But…but…but…they say they’re liberals!
Blogger, know thyself?
From The People’s View, a fascinating article about where the Glenn Greenwalds and Jane Hamshers of the world–you know, the ones who became liberal when a black man took office and dared to create and sustain progressive policies without consulting them first–get their respective bread buttered. The next time self-described left wingers start throwing the term “corporatist” around within earshot, ask them if they’ve seen any investment disclosure statements from the Huffington Post lately.
What?!? Both sides are bought off by huge multinational corporations? No way! Say it isn’t so…
Hasn’t this been true of the Dems since long before Bill Clinton and Al Gore were arranging rentals for the Lincoln Bedroom? Doesn’t this push one towards the Nader-Paul nexus rather toward Obama? Won’t Obama and the Dems likely accept at least the maximum legal campaign contribution from AOL-Huffington next election cycle?
Sigh.
“What?!? Both sides are bought off by huge multinational corporations? No way! Say it isn’t so…”
Okay: it isn’t so. Obama made his way to office on the strength of more individual, small donations than any candidate in the history of the U.S., and is poised to do so again during his re-election campaign; corporate donations, while an unfortunate aspect of any modern campaign (which is why we desperately need campaign finance reform), were less significant for him than for any other candidate. I understand that this isn’t good enough for the man who the Puritan left was duped into believing was the combination of MLK and Jesus, but it’s not half bad.
“Hasn’t this been true of the Dems since long before Bill Clinton and Al Gore were arranging rentals for the Lincoln Bedroom?”
Isn’t it currently true of Greenwald, Hamsher, Huffington, Taibbi, and the rest of the leftier than thou blogosphere? Any reason you’re avoiding that argument?
“Doesn’t this push one towards the Nader-Paul nexus rather toward Obama?”
Sure, if by doing so you don’t mind sentencing hundreds of thousands of people to death when a Republican gets in office instead. That’s exactly what happened in 2000, I’m sure you’ll recall, when Ralph Nader decided to feed his already super-sized ego by tilting at the White House windmill one more time and throwing the election to George Bush in the process, saying he would “rather have a provocateur than someone who sounds good and does nothing.” Said provocateur went on to start two illegal wars, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, roll back civil rights by five decades, hammer away at a woman’s right to choose, shatter what was left of the U.S.’s faded image in the eyes of the rest of the horrified world and do what he could to obliterate the environment. Oh, and he nominated two more justices to the right of Scalia, which gave us Citizens United. I think corporations were pleased as punch with their guy, don’t you?
As for the Nader-Paul nexus, I have no idea whether Nader would be happy hooking up with a white supremacist whose sole appeal to the left is his love of pot and hatred of money, but I guess you’d have to ask him that. You might see if you can get into his compound in Greenwich, if his security guards will let you through. While you’re there, perhaps you can ask him to disclose the details of his personal fortune, estimated at north of three million in stocks and mutual funds. No doubt this is all from companies run by indigenous peoples in the developing world.
“Won’t Obama and the Dems likely accept at least the maximum legal campaign contribution from AOL-Huffington next election cycle?”
Who knows, and more to the point, who cares? What matters is not whether a given politician takes corporate contributions (they ALL do, even the beloved Dennis Kucinich), but whether he/she is substantively different from others in how he/she does so and what policies he/she puts in place in the process. The argument, as ever, is not whether President Obama is MLK and Jesus–he isn’t, and he’s been wrong on several fronts. The argument is whether he is the best president of the past fifty years based on the policies he’s enacted, and if you’re honest and stop getting your news from Fox News’s favorite site Firedoglake (not hyperbole–look at how many times Jane Hamsher has been on Fox since she began her anti-Obama crusade), you’ll have to acknowledge he is.
Ultimately, I’m interested in progress, not rage-filled pontificating from the peanut gallery. Oddly, that’s what progressives are supposed to be interested in too.
Greg-
Sad that it has come to this because I think, ultimately, we agree on more policy points than we disagree.
But you, like most Obama supporters, have had to compromise so much of what it sounded like Barry stood for just a couple short years ago that you are distended contortionists. Where is this claim for the best President in the last 50 years coming from?
We are still in Iraq. Last month was the deadliest for U.S. soldiers there since April 2009. They still have no functioning central government. Civil war is inevitable. America’s commitment there is still costing north of a $1 billion per month.
Some progressive attitude. Hate to be using that money for schools, infrastructure, environmental tax credits…
In Afghanistan, Obama is right behind the dictator that Bush/Cheney appointed. He just reappointed the Bush dream team Petraeus and Crocker who ran Iraq to run Afghanistan. He has Bush’s Sec Def still in place. He still supports Syria’s Assad who is machine gunning down pro-democracy protests. He supported, Khaddafi, his budget was selling Libya armed personnel carriers this year, until his hand was forced by the fucking French!!!
He is pro-nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan.
He has decided to support the same absolutely unconstitutional signing statements that Bush/Cheney did so he can disregard Congress when he feels like it.
The only thing that is going to save us from President Palin is Sarah Palin herself.
Obama is a trainwreck. He couldn’t hardly finish announcing his support for increased offshore drilling before the BP rig blew up in the Gulf. Still waiting to hear about the Guantanamo closure. Still waiting for the Patriot Act to be repealed or at least circumscribed.
I don’t disagree that Nader brought us King George the II and that sucked.
But looking at what Obama has wrought with his lofty rhetoric of change and “outsider” background makes one wonder what Al “born with a silver spoon, son of son of son of Senator” Gore might have done.
Ban politically incorrect music for starters…sorry Marylin Mason, you really are to blame for Columbine.
But more seriously, he would have been too spineless to do anything different than let the military industrial complex bully him into Iraq and Afghanistan, too. The substantial difference would have been when Gore got bogged down in the same quagmire that King George the II, the Dick and the Rummy found, we would have gotten a president slightly to the right of Benito Mussolini elected in 2004.
So, no, I am not that mad at Nader.
And Ron Paul, you need to re-examine. The nexus where the policies of Ron Paul meet those of Ralph Nader is where the revolution is coming from, and make no mistake it is en route.
“If you refuse to acknowledge that any money can be cut from the Defense Budget, you’re a Big Government Conservative.”—Ron Paul
“They attack us because we have been over there for years… bombing Iraq for ten years. I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. They don’t come here to attack us because we are rich and free. They come and they attack us because we are over there. “—Ron Paul, 2007
Obama is still supporting a fascist monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Obama is ignoring democracy activists killed and arrested in Bahrain because, ‘Hey we need somewhere to park the 5th fleet and the aircraft carriers.’ Obama is ignoring the corruption of the Karzai regime, his brother is literally building skyscrapers in Dubai with U.S. government dollars earmarked for Afghanistan.
Obama brought in government health care for uninsured children, and that was good. Ron Paul would have ripped the fucking insurance companies and lawsuit/victimization culture up by the roots. Obama is funneling federal dollars to AIG, BCBS, Aetna and praying he can regulate them into helping the American consumer against their will. That’s like Bush II defending his regime on the basis of having gotten a prescription drug benefit for the elderly. La-di-freaking da, Barry. He sold out on Health Care so he could claim victory. What did he get? The Tea Party, a riled up Republican Congress and no decrease in health care costs. Woo-hoo, what’s next?
One triumph after another, this guy.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, “The Patriot Act has nothing to do with patriotism, it is about the destruction of the 4th Amendment.”
Ron Paul, “Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to the rich people in a poor country.”
Obama was right about one thing, change is coming. He just wasn’t the agent of change. Maybe he was the catalyst.
“Greg-
Sad that it has come to this because I think, ultimately, we agree on more policy points than we disagree.”
It’s sad that you can’t acknowledge the specifics of those policy points of agreement in your zeal to hammer Jesus Chr–sorry, I mean President Obama.
“But you, like most Obama supporters, have had to compromise so much of what it sounded like Barry stood for just a couple short years ago that you are distended contortionists. Where is this claim for the best President in the last 50 years coming from?”
1. Let’s make a deal: you call the President by his right name, not “Barry,” and I’ll stop thinking you’d say “that one” if you could get away with it.
