dagblog - Comments for "The President Navel-Gazes; Waves White Flag of Surrender"

You say, and I hear others

we are stardust — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:26:15 +0000

In reply to I always try to answer people

You say, and I hear others say: "In our case, what makes it seemingly more interesting, is that we would basically agree on the end, where we want to take this country, the role of government, etc."

I must, at long last, conclude that you and I (as well as other Dems) disagree with this. The final destination too often includes the 'how we got there' part; what government policies you can be content with often run counter to mine. I will argue for truths and outcomes I believe in.

Maybe melodramatic:

we are stardust — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:27:13 +0000

In reply to Aren't you being a little

Maybe melodramatic: "Tancredo within four points of Hickenlooper" (who is fantastic, by the way). And if something (ahem) happens to Maes, who knows how many of his votes Tancredo would get? All of them if the votes were still out; for now, he's the spoiler in the race. Bennett has been narrowing the lead, but Silver had given him an 89% of winning or something...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/tom-tancredo-within-four-_n_764711.html

Aren't you being a little

kgb999 — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:13:21 +0000

In reply to That you are still unable to

Aren't you being a little melodramatic on the Tom Tancredo thing? He's down by 20 with two weeks to go.

He doesn't really have shot ... right?

That you are still unable to

we are stardust — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:11:32 +0000

In reply to Things depend on where you

That you are still unable to grasp that I am upset because he dimmed the chances of Democrats getting elected, how can we possibly communicate? We are talking past each other at an extraordinary rate! I personally have to vote for Michael Bennett, Corporate Dem, and might end up with Tom Tancredo as my Governor, and you're tallking to ME about it? I will likely even make calls for John Salazar, Blue Dog. Son; you are reading things here that are in your mind.

Obama appears to have

kgb999 — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:07:06 +0000

In reply to Things depend on where you

Obama appears to have Volkered Warren ... she isn't going to be the head of the consumer protection agency regardless. Besides, if he weren't a pussy he'd just recess appoint her - like every other president has done before him. Obama's refusal to employ the tools of the presidency on behalf of America does not cause those tools to cease existing. He could literally appoint her today and there isn't a damn thing the republicans could do to stop him. Electing more democrats isn't going make him take action - nor would electing more republicans prevent him from doing so.

The reality of the Senate is that they can change any damn rule any damn time they want. I don't think you understand the power achieved through Reid holding the Majority Leadership and Biden being president of the Senate. They literally can do anything with the rules they choose - only "decorum" prevents it. In addition, they have been rolling in the majority with 58+ ... and Obama holding the fillibuster in his own pocket in the person of his centrist crew: Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus who all bypass Senate leadership and go direct to the WH. If you want to ignore that, it's your perrogative but the gridlock in the Senate originates in the White House, not the GOP. Republicans are only able to obstruct because the Democrats allow it - and Obama is the uncontested leader of the Democrats.

Regardless how this election goes, we still have to address the WH first if we want to see real change fought for. In a vast number of areas, the reason we aren't getting the change we hoped for is because Obama is actively working to make sure it doesn't come to pass ... for whatever reason.

Things depend on where you

Elusive Trope — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:20:27 +0000

In reply to It's my opinion that: (since

Things depend on where you are as a voter. Personally I doubt I will unseat Pence but I'm trying. But in those places where it is iffy - do you really think it doesn't matter who sits as chair of the House Committee. We all screamed for Warren to be head of the Consumer agency, but if the repubs take control, what will become of that?

And when one looks at the Senate, which is not representative of the country of the whole, where Idaho has as many votes as New York, the reality of what is possible is totally different. But if one wants to make political critique without looking at this reality, that is your right. It just makes the argument weak.

Ultimately, Obama is still treating the electorate like adults (at least in the interviews). I suppose that is his weakness. They need someone to tell them the what is what, to tell what to do, because we can't expect the electorate to be adult enough to look at the issues and the the various politicians positions and make an educated decision.

