I received this today and I thought it was a good reminder of what the President HAS done, even if it’s just changes in tone at times.
I’ve been among those critical of late. I’d be able to live with the substance of a lot of his achievements (and they ARE achievements), if I didn’t see so much pre-compromise. However, slow and steady does sometimes win the race.
Please share widely!
Historians will look back at this period in history and remark about how this was one of the most productive Congresses in history, especially compared with what immediately followed it. I think a lot of the lefts frustration is partially justified, Obama underestimated the fact that Republicans would be partisan and now want to help him, he underestimated the strength of resistance in his own caucus, and he failed to recognize the need to be decisive and lead and not to be an aloof delegator. But a lot of the criticisms are unfair in my opinion. This is politics people, we had a caucus that had a majority due to its centrist and conservative members and they had to be reckoned with. We have a country that is still not with us on a host of issues and scared to death of debt and reluctant to pay more taxes. So recognizing the limits of governing, some self-imposed, others inherent in the system, will be a key way for everyone to move forward. Hopefully the self-imposed ones will cease when Obama brings better people into his circle, and hopefully the left will recognize that its not all sunshine and lollipops up on capital hill, but an old and ugly machine that needs to be greased significantly before its parts can start moving.
… is the political calculation not to have an executive push on filibuster reform. If there are issues with the art of the possible, then certainly it would make sense to facilitate such a change to create better contexts for what is possible, yes? It’s not like he’s been shy about how much of a problem it is in his speeches, but for some reason it isn’t an initiative for him either.
In our system separation of powers is sacrosanct to many, who will greatly resent it if the President appears to be telling the Senate how to conduct its business.
FDR’s court packing scheme was entirely constitutional and he had the public behind it initially, but the tradition of republican government, even those traditions that are not explicit to the Constitution, ended up winning the day as the Congress and public grew wary of it. Similar situation. Are you process based or outcome based? Do the ends justify the means? I would argue the process is just as important to republican democracy as the outcome and its best to tread carefully with reforms of this nature.
That bold part sounds oddly familiar, doesn’t it?
<
p>
The DU story is worth reading in its entirety. You’re right about the similarities of the back-and-forth here at BMG.
Things continue to get worse for working Americans – U6, the best overall indicator of unemployment and underemployment, has risen to 17% and isn’t budging. But when the bankers have any problem, our Government goes into overdrive to fix it in days. We now have $12+ trillion of US taxpayer money guaranteeing banker junk assets, and maintaining banker bonuses. If the assets explode, we taxpayers get left holding the bag while the bankers flip us the bird from their yachts.
<
p>We have a health care bill – but do we really know what’s in it? We were told that, right away, children would no longer be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. That would be terrific, except for the part Obama hasn’t crowed about, that there’s no cap whatsoever on what insurers can charge these children – which is, effectively, a denial of the very coverage that’s being trumpeted. Is there any reason to believe that there’s not plenty more of the same garbage lying in the 2,500+ page bill, reportedly written in large part by lobbyists? Is it a coincidence that Obama postponed implementation until after his re-election attempt?
<
p>We have a tepid financial reform bill – certainly not a return to Glass-Steagall.
<
p>We have staggering tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, but “shared sacrifice” (code phrase for coming Social Security cuts) for the rest of us.
<
p>This is not the change I voted for. I believe it best to plainly call it what it is, and move on. 18 years of “compromise” have not worked out well.
and the 1% he gets.
MannyGoldstein is not proposing a vote for Nader.
<
p>Nor is it an excess of perfectionism to point out the degree to which government has been captured by moneyed interests. These are real problems and anyone listening to Obama’s rhetoric from the campaign would truly have expected different.
This is a recipe for disaster.
<
p>We’ve had 18 years of this basic electoral philosophy – do you think things have worked out well? Is the economy doing well? Are we at peace?
<
p>In business and in politics, when people work out, you warn them that they perform, or they go.
For liberals, this is all very uphill. According to polling, conservatives almost outnumber us 2 to 1, and moderates make up at least half the Democratic party — and most of the time they are the majority of Democrats.