2. The only distended contortionists are the ones who heard Obama describe what he would do as President, thought they heard “and I will elevate the poor, and heal the sick, and cure the planet, all by myself, regardless of governmental systems or countervailing forces,” and now want their money back. Or their Paul dollars, or whatever their patron saint tells them will replace the currency in this country when He is elevated to power.
3. I’ve explained Obama’s achievements numerous times on this site, and you can track them down there. If you’re feeling lazy, head here for details: http://obamaachievements.org/list. Still no word on when he plans to part the Red Sea.
“We are still in Iraq. Last month was the deadliest for U.S. soldiers there since April 2009. They still have no functioning central government. Civil war is inevitable. America’s commitment there is still costing north of a $1 billion per month.
Some progressive attitude. Hate to be using that money for schools, infrastructure, environmental tax credits…”
You forgot to mention in your peroration that Obama has already pulled two thirds of the troops out of Iraq entirely, ahead of schedule, and is gradually reducing the rest. McCain would have left the entire kit and kaboodle there, by his own admission. As for the rest of the sorry affair, it wasn’t Obama’s war to begin with, and he’s doing what he can to finish off the rest. Acting like the guy cleaning up the mess (who apparently isn’t mopping up fast enough) is equally responsible as the one who created it is foolish at best, straight out disingenuous at worst.
“In Afghanistan, Obama is right behind the dictator that Bush/Cheney appointed.”
Oh yeah, right behind him. That’s why Karzai has been screaming at anyone who will listen that the U.S. has abandoned him, that they don’t treat him properly, that things have changed, etc. That’s all for the cameras, right?
“He just reappointed the Bush dream team Petraeus and Crocker who ran Iraq to run Afghanistan.”
I don’t like his Afghanistan policy, so I agree here.
“He has Bush’s Sec Def still in place.”
Being replaced by Leon Panetta, by all accounts an excellent choice for the job.
“He still supports Syria’s Assad who is machine gunning down pro-democracy protests.”
Is that what you call the sanctions Obama ordered on Syria two days ago? I know he didn’t wave his mighty hand to destroy Assad from thousands of miles away, though, and as we all know he promised in his campaign to be able to do JUST THAT!
“He supported, Khaddafi, his budget was selling Libya armed personnel carriers this year, until his hand was forced by the fucking French!!!”
Khaddafi, who until this year was making all kinds of concessions to the West, including having gotten out of the state-sponsored terrorism business for years, was on no one’s radar until the rebellion happened and he lost his mind. And I’d be careful about running to the “fucking French” for your argument, since they’re busy right now yelling at everyone for going after their pet project without consulting Paris first.
“He is pro-nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan.”
He is pro-alternative energy, far, FAR more than any other president in modern history. I hope he’ll get over the nuclear power part sooner rather than later, but on the whole his energy policy is far more progressive than any modern president, by a mile.
“He has decided to support the same absolutely unconstitutional signing statements that Bush/Cheney did so he can disregard Congress when he feels like it.”
Yeah? Like the signing statement in which he objects to Congress trying to restrict funding to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.? Be careful what you wish for, Aaron. Otherwise I might have to introduce you to the Aaron that says “still waiting to hear about the Guantanamo closure.” You guys might want to start working together.
“The only thing that is going to save us from President Palin is Sarah Palin herself.”
So if Palin wasn’t shooting herself in the foot constantly (see what I did there?), you think Obama would have handed her the election by now? What vapid horse$%^& is this?
“Obama is a trainwreck.”
Aaron is an idiot. See how silly ad hominems are?
“He couldn’t hardly finish announcing his support for increased offshore drilling before the BP rig blew up in the Gulf.”
And then closed the drilling right down again, while the Republican gleefully tossed political Molotovs in his direction. But I agree that he shouldn’t support drilling at all.
“Still waiting to hear about the Guantanamo closure.”
See Aaron Version 1.0 above.
“Still waiting for the Patriot Act to be repealed or at least circumscribed.”
Agreed.
“I don’t disagree that Nader brought us King George the II and that sucked.
But looking at what Obama has wrought with his lofty rhetoric of change and “outsider” background makes one wonder what Al “born with a silver spoon, son of son of son of Senator” Gore might have done.
Ban politically incorrect music for starters…sorry Marylin Mason, you really are to blame for Columbine.
But more seriously, he would have been too spineless to do anything different than let the military industrial complex bully him into Iraq and Afghanistan, too. The substantial difference would have been when Gore got bogged down in the same quagmire that King George the II, the Dick and the Rummy found, we would have gotten a president slightly to the right of Benito Mussolini elected in 2004.”
With all respect, Aaron, this line of logic, one of the stupidest I’ve ever heard, isn’t worthy of someone with your obvious grasp of political issues. Quick quiz: would Gore have brought Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz along with him into office? You get one answer, and “yes” isn’t it. Iraq is a result of Bush-level vengeance and neocon adventurism, not centrist Democrat policies which would laugh hysterically at the idea of running into Iraq when Afghanistan (rightly or wrongly) was understood to be the concern by every strategist not directed by the logic of the Rapture. And news flash: you already HAD a president to the right of Benito Mussolini elected in 2000. His name was George “War Criminal” Bush.
“So, no, I am not that mad at Nader.”
You should be.
“And Ron Paul, you need to re-examine. The nexus where the policies of Ron Paul meet those of Ralph Nader is where the revolution is coming from, and make no mistake it is en route.
“If you refuse to acknowledge that any money can be cut from the Defense Budget, you’re a Big Government Conservative.”—Ron Paul
“They attack us because we have been over there for years… bombing Iraq for ten years. I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. They don’t come here to attack us because we are rich and free. They come and they attack us because we are over there. “—Ron Paul, 2007”
Hey, as long as we’re quoting Ron Paul:
“The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster ‘less government, more responsibility … and with God’s help … a better world.’
I am delighted to help celebrate this birthday.” “I’m sure there are people in this room who probably helped me in that campaign, because I know that so many of you have over the years.””–Ron Paul, 2008
Wow…ain’t Google a bitch?
“Obama is still supporting a fascist monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Obama is ignoring democracy activists killed and arrested in Bahrain because, ‘Hey we need somewhere to park the 5th fleet and the aircraft carriers.’ ”
Just curious: how did he handle Egypt? Do you think he would have been better served at the very beginning saying “Get out NOW, Mubarak, you piece of dictatorial crap!” I guess it might have helped get him out of power fas…
…oh. Wait. Yeah. Maybe Obama DOES know what he’s doing in the Middle East after all.
“Obama is ignoring the corruption of the Karzai regime, his brother is literally building skyscrapers in Dubai with U.S. government dollars earmarked for Afghanistan.”
See above comment re: Karzai’s anger that his sugar daddy isn’t coming by anymore.
“Obama brought in government health care for uninsured children, and that was good. Ron Paul would have ripped the fucking insurance companies and lawsuit/victimization culture up by the roots.”
How? With Ron Paul’s mighty staff of reckoning, which would clear all Constitutional niceties like “the House” and “the Senate” out of the way? Of all the Puritan Left’s insane rantings about what Obama should be doing–threatening to take Boehner’s lunch money unless the Republican caucus plays ball, say–this idea that some alternative President would be more effective simply by shouting louder is the stupidest and most irritating. Put the Schwarzenegger quotes back where they belong and drop the machismo nonsense about “ripping the insurance companies and lawsuit/victimization culture up by the roots” (what the hell does this even mean? “You want to file a frivolous lawsuit?!?!?!? RARRRGHHHH *Paul rips lawyer’s office from the ground with his bare hands.* Is the White House actually the Justice League?)
“Obama is funneling federal dollars to AIG, BCBS, Aetna and praying he can regulate them into helping the American consumer against their will. That’s like Bush II defending his regime on the basis of having gotten a prescription drug benefit for the elderly. La-di-freaking da, Barry. He sold out on Health Care so he could claim victory. What did he get? The Tea Party, a riled up Republican Congress and no decrease in health care costs. Woo-hoo, what’s next?”