Never said your opinion was

LisB — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:11:45 +0000

In reply to It's my opinion that: (since

Never said your opinion was unclear to me. On the contrary, it's extremely clear.

It's my opinion that: (since

we are stardust — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:08:43 +0000

In reply to The President Navel-Gazes; Waves White Flag of Surrender

It's my opinion that: (since it seems unclear to one or two readers, lol!)

Since Obama agreed to do this interview, one might have concluded that his impetus would have been to help Dems in the midterms. If it was, in fact (and it may be so) that it was to help his re-election, that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I won't even begin to try to analyze that possibility and the contents of the interview.

What he did, IMO, was to say that Democrats are never satisfied, not just attack the Lefty blogosphere as he often does; this was bad. He then goes on to (what I call) faux-analysis, in that he tosses out some critiques and charges concerning his giving away the bank to business, Republicans, etc., and muses it may have been wrong, while in the same interview saying that he's prepared, since the Dems will lose power in one or both Chanbers, to give new creedence to the 'conservative and centrist reforms' the R's want. Well, shiver me timbers; he's just announce his agenda for the next two years.

So all the Dems who want to take action on a plethora of issues just got told they can go Peddle Fish: the President wants to make nice with the soon-to-be recalcitrant Congress. He doesn't draw some nice, neat lines in the sand, or tell people why it's crucial they elect Dems; he sort of mumbles that he hopes he can fulfill some of that remaing 30% of his campaign promises (okay; I'll leave that one alone), and make some of the enacted policies even better.

He sounds weak, he sounds like he just gave in to big Dem losses, and worst of all he just gave into some idea that the Republicans might be right on some Reform ideas. He even named Paul Ryan, who might just agree with the Catfood Commission, and want to lower the deficit by cutting socail programs! I'm picturing the Dems who still do believe in turning things around, holding their heads in their hands.

And this morning David Ignatious told us that the buzz is that after the Dec. report on Afghanistan comes out, and we all get to Huzzah or scream about it, he'll be choosing General David Petraeus to be Chairmanof the Joint Chiefs. Now, if that's not an indicator that he means us to be on a permanent war footing, I can't think what is.

I personally can't wait for the next batch of wikileaks.

I like your comment, American

anna am — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:45:01 +0000

In reply to What I'm getting from the

I like your comment, American Dreamer and think your take is very fair-minded. Since I see navel gazing as a kind of looking inward that isn't productive, I think it suits this piece because to my mind the timing of the article, so close to the elections, called for something else. What that something else should've been I can't say as a "fired up and ready to go" piece would hardly seem authentic at this point. But I think perhaps something more like a the president sounded angry and frustrated by Republican opposition piece would've been a lot more satisfying to a lot of people. Yes all presidents do it. They blame the other side and Obama wants to stay above that kind of thing. But politics is theatre and this script was off in terms of the moment. It read like a post-mortem. A dirge.

Then too, Obey makes a good point above when he says the right tone to take here was researched to death and structured down to the minutest details. And if holding the center is what they're about, then maybe all of us here are all wet. Isn't it the conventional wisdom that the American voter doesn't like anger and doesn't like mudslinging? Could've fooled me about that, I think people love a good fight, but I'm talking conventional wisdom.

If Obama could rule by

Elusive Trope — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:55:56 +0000

In reply to Trope, would you agree or

If Obama could rule by dictate, I would answer one way, as opposed to the way I would answer that what he needed was to get legislation passed through what just everybody here would say is a generally corrupt Congress who is in the pocket of the wealthy special interests. One thing to keep in mind in interviews like this is any president, regardless of their party or stripes, cannot openly call out Congress and hope to get anything done in the future. The question we have to ask is what could had the most progressive president in US history realistically made a reality in terms of the financial reform bill given the realities. And what would compromises would one be willing to make.

I would just add, does the Consumer Protection Agency seem to be a product of a Bush-lite administration or one which working to turn the ship that has been turning the wrong direction for decades.