<
p>Reading the Left Blogosphere, it’s pretty clear the liberal wing has a coherent message and pretty solidly united, but there is no organizational framework that gives it voice. During the darker years of the Bush Administration, MoveOn attempted to be that voice, but, in the last five years, none too successfully.
<
p>Getting our message out and making it viral is going to take a while. The experience of 1980 is not promising. Trying to catapult a real liberal into the Presidency is a bit like the Green Party running for governor. Not enough ground work has been done.
hire Wall Street executives to push his economic agenda
<
p>expand the Bush-era surveillance state
<
p>continue unjust and expensive wars with no possibility of a positive outcome
<
p>to target US citizens for assassination
<
p>to engage in types of warfare which are known to cause a high rate of civilian casualties
<
p>to continue the torture and indefinite detention practices of the Bush years
<
p>to crack down with renewed vigor on whistle blowers and others exposing government corruption and incompetence
<
p>to speed up the deportation of undocumented foreigners
<
p>to feign concern for the plight Haitians “you will not be forsaken; you will not be forgotten” and then dare to stand in a prominent position on the world stage while only 1/10 of the international aide promised has been delivered a year after the earthquake
<
p>etc.
increased taxes for the rich, and so on. If that many people want these things, and elected Democrats can’t deliver, they either aren’t trying or are staggeringly incompetent.
… are trying hard to make peace with their corporate sponsors
I’m surprised by this phenomenon: Polling strongly favors the liberal position; legislators legislate otherwise anyway; no one seems to lose a re-election contest as a result. Is this because support for liberal positions is always soft and it can be chipped away at (see healthcare reform and Maine marriage referendum)? Or is it because the guys that hold the purse strings have a pull strong enough that it overcomes the pull of public opinion?
Move to the right then tell Democratic voters that it’s vote for the Right, or get the Far-Right. The latest incarnation is ‘Support Obama fully or else the Palin will be president’.
<
p>18 years of this, and where has it gotten us?
Mid-term elections tend to be base elections.
<
p>In 2006, after Lamont’s primary victory, national Democrats suddenly discovered there was a war going on in Iraq — and they opposed it! And won! A position that appealed to the base.
<
p>In 2010, national Democratic officials appear to have lost the base’s phone number.
<
p>In any case, that strategy does not work midterms where the choice is more between Reid and staying home rather than between Reid and Angle.
In 1993/4, pro-gun control polled very well. Not only were citydwellers pro-gun control, but so were the families of suburbia. They weren’t calling for no guns, they were calling for “common sense” limits — no automatic weapons, nor scopes nor bullets with superpowers, better background checks, a limit on how many guns purchased per month, loophole closures, etc.
<
p>So the Dems passed the Brady Bill in Feb 1994. They got their clocks cleaned in November, including in suburban areas where gun control polled well.
<
p>It turned out that while the majority of folks in those areas were pro-Brady Bill, they weren’t voting on it. They were glad it passed, but it wasn’t their number one issue, and so they didn’t influence the decision on supporting their Congressman who voted for it in the election. However, the minority was extremely vocal and well organized by the NRA. The minority came out in full force, and worked hard to influence the election with money, volunteering, GOTV, etc. As a result, Democrats in moderate districts who voted for a popular bill were worse off in the November election for doing so.
<
p>
<
p>The Democrats took a popular losing position on gun control, and have been licking their gun control wounds ever since. An issue may be popular, but if it doesn’t get supported with affirmative votes in November, it may still be wise to ignore if you’re a politician looking to be reelected.
<
p>
<
p>What’s interesting to me is that there may now be an opportunity to swing the Democrats in the House far to the left. Lots of Blue Dogs lost… the “median Democrat” in the House is now more liberal than last year. Trouble is, we’re in the minority. We’ve got to get back in the majority, but it would be nice to do so by picking up more moderate members in former Blue Dog districts and by primary-ing or replacing retired moderates with more liberal members in bluer CDs. This requires organized, focused work.