This is so filled with lies and inaccuracies I don’t know where to begin, so I’ll simply say that this statement is utterly wrong. How do I know? Because a close family member, suffering from diabetes and MS, would be dead right now without the new healthcare plan. Why? Because she was 1. unable to afford the old system and had literally run out of money 2. ineligible because of “pre-existing conditions” to get on another insurance plan. Off insurance would have meant off treatment, and off treatment would have meant death in about two weeks. In short, she literally would not have been alive to laugh at your analysis, which I read her over the phone, were it not for the new health care plan.
Please, please do some research at places other than Daily Kos or Fox News (they’re best buds now, you know) before you talk about this stuff again.
“One triumph after another, this guy.”
Pretty much, yep.
“Ron Paul, on the other hand, “The Patriot Act has nothing to do with patriotism, it is about the destruction of the 4th Amendment.”
Ron Paul, “Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to the rich people in a poor country.””
Ron Paul: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”
Ron Paul: “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks. Mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.'”
Now there’s a standard bearer for you, right, Aaron? Do you think David Duke might be available for the VP slot?
“Obama was right about one thing, change is coming. He just wasn’t the agent of change. Maybe he was the catalyst.”
Certainly he was the catalyst for garden variety bigotry and racism masquerading as political analysis. Absolutely he was the catalyst for the white Starbucks liberal, who wouldn’t know class difference if it bit him/her in the reusable mug, tsk tsking about the “Uncle Tom” in office while ignoring the homeless guy outside asking for a few spare coins. And undoubtedly he was the catalyst for a bunch of ex-Republicans funded by the Cato Institute to wring their hands and sigh and express their profound “concern” that “that one” may not have the best wishes of all of “us” at heart. You know, the ones not born in Hawaii / Kenya / where was he born again oh I don’t know I just can’t be CERTAIN you know?
But mostly, yes, he was the agent of change. And despite the real mistakes he’s made, the vast majority of his achievements have been enormously positive for the progressive agenda. I hope some day, when you can let go of your hatred of the President and stop trying to draft KKK sympathizing pot smokers to run for office against him, you’ll recognize how true that is. No need to apologize, though. I’ll bet even Ron Paul turns the other cheek once in a while.
I’m not fully diving into this fray, nor am I going to give an opinion on Obama specifically. I’d just like to point out that on that site you link, Greg, the Obama achievements one? Under immigration it lists his “acheivements” as funding 600m in border security, adding drones to the border, and deporting higher numbers of illegal immigrants than his predecessor (which, incidentally has got a broken citation list). Even if it turns out all these things are true, I see them as horifying facts, and certainly not acheivements.
Relatedly, under ‘arts and culture’ it lists “championed the importance of arts education” as an achievement. In my mind, making speeches isn’t really an achievement, it’s showmanship. Achievements are specific, actionable occurences or policy changes that have demonstrable impacts. If you click into the citation for this one the only concrete things it lists are that Michelle Obama and the Secretary of Education both spoke about the importance of arts education, and that the 2010 DoE budget included $38mil in ‘arts in education’ funding. However, with the stopgap budget measure passed in march, one of the cuts was the $40 mil AIE program (in its entirety!)
I just think one ought to be careful about treating a list such as this as gospel. Unfortunately, it’s easy to do because researching just these two issues in depth took me the better part of an hour. But it’s the kind of educating ourselves we need to do if we want to make specific, targeted criticisms and suggestions for change.
That is all I have to say.
Agreed on the border stuff–add that to the list of things with which I disagree with Obama (as I said, he’s not perfect). Totally disagree with speeches not being an achievement–Bush couldn’t have cared less about the arts, and his utter contempt for the subject rubbed off on the business people he had making decisions about education. Presidents also have to set the tone for the country, and doing so in the form of speeches and public appearances is extremely important. The AIE program was going to be cut ANYWAY–one of the brilliant things Obama did during the negotiation over the budget was give the Republicans cuts which were going to happen anyway, allowing the actual impact on the budget to be much less than what they wanted and thought they were getting. I agree, of course, that it should never have been targeted for removal in the first place, but that’s an argument with a much broader spectrum of political leadership than just Obama.
I don’t treat the list as gospel; in fact, I suggested that people go to the list “if you’re feeling lazy” for a reason. I’ve highlighted the specific achievements I find impressive before on this site, but I’m tired of listing them again and again for people (not referring to you here, Beth 🙂 ) who aren’t interested in hearing facts which would undercut their agenda to destroy “that one.” For such people, I’d suggest they read the second to last sentence in your comment above several times until it sinks in.
Follow-up…
Sad that it has come to this because I think, ultimately, we agree on more policy points than we disagree.”
It’s sad that you can’t acknowledge the specifics of those policy points of agreement in your zeal to hammer Jesus Chr–sorry, I mean President Obama.
Maybe there are fewer than we thought, but I was happy to see you note some of them.
“But you, like most Obama supporters, have had to compromise so much of what it sounded like Barry stood for just a couple short years ago that you are distended contortionists. Where is this claim for the best President in the last 50 years coming from?”
1. Let’s make a deal: you call the President by his right name, not “Barry,” and I’ll stop thinking you’d say “that one” if you could get away with it.
This started as a “fair and balanced” thing. Been calling President Bush, King George the II for some time. I felt if I wasn’t equally derisive about Obama considering my frustrations, that I would be fronting. Had to keep it real. If it bothers you deeply, I can cut it out. Would you have felt the same if I was calling President Clinton, “Hill”?
2. The only distended contortionists are the ones who heard Obama describe what he would do as President, thought they heard “and I will elevate the poor, and heal the sick, and cure the planet, all by myself, regardless of governmental systems or countervailing forces,” and now want their money back. Or their Paul dollars, or whatever their patron saint tells them will replace the currency in this country when He is elevated to power.
The distended contortionists are those who claim there has been change. I dare you to explain outside the color of his skin how an Obama Presidency is different than a Biden Presidency would have been. And if you think Biden is an agent of change, well, then, we might just have some irreconcilable differences of opinion.
3. I’ve explained Obama’s achievements numerous times on this site, and you can track them down there. If you’re feeling lazy, head here for details: http://obamaachievements.org/list. Still no word on when he plans to part the Red Sea.
I saw the other comment: “Relatedly, under ‘arts and culture’ it lists “championed the importance of arts education” as an achievement. In my mind, making speeches isn’t really an achievement, it’s showmanship. Achievements are specific, actionable occurrences or policy changes that have demonstrable impacts…” I concur. If you are counting the power of the bully pulpit among Obama’s achievements, I will not disagree that he is a good speechmaker. I would however argue that excellent speechmaking backed by minimal achievement and uncertain execution is, in fact, a net negative. Raising expectations and failing to deliver has a slew of blowback implications. We are whipping in those winds right now.
Despite what you may have heard from various college debaters, rhetoric is not an end in and of itself.
Specific claims of bills passed, policies laid out and followed is what I think of as Presidential achievements.
“We are still in Iraq. Last month was the deadliest for U.S. soldiers there since April 2009. They still have no functioning central government. Civil war is inevitable. America’s commitment there is still costing north of a $1 billion per month.
Some progressive attitude. Hate to be using that money for schools, infrastructure, environmental tax credits…”
You forgot to mention in your peroration that Obama has already pulled two thirds of the troops out of Iraq entirely, ahead of schedule, and is gradually reducing the rest. McCain would have left the entire kit and kaboodle there, by his own admission. As for the rest of the sorry affair, it wasn’t Obama’s war to begin with, and he’s doing what he can to finish off the rest. Acting like the guy cleaning up the mess (who apparently isn’t mopping up fast enough) is equally responsible as the one who created it is foolish at best, straight out disingenuous at worst.
You forget to mention that Obama reiterated the permanent commitment of United States forces to maintaining bases Iraq. Definitively telling the Middle East and the rest of the world that no matter which side of the political aisle is running Washington, D.C. America’s cases of Imperialist and Neo-Colonialist Fever are still virulent.
“In Afghanistan, Obama is right behind the dictator that Bush/Cheney appointed.”
Oh yeah, right behind him. That’s why Karzai has been screaming at anyone who will listen that the U.S. has abandoned him, that they don’t treat him properly, that things have changed, etc. That’s all for the cameras, right?
