way things should work, with a whole lot of amateurs free-lancing on the political ops. Once again: we don't work for them, they work for us. Citizens and the media being honest and transparent about what they don't like and what they do like is the way to go, not trying to join in on the political ops and messaging.
Edit to add: I never really liked the Obama political team's method of harnessing a youthful cult-of-personality to work for Obama (not to mention giving the campaign money.) I found it very discomforting in the extreme. It was clear that a lot of those kids had no idea what policies they were really working for, nothing except a young hip cool black president manipulating them with some lines from old RFK and MLK speeches and some hip hop cred. I didn't see any nefarious intent, but it was still discomforting, especially if one has studied how that technique has been used in history. If some of those kids are voicing dissatisfaction now, now that's something that gives me hope!
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:38pm
That was your argument, and that's what I said...in my first subordinate clause.
So here I am, accepting some of your arguments, at least arguendo, and you're still complaining.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 8:02pm
I'm sure--though I can't produce the proof--that he stayed away because his presence would've hurt the candidate. That happens.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:18pm
Well, yes, there is that. That's was the part about pissing away his political capital that I referenced in my "building abandoned" post.
I suppose that is characterological...by entrusting his balls to Max Baucus et al, thus appearing to be aloof beyond reason during the scrapping over the birth of the ACA, I believe he did perhaps forfeit the ability really to influence the outcome of races here and there.
That said, had he recognized that the 2010 midterm had been nationalized by the Repugnants, he might have rallied those formidable rhetorical skills that hypnotized us in the first place.
by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:26am
This would be a good discussion for you to have with AA.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:20pm
What has the Obama Presidency been for? View of the majority Party in the House:
1. To increase sales of assault weapons and high capacity magazines by threatening to eviscerate the right of any American with the money to buy any gun or assault weapon they could afford without a background check.
2. To squander the huge victory of The Iraq Surge by bringing US combat troops home from our close and faithful ally.
3. To be responsible for the biggest foreign policy failure and cover-up in US history in Benghazi.
4. By usurping the Presidency with no valid birth certificate, while also increasing the deficit, to give birth to a new Party of freedom, the Tea Party, which aided a landslide GOP victory in 2010 thanks to the Usurper.
5. To violate the religious freedom of Americans by not defending marriage.
6. To violate the religious freedom of Americans by suggesting insurance companies give women free birth control services.
7. To act without Congressional approval or votes, to deeply involve the US military in the overthrow of the rightful and peace loving leader of Libya.
8. To kill jobs by increasing taxes on the rich, and placing onerous regulations on the free market scions of Wall Street..
9. To commit the greatest affront against freedom in our history by asserting every American should have access to health care, and create a law to do it.
10. To oversee the relentless IRS assault on non-profit nonpolitical organizations and their secret donors, whose only objective is the social benefit and education of the people.
11. To brazenly display a contempt for his lawful Constitutional power by (1) making recess appointments, (2) pretending executive orders without Congressional review and approval, are legal (3) defending up or down votes on Presidential nominees for cabinet or other posts.
by NCD on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 12:28pm
It wasn't only Republicans who objected to military intervention in Libya. Some of us who voted for Obama in '08 thought we were voting for a less warlike government. I guess we were naive.
by Aaron Carine on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:28pm
Suckers.
by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:32pm
Didn't you get the memo? That was no war, if it were a war it would have triggered the War Powers Act, but it didn't, because all US participants did their killing remotely, and (evidently) remote killing, although it does, in fact, leave corpses all over the place, and shit blows up, and stuff, so where you hit looks like what we used to call "a war zone", it is not war.
I'm glad we had this little chat...
by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:50pm
Killing remotely is a Democrat chickenshit cop out. Like Clinton sending some missiles into Afghanistan or Africa when he should have been getting Saddam when it would have been easy. If he had invaded Iraq odds are, no impeachment. That's how this country works.
The Democrats left that Saddam must-do job to Republican George W. Bush and Republicans don't believe in just killing remotely, they believe in sending in the troops to kill 'em there, bring 'em on, show the world we have the firepower to kill 'em street by street.
And I say that not as a Republican, but as an Independent who watches and depends on pre-election political TV commercials to get the facts before making my mind who to vote for. I'm not embarrassed to say it is people like me who make this nation what it is today.
by NCD on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 11:42am
show the world we have the firepower to kill 'em street by street.
I believe the formulation for which you are groping (courtesy of Tom F) is "grab some crappy country by the neck every few years, shake it for a few minutes, and then throw it agaist the wall..."
by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:09pm
Clinton and Obama's biggest mistakes were not starting a real war themselves, like GWB. Bosnia and Libya were too easy, and were approved by the UN to top it off.
Obama could have avoided a whole lot of Republican bellyaching investigating and bull crap, and Clinton an impeachment, if both weren't so worried about 'exit plans', 'allies' negotiating endlessly or inspecting, and what's worse, permission slips from the UN Security Counsel votes before the bombs start falling.
John McCain is talkin about moving into the Ukraine today saying we blew it in Georgia. Not our Georgia but Putin's Georgia.
by Anonymous ncd (not verified) on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:56pm
Some of us hoped for a President who would not be accused of the 'supreme international crime of aggressive war' by a former WW2 Nuremburg prosecutor.
We got that with Obama, although few here or in the country seem to know how different the use of force was in Libya as opposed to Iraq.
The Libya operation was approved by the UN, the Iraq invasion by a vote in Congress. Votes in Congress, or the Reichstag, do not make wars of international aggression legal. (Powell's attempt to get UN backing in February, 2003 failed).
by NCD on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 11:43am
Heh.. well played sir.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:43pm
Thanks tmc.
by NCD on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 11:41am
Younge is also a monthly columnist for The Nation and his archive of published pieces there goes back to 2004.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 8:57pm