I suspected that something like the Brady Bill phenomenon was afoot.
but it means pushing the core liberal agenda hard and calling on legislators who campaigned as progressives to actually vote that way and not making excuses for them and then rewarding them with energetic campaigning efforts. A lot of comments here, including your own, suggest a much more measured response to the legislative (and administrative) foot dragging — all carrot, no stick.
when we have to fight and fight and fight and we still can’t convince the administration to over ride public opinion — no matter how uninformed or wrong headed that public opinion may be — or we can’t get a majority of votes no matter how smart and informed and morally superior we may be.
<
p>I’m sorry so many people expected so much from this President. I was hopeful too. His words and his delivery gave us all hope that the forces of darkness and evil(a little strong I know) would easily dissolve into puddles like the Wicked Witch of the West. NOt yet. Not yet. But we did pretty good I think. Not perfect, but pretty good.
<
p>Please Iris and Marc, don’t stay away from the fight. Just gotta keep at keeping at it, till we have won the hearts and minds of our neighbors and friends ( I’m still working on my family), and of our elected and appointed officials.
<
p>
I think President Obama sees the reality of the political landscape more clearly than any of us. I think he made a disappointing and probably accurate assessment that the electorate isn’t there, today, to support his agenda.
<
p>We need to change that.
<
p>We are allowing Black and Hispanic voices to be marginalized and silenced, primarily in the mainstream media. We need to turn that around. We need to stop running in fear when the right wing paints charismatic leaders like Jeremiah Wright into a racist corner.
<
p>We need stand up strong and fight against the bigotry and racism of the “illegal immigrant” bogeyman. Instead of sniping at the few mainstream media personalities who are trying to bring this fight home — Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow — we need to strengthen them.
<
p>We are in a culture war and a class war, and we need to start acting like it.
Particularly for the first two sentences.
<
p>
<
p>Not sure about the culture and class war characterization. I think both terms unnecessarily polarize both “sides” however you define them. The sides I mean.
Let me try and clarify what I meant by “culture war” and “class war”.
<
p>Culture war: The right wing has made “liberal” an epithet. The right wing has, since the Reagan era, been twisting values such as community, shared sacrifice, and common good into boxes labeled “socialist”, “fascist”, “communist”, and so on. These traditional American and, yes, Christian values have been replaced with unfettered greed, self-interest, and the celebration of personal gain. The underlying cosmology is that “God created material wealth for man’s benefit, and man therefore does God’s will by pursuing material wealth. The poor suffer because they are insufficiently committed to advancing God’s purposes.” I say “man” because women are primarily wombs and sex objects in this cosmology.
<
p>I describe this as a “culture war” because this underlying cosmology and vision puts the right wing in stark conflict with the vision and values of the rest of us. They have chosen this path, not us.
<
p>Class war: The right wing is dominated by the wealthy and powerful. This tiny segment (by population) has been consciously, intentionally, and explicitly stripping wealth from the rest of society since the Reagan era. These wealthy and powerful interests have systematically dismantled the protections put in place by prior generations. They have riddled the federal government (especially the DoJ) with political operatives explicitly selected based on their commitment to advancing this right-wing agenda. They have bought our government, bought our media, and bought our major religious institutions. They have strengthened their grip on our financial institutions. They created a fraudulent “prosperity”, based on forcing consumers to borrow against credit lines with usurous interest rates, artificially inflated mortgages, and extortionate fees and penalties. They simultaneously gutted consumer protection laws, destroyed personal bankruptcy protections, and dismantled the government mechanisms intended to limit such abuses.
<
p>I describe this as a “class war” because this relentless theft of wealth is as old as humanity. The wealthy and powerful have been waging war on the poor and weak for thousands of years — Christianity was once a revolutionary movement. When we avoid this existential truth about the right wing class war, we deny the reality that the overwhelming majority of us grapple with each and every day. The minorities and scapegoats — Blacks, Hispanics, immigrants — are the only the first targets and victims. We need to make common purpose with these, rather than distance ourselves from them.
<
p>I agree that these terms are polarizing. In my view, these terms name and make outwardly visible the interior changes that have already happened. The polarization has already taken place, and in my view it is crucial and necessary that we say so.
When the average working American’s lot in life improves, they vote for the people in charge. When things get worse, they vote for the other candidates.
<
p>Very few if any examples to the contrary.