Karzai is screaming because he wants even more out of Obama than he is already sucking out of the U.S. Treasury. Obama instead of cutting the head off of the serpent continues to negotiate from a position of weakness. Karzai believes Obama needs him more than he needs Obama. He is now playing Obama’s offers out to the Chinese seeking counteroffers. Why? Because Obama has not changed the paradigm. Rather than recognize that there is no logic to that “state” of Afghanistan other than that of the mapmakers of the British Empire, he continues to fill the trough. Is Obama different? Isn’t this the same game the United States has played for thirty and fifty years in Nigeria, Kenya, Congo…picking any tribally divided, resources laden, 3rd world country… Our government works with multinational corporations to expropriate and exploit the resources of said country while buying off the political elite.
Foolishly when Obama said change, I thought he meant he was through playing that sort of game. Ironically, McCain might have been more likely in his maverick ways to consider that…Fuck, even Biden gave a speech recognizing that there is far more logic to Iraq as three countries than one. Unless again, you are the British Empire’s mapmaker assuming the sun will indeed never set. Nation building is an impossibility unless you bomb them to incapacity and starvation first, giving you more or less tabula rasa to work with…
“He just reappointed the Bush dream team Petraeus and Crocker who ran Iraq to run Afghanistan.”
I don’t like his Afghanistan policy, so I agree here.
Point of agreement! Hooray! I think he should use Osama’s death as an excuse to drawn down United States forces rapidly and nearly completely in Afghanistan.
“He has Bush’s Sec Def still in place.”
Being replaced by Leon Panetta, by all accounts an excellent choice for the job.
Point of agreement! Glad to see Gates gone, but Panetta brings nothing to the table unless Obama changes direction in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, the Philippines, etc.
“He still supports Syria’s Assad who is machine gunning down pro-democracy protests.”
Is that what you call the sanctions Obama ordered on Syria two days ago? I know he didn’t wave his mighty hand to destroy Assad from thousands of miles away, though, and as we all know he promised in his campaign to be able to do JUST THAT!
Sanctions? Really? People are getting shot in the street in a country where American military and intelligence cooperation is de rigeur and your satisfied that Obama has ordered sanctions? It is especially disingenuous and bad policy in light of his arguments elsewhere, like Bahrain which I notice you failed to say anything about… The clear and tragic message to the rest of the world is no matter which party is in the White House, real politic calculations and political stability trump freedom, democracy and human right. By this measure Obama does not even match Jimmy Carter, who if impotent, had enough integrity to demand action. Obama is unwilling to clearly come out for Assad’s removal, much as he waited until far too late to come out in favor of Mubarak’s removal. Which is a large party of why change in Egypt is thus far merely cosmetic, one former military man as dictator, a new former military man as dictator. When real Revolutionary change does come to the Middle East, and it might be soon, the leaders of that change will recall Obama was not on their side. He was on the side of the dictators of the status quo and the political stability that allows the ExxonMobils and BPs of the world to do their work. Under the “villainous” Ron Paul America would at least have a much more legitimate claim to neutrality in these internecine conflicts. Not that I really wholeheartedly agree with every bit of Paul’s isolationism.
“He supported, Khaddafi, his budget was selling Libya armed personnel carriers this year, until his hand was forced by the fucking French!!!”
Khaddafi, who until this year was making all kinds of concessions to the West, including having gotten out of the state-sponsored terrorism business for years, was on no one’s radar until the rebellion happened and he lost his mind. And I’d be careful about running to the “fucking French” for your argument, since they’re busy right now yelling at everyone for going after their pet project without consulting Paris first.
Yeah, I guess I thought “change” meant no more supporting the likes of Khaddafi. Silly me. In Obama’s America we only like/fund/support certain dictators who make concessions to our friends who own the multinational oil, chemical, and mining companies. (So unlike the way Bush and his corporate Enron cronies looked at the world.)
“He is pro-nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan.”
He is pro-alternative energy, far, FAR more than any other president in modern history. I hope he’ll get over the nuclear power part sooner rather than later, but on the whole his energy policy is far more progressive than any modern president, by a mile.
Meh.
“He has decided to support the same absolutely unconstitutional signing statements that Bush/Cheney did so he can disregard Congress when he feels like it.”
Yeah? Like the signing statement in which he objects to Congress trying to restrict funding to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.? Be careful what you wish for, Aaron. Otherwise I might have to introduce you to the Aaron that says “still waiting to hear about the Guantanamo closure.” You guys might want to start working together.
Signing statements, unconstitutional and representative of Obama’s continuity with the same Davos elite that funded Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Al Gore. You recall the original genesis of this discussion was my mock shock that Huffington Post was funded by the same bastards who own the internet that Al invented. My point has been/is/was that Obama represents a continuation of the model that the previous Presidents represented with only adjustments in nuance, visuals and of course, speechmaking priorities.
“The only thing that is going to save us from President Palin is Sarah Palin herself.”
So if Palin wasn’t shooting herself in the foot constantly (see what I did there?), you think Obama would have handed her the election by now? What vapid horse$%^& is this?
Don’t kid yourself, absent massive economic recovery or the price of gas heading back to $2.50 a gallon Obama is vulnerable to whomever the Republicans run, no matter how much of a numskull they are. In fact, the only thing that will likely re-elect him is if a 3rd party or independent candidate running to the right of the Republican standard bearer appears ala Ross Perot; Donald Trump, Ron Paul perhaps?
“Obama is a trainwreck.”
Aaron is an idiot. See how silly ad hominems are?
Ad hominems are silly. That is not a description of the President’s character, it is rather a characterization of his administration’s actions to date. (except for speechmaking.)
“He couldn’t hardly finish announcing his support for increased offshore drilling before the BP rig blew up in the Gulf.”
And then closed the drilling right down again, while the Republican gleefully tossed political Molotovs in his direction. But I agree that he shouldn’t support drilling at all.
More agreement, hooray.
“Still waiting to hear about the Guantanamo closure.”
See Aaron Version 1.0 above.
See, while signing statements are unconstitutional, he is the Commander-in-Chief, and could simply order the base closed because it no longer serves a military purpose. Maybe lift the embargo on Cuba, while he is at? Or is that asking for Jesus like behavior? Maybe we have to wait for a Republican to lift the embargo? Obama wouldn’t want to lose Florida over a show of “weakness.” He doesn’t represent that kind of change. He does make some might fine speeches about Cubans’ human rights though.
“Still waiting for the Patriot Act to be repealed or at least circumscribed.”
Agreed.
FYI… again a better chance with Paul here. As we are about to get the racism issue below, which, of course, makes Paul ultimately out of the question as leader, we should consider some alternatives around the areas where we agree… former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson? retiring Virginia Senator Jim Webb? Governor Moonbeam?
“I don’t disagree that Nader brought us King George the II and that sucked.
But looking at what Obama has wrought with his lofty rhetoric of change and “outsider” background makes one wonder what Al “born with a silver spoon, son of son of son of Senator” Gore might have done.
Ban politically incorrect music for starters…sorry Marylin Mason, you really are to blame for Columbine.
But more seriously, he would have been too spineless to do anything different than let the military industrial complex bully him into Iraq and Afghanistan, too. The substantial difference would have been when Gore got bogged down in the same quagmire that King George the II, the Dick and the Rummy found, we would have gotten a president slightly to the right of Benito Mussolini elected in 2004.”
With all respect, Aaron, this line of logic, one of the stupidest I’ve ever heard, isn’t worthy of someone with your obvious grasp of political issues. Quick quiz: would Gore have brought Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz along with him into office? You get one answer, and “yes” isn’t it. Iraq is a result of Bush-level vengeance and neocon adventurism, not centrist Democrat policies which would laugh hysterically at the idea of running into Iraq when Afghanistan (rightly or wrongly) was understood to be the concern by every strategist not directed by the logic of the Rapture. And news flash: you already HAD a president to the right of Benito Mussolini elected in 2000. His name was George “War Criminal” Bush.
Agreed Bush II was the equivalent of a Mussolini who couldn’t get the trains to run on time. Disagree that Gore wouldn’t have gone to Iraq. Colin Powell probably would have been in his administration. If not, Wesley Clark would have said the same thing every other Pentagon strategist was saying, Afghanistan does not make a significant enough statement to the American people and the world in response to 9/11. This side of the Dixie Chicks, Ron Paul, and the state legislator from Illinois, there was nobody saying “No” to war in Iraq. Al Gore is as big a sheep as they come! He would have resisted the momentum of the military industrial complex and the country to “do something?” Ha!!! Because he has such deep reserves of personal character? McCain would have been a better man to have in charge 9/11/01 than either Bush II or Gore.
“So, no, I am not that mad at Nader.”
You should be.
It could have been worse. Gore would have been an unmitigated disaster and someone truly right wing would have gotten elected. Bush II was a pigeon of larger forces, not an ideologue personally. He actually believed some of his own hooey about compassion conservatism when he came to town. He was actually going to propose reasonable immigration reform. If Al Gore had been in charge on 9/11, by 2004 the country would have been willing to vote for a real fascist, who really and truly believed in the efficacy and righteousness of totalitarianism in their cold dark heart, ala Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell. Obama was supposed to be the opportunity for righteous backlash against the Bush II regime.
“And Ron Paul, you need to re-examine. The nexus where the policies of Ron Paul meet those of Ralph Nader is where the revolution is coming from, and make no mistake it is en route.
“If you refuse to acknowledge that any money can be cut from the Defense Budget, you’re a Big Government Conservative.”—Ron Paul
“They attack us because we have been over there for years… bombing Iraq for ten years. I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. They don’t come here to attack us because we are rich and free. They come and they attack us because we are over there. “—Ron Paul, 2007″
Hey, as long as we’re quoting Ron Paul:
“The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster ‘less government, more responsibility … and with God’s help … a better world.’
Granted he is apparently a racist.
I am delighted to help celebrate this birthday.” “I’m sure there are people in this room who probably helped me in that campaign, because I know that so many of you have over the years.””–Ron Paul, 2008
Wow…ain’t Google a bitch?
Jefferson and Franklin had slaves, it does not indict all of their other ideas. Ron Paul is apparently either racist or totally insensitive, it does not for me discredit his thinking in all other sectors automatically. Although it does mean, I could never vote for him as a candidate for higher office. Though, context, context, I have no idea on the context of these quotes, they seem pretty inescapably bad, but I do recall what they were saying about Obama’s church in 2008.
“Obama is still supporting a fascist monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Obama is ignoring democracy activists killed and arrested in Bahrain because, ‘Hey we need somewhere to park the 5th fleet and the aircraft carriers.’ ”
Just curious: how did he handle Egypt? Do you think he would have been better served at the very beginning saying “Get out NOW, Mubarak, you piece of dictatorial crap!” I guess it might have helped get him out of power fas…
…oh. Wait. Yeah. Maybe Obama DOES know what he’s doing in the Middle East after all.
I am not sure what you mean by this. A military junta supported by the U.S. is still running Egypt and promising “free elections” at some as yet to be determined date in the future. Obama had an opportunity to indict the status quo system in Egypt as corrupt. Instead he followed Hillary’s lead and went milquetoast. The people on the street know real change hasn’t come. The intelligence agencies, our and theirs, continue to operate as though nothing changed. The only people who think there was a revolution work for MSNBC. If Obama had said, the United States supports whatever democratic elected government comes out of Egypt, that would have been radical change. Instead he supported political stability over the will of the people every step of the way until his hand was absolutely forced by the grunts of the Egyptian Army who refused to clear Tahir Square. Despite being ordered to do so.
In Bahrain he is supporting the monarchy against the will of the people on the basis of the same political stability trumps calculus. Kissinger and Nixon would have been proud.
“Obama is ignoring the corruption of the Karzai regime, his brother is literally building skyscrapers in Dubai with U.S. government dollars earmarked for Afghanistan.”
See above comment re: Karzai’s anger that his sugar daddy isn’t coming by anymore.
Again Obama is doing everything he can to preserve an imperialistic, neo-colonialist relationship that Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II would have been proud to maintain. There has been no statement to the American people that Afghanistan is a non-existent construct that its own people don’t want or support, that only exists to siphon our tax dollars to Afghanistan’s political elite in an effort to produce enough political stability for Exxon/Mobil, BHP Billiton, to do their work et al. And if Karzai does not comply to their arm twisting, Obama is not looking around to figure out what the will of the Pushtun, Uzbeks, Tajiks, et al. who inhabit the state of Afghanistan is to ascertain who they want to be the next President. He is looking around to see who the next most compliant dictator who can keep the peace is. This is LBJ post Diem, the paradigm hasn’t shifted an iota and that is my objection. What change is the other than rhetorical from Obama? More drones and less manned aircraft? That’s a change… How humanizing. Remote control bombing from even further away.
“Obama brought in government health care for uninsured children, and that was good. Ron Paul would have ripped the fucking insurance companies and lawsuit/victimization culture up by the roots.”
How? With Ron Paul’s mighty staff of reckoning, which would clear all Constitutional niceties like “the House” and “the Senate” out of the way? Of all the Puritan Left’s insane rantings about what Obama should be doing–threatening to take Boehner’s lunch money unless the Republican caucus plays ball, say–this idea that some alternative President would be more effective simply by shouting louder is the stupidest and most irritating. Put the Schwarzenegger quotes back where they belong and drop the machismo nonsense about “ripping the insurance companies and lawsuit/victimization culture up by the roots” (what the hell does this even mean? “You want to file a frivolous lawsuit?!?!?!? RARRRGHHHH *Paul rips lawyer’s office from the ground with his bare hands.* Is the White House actually the Justice League?)
The majority of Congress supports Tort Reform. Most of Tort reforms supporters are Republicans. What an opportunity for the President to reach across the aisle and get something done. Practically, I think one of my biggest disappointments was that Obama tried to do health care reform before all else.
“Obama is funneling federal dollars to AIG, BCBS, Aetna and praying he can regulate them into helping the American consumer against their will. That’s like Bush II defending his regime on the basis of having gotten a prescription drug benefit for the elderly. La-di-freaking da, Barry. He sold out on Health Care so he could claim victory. What did he get? The Tea Party, a riled up Republican Congress and no decrease in health care costs. Woo-hoo, what’s next?”
This is so filled with lies and inaccuracies I don’t know where to begin, so I’ll simply say that this statement is utterly wrong. How do I know? Because a close family member, suffering from diabetes and MS, would be dead right now without the new healthcare plan. Why? Because she was 1. unable to afford the old system and had literally run out of money 2. ineligible because of “pre-existing conditions” to get on another insurance plan. Off insurance would have meant off treatment, and off treatment would have meant death in about two weeks. In short, she literally would not have been alive to laugh at your analysis, which I read her over the phone, were it not for the new health care plan.
Please, please do some research at places other than Daily Kos or Fox News (they’re best buds now, you know) before you talk about this stuff again.
I am glad it worked out okay for you and yours. I guess he helped people who already had health insurance and needed to switch without being denied for pre-existing conditions. In my personal experience, I know lots of folks without health insurance. None of them are now able to get new or different or cheaper health insurance under the Obama plan. Individual and family policies for the self-, under- and un- employed are as still as unaffordable and out of reach as ever. Emergency rooms are still as swamped and overcrowded as ever. An inestimable amount of political capital was expended on health care, glad to hear your story because before that I hadn’t heard about anyone who had personally benefited. Car insurance, everybody’s got. Health insurance, not so much.
“One triumph after another, this guy.”
Pretty much, yep.
Disagree.
“Ron Paul, on the other hand, “The Patriot Act has nothing to do with patriotism, it is about the destruction of the 4th Amendment.”
Ron Paul, “Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to the rich people in a poor country.””
Ron Paul: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”
Indefensibly racist sounding, unless it is Chris Rock or Dave Chapelle saying it.
Ron Paul: “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks. Mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’”
I seem to recall America’s first black President, a Democrat, was who reached across the aisle and got rid of welfare. A program which had been a disaster since the era when Daniel Moynihan was a lone voice in the wilderness.
Now there’s a standard bearer for you, right, Aaron? Do you think David Duke might be available for the VP slot?
“Obama was right about one thing, change is coming. He just wasn’t the agent of change. Maybe he was the catalyst.”