As to Cheney… even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
…that is not only popular, but people will vote based on it?
Except to say that we have bunches of them, and have to do them in bunches.
<
p>Want to get out the greenies? The GLBTSupporters? The Hispanics? African Americans? Those who work hard but will never make enough to own a second home? Women? Students? Seniors? Throw them a bone.
<
p>The Dems did all of that this year, but they did some of it too late (DADT, DREAM, black farmers court-required repayment, tax cut) and some of it without election messaging (high speed rail, fair pay, student loans & insurance). As for seniors… I’m having trouble figuring out what Dems did for seniors in particular.
<
p>
<
p>At the risk of being cynical or crass, you simply set out a checklist. Who are the groups of Dem supporters? For each group, pick one issue of theirs every two years, and work hard on it. Try to get it done. If you come up a little short, compromise. A lot short? Force the vote anyway, a la DREAM.
Our Democratic overlords seem to recoil from making political issues — well, political. They don’t try to win on the issues.
<
p>I still can’t believe that the fact-challenged lunatics from the Tea Party were able to carry off the debate on healthcare. But remember, Obama let things like the Nebraska compromise dominate the news about it and his Administration never explained adverse selection to the public.
<
p>Such passivity is how initial high poll numbers end up sagging.
There are more of them then there are of us. And I think it’s almost always been that way. And I submit that when we Democrats are lucky enough to have a charismatic candidate for the Presidency like FDR or Jack Kennedy or Bill Clinton or Barak Obama who look and talk like liberals but who understand we are a minority, they do the best they can and when they fail they get the shit kicked out of them by purists who only undermine their attempts to move forward one step at a time.
<
p>Deep breaths people.
who caused his numbers to plummet. It’s the independents and new voters, seeing that his policies are inadequate to the situation, who have abandoned him in large numbers. We “purists” are a minority even here at BMG, if you haven’t noticed.
When asked questions about policies, the public is more liberal than they self-identify. A majority:
<
p>- favored some sort of public option or single-payer health care.
<
p>- think that the very rich should pay a larger share of the taxes.
<
p>- think that the banks got too sweet a deal in the financial bailout.
<
p>- want Social Security and Medicare benefits to be maintained at their current levels.
<
p>I maintain that Clinton and Obama (so far) have done the best they can to help big business in their fight to dominate working people in this country, while appealing to liberals and swing voters with high-sounding rhetoric and an occasional bone. Obama continued many of Bush’s policies in areas where he had every chance to change them.
<
p>How much like Bush must Obama act before liberals smell a rat?
There’d have been no Bush if progressives voted intelligently instead of idealistically. Think about how much better the country would be today, surplus instead of deficit, no medicare D, no NCLB, no Iraq War, a peaceful and democratic Afghanistan with no Taliban or AQ which we’d have been out of by 2005 or so, and a more progressive healthcare proposal than the one Obama had. No Alito and no Roberts as well for that matter. Which means no Citizens United, which means stronger campaign finance reform. So yes a President Palin would be an unmitigated disaster and personally I don’t think its worth the risk.
for the 97000 Nader votes in Florida? Those votes, as shown by exit polls, didn’t cost Gore the election.
Gore ran a flawed campaign nationwide and managed a very flawed recount strategy in Florida.
The media decided to dislike Gore.
was instrumental in Bush’s Florida victory. As FL Secretary of State, she purged thousands of voters from districts that were demographically likely to favor Gore. Florida was only close because of her underhanded and possibly illegal tactics.
<
p>Don’t forget that Gore won the nationwide popular vote.
for the fall of the Democrats in 2000. If you ask me, it was Monica Lewinsky. You can blame disaffected progressives all you want. The real strength lies with the independents, no matter which way they normally swing.
<
p>
<
p>Unfortunately, Obama is not impressing the independents either, even though many people think the independents are the supposed center of all politics. I don’t think they are. I think that independents are Main St. Americans wanting representation. They could care less about being in the center politically. The Washington Center is not the same thing as the Main St Center.