Certainly he was the catalyst for garden variety bigotry and racism masquerading as political analysis. Absolutely he was the catalyst for the white Starbucks liberal, who wouldn’t know class difference if it bit him/her in the reusable mug, tsk tsking about the “Uncle Tom” in office while ignoring the homeless guy outside asking for a few spare coins. And undoubtedly he was the catalyst for a bunch of ex-Republicans funded by the Cato Institute to wring their hands and sigh and express their profound “concern” that “that one” may not have the best wishes of all of “us” at heart. You know, the ones not born in Hawaii / Kenya / where was he born again oh I don’t know I just can’t be CERTAIN you know?
But mostly, yes, he was the agent of change. And despite the real mistakes he’s made, the vast majority of his achievements have been enormously positive for the progressive agenda. I hope some day, when you can let go of your hatred of the President and stop trying to draft KKK sympathizing pot smokers to run for office against him, you’ll recognize how true that is. No need to apologize, though. I’ll bet even Ron Paul turns the other cheek once in a while.
Maybe the white Starbucks liberals and I are just to slow to see the change around us, but methinks absent something more concrete than excellent speechmaking Obama is following Jimmy Carter’s path to re-election.
For the sake of people’s browsers everywhere, I can’t reproduce the entirety of the conversation, so I’ll just respond to Aaron’s responses here…see above for greater context. 🙂
“This started as a “fair and balanced” thing. Been calling President Bush, King George the II for some time. I felt if I wasn’t equally derisive about Obama considering my frustrations, that I would be fronting. Had to keep it real. If it bothers you deeply, I can cut it out. Would you have felt the same if I was calling President Clinton, “Hill”?”
Yep, I sure would. It’s a matter of respect for the office, and it’s particularly important for a president who has been more demonized than any other president in modern history–largely, in my view, because of explicit or implicit racism, racism which you refuse to acknowledge as a major obstacle Obama has had to overcome while in office. I also hate these kinds of disrespectful “tag” names, which should have been left behind on the middle school playground where they belonged. I call Bush a war criminal because that’s exactly what he is, not because I’m trying to score a cheap political point, and that’s what I view your version of “keeping it real” to be trying to do with Obama.
“The distended contortionists are those who claim there has been change. I dare you to explain outside the color of his skin how an Obama Presidency is different than a Biden Presidency would have been. And if you think Biden is an agent of change, well, then, we might just have some irreconcilable differences of opinion.”
Again, I’ve already listed these achievements numerous times, and given you a link to find more. You continue to ignore such links, which tells me you don’t really WANT to know what Obama has done, because it will get in the way of more name calling and belittling of the president. I’m also not going to let you get away with shifting the ground to Biden, who isn’t president and won’t be (I mean, what is the point of this? Should I compare Carter’s presidency to a hypothetical Mondale one for added confusion?). The question is about Obama’s administration, and to a lesser extent how it compares to a hypothetical McCain’s. And if you think John McCain would have been more of an agent of change, we for sure have some irreconcilable differences–of fact, not opinion.
“I saw the other comment: “Relatedly, under ‘arts and culture’ it lists “championed the importance of arts education” as an achievement. In my mind, making speeches isn’t really an achievement, it’s showmanship. Achievements are specific, actionable occurrences or policy changes that have demonstrable impacts…” I concur. If you are counting the power of the bully pulpit among Obama’s achievements, I will not disagree that he is a good speechmaker. I would however argue that excellent speechmaking backed by minimal achievement and uncertain execution is, in fact, a net negative. Raising expectations and failing to deliver has a slew of blowback implications. We are whipping in those winds right now.
Despite what you may have heard from various college debaters, rhetoric is not an end in and of itself.”
Completely, utterly disagree. As you no doubt saw in my response to Beth’s comment, rhetoric from a president is actually a critical function of his/her job, as he/she sets the tone for the nation both domestically and internationally. Martin Luther King accomplished far, FAR more as an inspiring speaker than as a political strategist, and I doubt you’d have any problem acknowledging his real impact on society (although your hero Ron Paul no doubt would). His job is to lead and inspire, not act as a policy negotiator, physically writing the details of every bill and law…there are plenty of highly qualified people to do that.
But of course this isn’t the real problem anyway. In truth this is nothing more than a tired throwback to the PUMA days, where embittered Hillary Clinton supporters moaned about Obama’s speechmaking and dismissed his actual achievements (including, by the way, his ability to inspire, far better than Clinton could in her dreams). As usual, Obama was far more mature than Clinton would have been in a similar situation in bringing her into his administration, but the rest of the “Hillary’s better than some black man” crowd doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo.
“Specific claims of bills passed, policies laid out and followed is what I think of as Presidential achievements.”
Already listed and linked, many times. Not going to do it again.
“You forget to mention that Obama reiterated the permanent commitment of United States forces to maintaining bases Iraq. Definitively telling the Middle East and the rest of the world that no matter which side of the political aisle is running Washington, D.C. America’s cases of Imperialist and Neo-Colonialist Fever are still virulent.”
I didn’t mention it because it’s completely untrue. He has made no such commitment. He is, of course, waiting to hear from Iraqi leaders about who and what they want as support–in other words, listening and thinking before shouting, something we could all stand to do a lot more–but he’s been crystal clear that there will be no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. Claiming he’s said otherwise is utter nonsense, and you know it.
“Karzai is screaming because he wants even more out of Obama than he is already sucking out of the U.S. Treasury. Obama instead of cutting the head off of the serpent continues to negotiate from a position of weakness. Karzai believes Obama needs him more than he needs Obama. He is now playing Obama’s offers out to the Chinese seeking counteroffers. Why? Because Obama has not changed the paradigm. Rather than recognize that there is no logic to that “state” of Afghanistan other than that of the mapmakers of the British Empire, he continues to fill the trough. Is Obama different? Isn’t this the same game the United States has played for thirty and fifty years in Nigeria, Kenya, Congo…picking any tribally divided, resources laden, 3rd world country… Our government works with multinational corporations to expropriate and exploit the resources of said country while buying off the political elite.”
In between your repeating bullet points from Daily Fox, Aaron, you create so many convoluted tangles of logic I thought I was looking at a pretzel. You say that “Karzai IS screaming because he wants even more out of Obama,” which is exactly my point: he knows Obama isn’t the same animal as Bush or McCain (who repeatedly said he supported Bush’s policy in Afghanistan…the SAME, EXACT policy you repeatedly decry), and he’s frightened to death of that fact. I’m with you on the corporate / government connections being deeply problematic, but again, that’s a problem much larger than Obama. Also, I disagree with him on some things, including his Afghanistan policy. The difference between us is that I can acknowledge those concerns, while you can’t acknowledge anything positive about him (other than the belittling PUMA nonsense about his speaking ability). That’s the tactic of a person desperate to avoid the truth, not someone really interested in engaging in facts and logic, even if such things undercut our deeply held beliefs.
“Foolishly when Obama said change, I thought he meant he was through playing that sort of game.”
No, foolishly when Obama said change, you thought he meant now, immediately, completely, with a wave of his mighty hand sweeping away the Congress and the courts to bring a new version of Utopia to the world. Oh, and he didn’t give you your pony either.
“Ironically, McCain might have been more likely in his maverick ways to consider that…Fuck, even Biden gave a speech recognizing that there is far more logic to Iraq as three countries than one. Unless again, you are the British Empire’s mapmaker assuming the sun will indeed never set. Nation building is an impossibility unless you bomb them to incapacity and starvation first, giving you more or less tabula rasa to work with…”
As mentioned above, McCain would have done no such thing, by his own admission. And I thought Aaron version 1.0 above dismissed anything to do with Biden? But I’m with you about the nation building point.
“Point of agreement! Hooray! I think he should use Osama’s death as an excuse to drawn down United States forces rapidly and nearly completely in Afghanistan.”
Agreed. Would be a better outcome than the jingoistic triumphalism we got over the last week, though thankfully NOT from Obama, whose announcement was anything but celebratory (and rightfully so).
“Point of agreement! Glad to see Gates gone, but Panetta brings nothing to the table unless Obama changes direction in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, the Philippines, etc.”
Not true that he brings nothing to the table, but I would hope Obama would change direction in a couple of those places.
“Sanctions? Really? People are getting shot in the street in a country where American military and intelligence cooperation is de rigeur and your satisfied that Obama has ordered sanctions? It is especially disingenuous and bad policy in light of his arguments elsewhere, like Bahrain which I notice you failed to say anything about…”
And so we see Obama can’t win. If he doesn’t step in militarily, he’s allowing massacres to keep going (Syria). If he does step in, he’s interfering in the business of other countries and becoming another empire-monger (Libya). If he doesn’t, he’s weak and milquetoast (Bahrain); if he does, he’s being another arrogant Western cowboy (Pakistan). The problem is you have no solutions, whatsoever, for this problem, so instead you lob rotten tomatoes from offstage making snide comments about “Barry’s” failure to lead. Such hypocrisy makes it impossible to take you, or indeed anyone on the Puritan left, seriously. How would you handle these situations? How would any of your patron saints–Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich, or Gary “no, really, I am independent paynoattentiontothemanbehindthecurtain” Johnson–deal with them, in reality, not a “…goes to Washington” fantasy land where speaking sternly causes political enemies to bow their heads in shame and dictators to cower in fear? I won’t hold my breath for your answer.
“The clear and tragic message to the rest of the world is no matter which party is in the White House, real politic calculations and political stability trump freedom, democracy and human right. By this measure Obama does not even match Jimmy Carter, who if impotent, had enough integrity to demand action.”
Hilarious. So much integrity that he was widely ridiculed for his weakness (look at the killer rabbit story if you want details), his mild-manneredness, his non-aggressive qualities…in short, for many of the same things Obama is ridiculed for today by the fringe right and left, minus the racism and bigotry that the current President also has to deal with. The point, Aaron, is that “demanding” action accomplishes nothing in a vacuum, and pounding your fist on the table and shouting “this shall not stand!” only works in the movies and, perhaps, some sections of the Huffington Post.
“Obama is unwilling to clearly come out for Assad’s removal, much as he waited until far too late to come out in favor of Mubarak’s removal. Which is a large party of why change in Egypt is thus far merely cosmetic, one former military man as dictator, a new former military man as dictator.”
Absolute nonsense. The revolutionary parties THEMSELVES requested that Obama stay away from the situation as much as possible. Why? Because there is a major (and understandable) anti-American streak in Egypt, in part because the West was seen as supporting Mubarak. If Obama turned around and threw his support to the rebels immediately, the moral strength behind their argument would have been gone. (And by the way, Obama ended up with a much more anti-Mubarak stance than a lot of his Cabinet officials wanted as it is, among them his Secretary of State.) Finally, you need to read up on the history of the military in Egypt. It’s much, MUCH different from a lot of armies in the Middle East and Northern Africa.
“Under the “villainous” Ron Paul America would at least have a much more legitimate claim to neutrality in these internecine conflicts. Not that I really wholeheartedly agree with every bit of Paul’s isolationism.”
No, under the villainous Ron Paul America wouldn’t be involved anywhere, and especially not with “brown people”–see his entire political history, laced with racism and bigotry of the worst kind.
“Yeah, I guess I thought “change” meant no more supporting the likes of Khaddafi. Silly me. In Obama’s America we only like/fund/support certain dictators who make concessions to our friends who own the multinational oil, chemical, and mining companies. (So unlike the way Bush and his corporate Enron cronies looked at the world.)”
You’re ducking the argument with cute slogans because you can’t respond to it. Again, Khaddafi was on no one’s radar screens until this year. And besides, I thought we were honor-bound to avoid those internecine conflicts, weren’t we? Or is that only on every second Tuesday? Might want to consult Aaron 1.0 about that.
“Meh.”
Wow, now THERE’S a compelling response!
“Signing statements, unconstitutional and representative of Obama’s continuity with the same Davos elite that funded Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Al Gore. You recall the original genesis of this discussion was my mock shock that Huffington Post was funded by the same bastards who own the internet that Al invented. My point has been/is/was that Obama represents a continuation of the model that the previous Presidents represented with only adjustments in nuance, visuals and of course, speechmaking priorities.”
Yes, that was your point, and one which completely conflicted with Aaron version 1.0’s point. Sidestepping the conflict won’t make it go away.
“Don’t kid yourself, absent massive economic recovery or the price of gas heading back to $2.50 a gallon Obama is vulnerable to whomever the Republicans run, no matter how much of a numskull they are. In fact, the only thing that will likely re-elect him is if a 3rd party or independent candidate running to the right of the Republican standard bearer appears ala Ross Perot; Donald Trump, Ron Paul perhaps?”
Utter, utter nonsense. Have you seen the polls being run? The hypothetical matchups? Do you really believe he’s threatened by the likes of Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney, or Donald Trump? Hasn’t he already kicked the latter to the curb with grace and elegance? Do you really believe Ron Paul has a shadow of a chance even to get the nomination?
“Ad hominems are silly. That is not a description of the President’s character, it is rather a characterization of his administration’s actions to date. (except for speechmaking.)”
And by making speechmaking into the equivalent of “makes a mean souffle,” you are in fact belittling him personally, just as a good ad hominem is intended to do. You’ve already admitted your comments towards him are “derisive”; why not go all the way and admit the truth? You have a visceral dislike, even hatred, for the President. Whether this comes from profound disappointment that he wasn’t the person you thought you were electing (i.e. Jesus with an AK and an attitude, the exact mirror image of Bush, but hey, at least he’s OUR bastard this time!) or something more deep-rooted I can’t say, but it’s obvious in every comment you make about him.
“More agreement, hooray.”
Amen. 🙂
“See, while signing statements are unconstitutional, he is the Commander-in-Chief, and could simply order the base closed because it no longer serves a military purpose. Maybe lift the embargo on Cuba, while he is at? Or is that asking for Jesus like behavior? Maybe we have to wait for a Republican to lift the embargo? Obama wouldn’t want to lose Florida over a show of “weakness.” He doesn’t represent that kind of change. He does make some might fine speeches about Cubans’ human rights though.”
Uh-huh. Your suggestion as to what to do with the detainees once the base is closed–you know, the ones he tried to transfer to the U.S. for trial but was undercut by the Congress, which he disagreed with in a signing statement, which as Aaron version (what are we up to now…1.0? 2.0? XP?) said was sinful and unclean–is to dump them in the Atlantic, right? I suppose that WOULD be Ron Paul’s solution. And yeah, lifting the embargo on Cuba would indeed be Jesus like behavior given the state of American politics. Fortunately, he’s done more to lift portions of it, and begin the discussion of getting rid of it entirely, than any president in the last fifty years. I know, I know…could have just parted the sea and let the dissidents walk to Florida if he REALLY cared! As for the last crack about “mighty fine speeches,” I’m glad to see you’re so committed to avoiding belittling him.
“FYI… again a better chance with Paul here. As we are about to get the racism issue below, which, of course, makes Paul ultimately out of the question as leader, we should consider some alternatives around the areas where we agree… former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson? retiring Virginia Senator Jim Webb? Governor Moonbeam?”
I hope you’re not being snarky about Paul being out of the question as leader, since that’s pretty obviously self-evident. Gary Johnson shops at the same Racists R’ Us” store as Paul–yet another pot-loving immigrant hater, the ones Huff and Kos have fallen in love with–and Webb is little better (go check out his civil rights record). As for Jerry Brown, I liked him more before he became all death penalty all the time (I even voted for him in the ’92 primary over Clinton), but he’s still a decent guy on the whole.
“Agreed Bush II was the equivalent of a Mussolini who couldn’t get the trains to run on time. Disagree that Gore wouldn’t have gone to Iraq. Colin Powell probably would have been in his administration. If not, Wesley Clark would have said the same thing every other Pentagon strategist was saying, Afghanistan does not make a significant enough statement to the American people and the world in response to 9/11.”
Where are you getting this nonsense? What strategist this side of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld was claiming in the early 2000s that Afghanistan did not make a “significant enough statement”? Anyone NOT on the Cato Institute payroll?