…except as a figment of Al Gore’s and his consultants’ imaginations. The “geniuses” surrounding Gore thought voters would have Clinton-fatigue. despite Clinton’s popularity staying strong and some polls suggesting Clinton himself would have cleaned Bush’s clock, but for the 22nd amendment. Therefore, Gore squandered an opportunity to run on eight years of relative peace and prosperity, because that would mean crediting Clinton.
especially for those of us trying to promote Al Gore. I was devastated when he lost. As much as we all want to pretend that the Lewinsky scandal didn’t happen or doesn’t matter, it did. It was the biggest part of the loss of credibility that otherwise would have ensured a win for
the Democrats. You’re right, Gore did remove himself from the Clinton administration. But unfortunately it didn’t matter. Either way, it probably wouldn’t have mattered.
<
p>I found video of a Gore/Bush debate from 2000 and posted it below (to avoid margin problems). It’s very interesting to go back and analyze and try to consider how even with the Lewinsky scandal hovering, someone like George Bush got half the country to vote for him.
Thanks Christopher.
from the Democrats that enrages me. I am not distracted by his good looks, his charm, his everyman quality, his profile in concentration.
<
p>This administration has been a disaster, and I’m not at all inclined to support another. Mr. Obama lacks a spine, which, in turn, leads me to believe he lacks vision and conviction. And I am not alone; there are literally millions of disaffected liberals out there who are as disenchanted as I. Right about now I say let the Republicans have the whole shooting match. Better to be associated with the party out of power than the party in power that can’t or won’t fight for anything.
but unless liberals stand up and say no, the Democratic Party will become increasingly indistinguishable from the GOP
since Obama took office and look what it’s gotten us.
<
p>The Democratic party has lost its way–the Obama presidency convinces me of this–and I have no faith Democrats will suddenly whip out a compass and use it in any meaningful sense.
<
p>Of course the Republicans will be worse, but maybe that’s what it takes? I don’t know. I didn’t used to believe in end-times posturing–part of the reason I stopped visiting places like DailyKos about four years ago–but now I’m not so sure. The Democrats have let the center drift so far to the right that there’s no “center” for people like me to calibrate with. Olympia Snowe? Susan Collins? These people are the new center. No thanks.
<
p>The low-information voter now votes in large numbers, fueled in their truthiness by the broadcast media. And Russ Feingold is out of a job.
very few liberals have been standing up. Obama’s approval rating among Democrats is in the high 80s. Most people who consider themselves liberal generally support Obama’s efforts or else are resigned to the slow pace of progress. Witness the comments here.
I agree fully with you that the center of power in the US is moving quickly to the right in spite of the overall popularity of a liberal agenda. This is a huge betrayal of our principles and signals the death of the DP.
<
p>I wish it could all happen faster too. Something about being in the minority.
is what you can expect when you are satisfied with the slow pace and with the way compromises are made (only by Democrats) before negotiations even start.
<
p>How do you justify Obama’s use of an executive order to appoint a conservative-packed Deficit Reduction Commission that focused on cuts to Social Security, which should not be part of the deficit calculation anyway? He is not afraid to push proposals that are unpopular with voters but are popular with Wall St. As long as liberals say nothing, he will continue to pull stunts like this.
<
p>I would be more understanding if I saw more of a fight being made to help our weakened middle class.
…and I agree at least some have been, it hasn’t been heard. The GOP has been objecting to great effect, but there’s been no counterweight, or at least not an effective one.
applauding and excusing the inaction. Until they get a majority of Democrats disaffected, they are still confident in the Dem base and figure that the vote is solidly there no matter what. There has been some “screaming no” from the base, but not nearly enough and the polls are showing them this.
It’s likely that robust Republican majorities in state houses will overreach with visibly disastrous results.
“This administration has been a disaster, and I’m not at all inclined to support another … Better to be associated with the party out of power than the party in power that can’t or won’t fight for anything.”
<
p>You know … I think we tried your suggestion, and it really didn’t work out all that well. In fact, most of what libs like us complain about is the inability to move far- or quickly enough away from those policies that actually happened under the previous administration.
<
p>Let’s remember that two years into the Bush administration, we’d already passed a massive, budget-busting tax cut for the rich; suffered through 9/11, were in one war and rarin’ to get into another.