“Al Gore is as big a sheep as they come! He would have resisted the momentum of the military industrial complex and the country to “do something?” Ha!!! Because he has such deep reserves of personal character? McCain would have been a better man to have in charge 9/11/01 than either Bush II or Gore.”
You’re back to ad hominems here, Aaron, and they’re not helping your argument. Put away your Michael Moore bumper stickers for a moment and find me real, TANGIBLE evidence that Gore was anywhere close to the stupid, imperialist Rapture peddler that Bush was. Again, I won’t hold my breath waiting for the answer.
“It could have been worse. Gore would have been an unmitigated disaster and someone truly right wing would have gotten elected.”
More right wing than GWB?!?!?!?!?! Who, Genghis Khan?
“Bush II was a pigeon of larger forces, not an ideologue personally.”
Not supported by the available evidence and not ultimately important if the result was that the real powers behind his throne (Cheney? Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz?) got to do whatever the hell they wanted.
“He actually believed some of his own hooey about compassion conservatism when he came to town. He was actually going to propose reasonable immigration reform.”
Sure–who else was going to mow his lawn in Texas?
“If Al Gore had been in charge on 9/11, by 2004 the country would have been willing to vote for a real fascist, who really and truly believed in the efficacy and righteousness of totalitarianism in their cold dark heart, ala Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell.”
More nonsense. Absolutely no evidence to support this claim whatsoever.
“Obama was supposed to be the opportunity for righteous backlash against the Bush II regime.”
Ah, and NOW we finally come to it. You see, this is the real problem. You didn’t want a president; you wanted a righteous avenger, a man who would be EXACTLY what Bush was, but in reverse. Throw away the Constitution, to hell with checks and balances, junk the courts, so long as our side wins. Instead you got a rational, thoughtful pragmatist driven by progressive instincts, someone interested both in leading inspirationally (that silly “speechmaking” of his) and enacting change in reality. As a consequence you got a slew of policies for which progressives have been agitating for a generation, but you didn’t get what you really wanted–the Punisher. Rambo of the left. Ralph Nader with fake muscles and a gleaming Uzi. You didn’t get blood, dammit, and that’s what you had coming to you!
For God’s sake, Aaron, listen to yourself. “Righteous backlash?” Seriously?
“Granted he is apparently a racist.”
Not “apparently,” but glad you’ve had the veil lifted a bit.
“Jefferson and Franklin had slaves, it does not indict all of their other ideas.”
True. They also lived in the 1700s, not the 2000s, and to be a little reductionist, they were freaking Jefferson and Franklin–not Paul, whose sole achievement is playing footsie with the disaffected, Internet-connected young every four years when he would throw them under the bus if he ever got the opportunity.
“Ron Paul is apparently either racist or totally insensitive, it does not for me discredit his thinking in all other sectors automatically. Although it does mean, I could never vote for him as a candidate for higher office. Though, context, context, I have no idea on the context of these quotes, they seem pretty inescapably bad, but I do recall what they were saying about Obama’s church in 2008.”
The context is a series of newsletters written under Ron Paul’s name between his terms of office in Congress. Lots of anti-Semitism there, too, but I’d rather not quote more vile filth than I have to.
“I am not sure what you mean by this. A military junta supported by the U.S. is still running Egypt and promising “free elections” at some as yet to be determined date in the future. Obama had an opportunity to indict the status quo system in Egypt as corrupt. Instead he followed Hillary’s lead and went milquetoast. The people on the street know real change hasn’t come. The intelligence agencies, our and theirs, continue to operate as though nothing changed.”
See above for my answer to this. Had he actually “followed Hillary’s lead,” we’d still be talking about President Mubarak.
“The only people who think there was a revolution work for MSNBC.”
Which one, Joe Scarborough or Mika Brezinski?
“If Obama had said, the United States supports whatever democratic elected government comes out of Egypt, that would have been radical change.”
Yep, and we would have utterly torpedoed the reform movement. But I guess if we win points for those Starbucks discussions…
“In Bahrain he is supporting the monarchy against the will of the people on the basis of the same political stability trumps calculus. Kissinger and Nixon would have been proud.”
See above response about being damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and just plain damned if you’re Obama and can’t breathe without being criticized for it.
“Again Obama is doing everything he can to preserve an imperialistic, neo-colonialist relationship that Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II would have been proud to maintain. There has been no statement to the American people that Afghanistan is a non-existent construct that its own people don’t want or support, that only exists to siphon our tax dollars to Afghanistan’s political elite in an effort to produce enough political stability for Exxon/Mobil, BHP Billiton, to do their work et al. And if Karzai does not comply to their arm twisting, Obama is not looking around to figure out what the will of the Pushtun, Uzbeks, Tajiks, et al. who inhabit the state of Afghanistan is to ascertain who they want to be the next President. He is looking around to see who the next most compliant dictator who can keep the peace is. This is LBJ post Diem, the paradigm hasn’t shifted an iota and that is my objection. What change is the other than rhetorical from Obama? More drones and less manned aircraft? That’s a change… How humanizing. Remote control bombing from even further away.”
See above for my comments about this.
“The majority of Congress supports Tort Reform. Most of Tort reforms supporters are Republicans. What an opportunity for the President to reach across the aisle and get something done. Practically, I think one of my biggest disappointments was that Obama tried to do health care reform before all else.”
Tort reform is the tired refuge of those who don’t really want to address fundamental inequities in the economic and legal system, but who really do want the government to get the hell out of their wallets. It’s nowhere close to being as important as health care reform. If we’re still talking about Justice League politics, of course.
“I am glad it worked out okay for you and yours. I guess he helped people who already had health insurance and needed to switch without being denied for pre-existing conditions. In my personal experience, I know lots of folks without health insurance. None of them are now able to get new or different or cheaper health insurance under the Obama plan.”
Well, I know folks who will be able to get it soon and couldn’t have before–though it takes time to roll out changes this fundamental. But as I pointed out above in my personal example, change has already had a real effect on the ground. Frankly, though, I don’t think arguing based on personal stories is going to do much good anyway–“the plural of anecdote is not data,” as a writer friend of mine has said. The bottom line is that millions of Americans will be insured that would have been unable to be before–which is why health care companies fought tooth and nail against it, and why they’re still playing around with ways to avoid enacting it, though fortunately Sebelius has been riding herd on them to this point.
“Indefensibly racist sounding, unless it is Chris Rock or Dave Chapelle saying it.”
Why the qualifiers, Aaron? It’s not “racist-sounding,” it’s racist, full stop, and it’s a continuing pattern with Paul (and other Republican front runners *cough* Trump *cough*). Heaven knows you don’t give Obama a pass for the “sound” of his rhetoric.
“I seem to recall America’s first black President, a Democrat, was who reached across the aisle and got rid of welfare. A program which had been a disaster since the era when Daniel Moynihan was a lone voice in the wilderness.”
Your recollection would be wrong, though, since the welfare system changed most substantially under Clinton. I have no idea what you’re referring to as far as Obama is concerned.
“Maybe the white Starbucks liberals and I are just to slow to see the change around us, but methinks absent something more concrete than excellent speechmaking Obama is following Jimmy Carter’s path to re-election.”
I think I’ve already responded to this line of argument in plenty of detail. You’re a smart guy, Aaron, but what this comes down to isn’t really about your head–it’s about your heart. You hate Obama; you hate his unwillingness to punch and yell, to scream obscenities at the Right, to unleash a “righteous backlash” on those who darkened the country for the first decade of the millennium. You don’t want change, but conflict, anger, hatred–just for our side, not theirs. You want Bush too–but our Bush. Fortunately for all of us, Obama has recognized that down this path lies destruction. Real progressive change comes from a combination of inspirational leadership and bare knuckles politics–an ironic, perhaps unfortunate, but very real combination in American life. Ultimately, Obama doesn’t just want to do things differently from his predecessor and countless presidents like him, he wants to BE different from said predecessor and countless presidents like him. To do that, he has to not swing away with righteous vengeance, but rather take the higher ground. We’re all lucky that he’s done just that during his time in office.
Thanks for the conversation; I think we’ve traced out our positions pretty well, though, so probably we should leave it here for now. 🙂
srsly guys…get a job. j/k! 😉