<
p>Elections are binary choices: This or that. Surely the relative absence of such malignity is worth something. Hope? Well, in a strange way, yeah.
what the right amount of pushing from the base looks like — in between no pushing at all (wholesale acceptance and cheerleading) and outright rejection of the administration (as lightiris suggests).
You say rejection didn’t work that well in 2000… fine. But wholesale acceptance leaves very much to be desired in the short term and the long-term effects of rolling over are even worse.
You push hard in primaries to elect both POTUS and Congressional candidates who are more progressive, without overplaying like the teabaggers.
<
p>You push hard in the general election in selected efforts — you work for the Feingolds and the Sanders and the Pelosis, etc. That means money, it means using your Rolodex to help GOTV of your jus’folks and your jus’folks’ jus’folks. It means spending the weekend doorknocking for the progressive Democrat running in NH-01 or CT-04 or wherever nearby. And, for all those things, it means inviting lightiris and other good, fairminded liberals to join you in word, deed, and wallet.
<
p>P.S. Do this for the state house too, particularly the under 50 politicians. They are the minor leagues, after all.
but the problem is that people tend to fall asleep in between elections. I and a few others here are advocating for much more feedback from the base, both positive and negative, in between campaigns. The Tea Party was effective because they started hammering early and hard, and the GOP officials responded accordingly.
By this time next year the troops will finally be home. College kids, seniors, working people, and the uninsured will have healthcare. Gays will be openly serving leading the foundation for eventual civil unions and possibly marriage at the federal level in the next decade, a victory unheard of a few months ago. We have returned to the sensible internationalist realism school of foreign policy and we will have better relations with the world, thats one of the biggest sea changes already. Guantanamo will be closed. The economy will be stable and will start creating jobs again. We will have had billions in new infrastructure. My biggest beef with the so called progressive who bitch about Obama is that they forgot that he has accomplished more for their beliefs in two years than Clinton did in eight. Good luck having any of that under a President McCain or a future President Palin. Those are the choices. The big problem with the ‘bitching wing’ of the party, and I’ve done my fair share of bitching here and elsewhere, but there is a permanent ‘bitching wing’ that won’t be happy until we have a socially democratic country. And that just ain’t happening in America. Ever. So once you get over that we can return to the robust liberalism of Truman-LBJ, who were all criticized by bitching wings in their own day due to the slow pace on medicare, social security, and civil rights and are now highly regarded as great presidents. So keep your pants on and be patient, governing takes time, if you bitch about how slow the process is than you would be much happier under a dictator and that’s a disturbing thought.
“By this time next year the troops will finally be home.”
Where are you getting this?
<
p>”… leading the foundation for eventual civil unions and possibly marriage at the federal level in the next decade, a victory unheard of a few months ago.”
Not much evidence for this. Obama himself doesn’t support marriage equality
<
p>”We have returned to the sensible internationalist realism school of foreign policy and we will have better relations with the world, thats one of the biggest sea changes already.”
That’s not at all apparent. The best examples are Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan where our involvement is clearly not in our national interest. Also our foot-dragging in our engagement with the international community on climate change and sustainability is hardly enlightened.
<
p>”Guantanamo will be closed.”
No sign of this. Moreover Obama has just issued an order making indefinite detention a long-term policy.
The troops will absolutely NOT be home – a few will start to come back, but the majority of forces will be there at least until 2014. And we’re continuing a pointless war at great cost financially, internationally, and morally.
<
p>Most college kids and seniors already had health insurance. College kids will likely continue to get crappy insurance through their schools. And starting in 2014, all most people will have is health insurance. This was not health care reform at all, it was health insurance reform – so we will just have more people in an ineffective and insane system. Yes it is a step in the right direction, but it is not a fundamental change to the health care system.
<
p>Federal same-sex marriage in ten years? I hope so, but I’m not confident. Right now, we have a President who is too much of a coward to support it. I thought during the campaign that Obama was just against same-sex marriage for the campaign season to avoid the hot button issue, but that he was for it personally and would fight for gay rights when elected. Now I just think he’s a coward on the issue.
<
p>I don’t think our international actions have changed as much as our attitude. The attitude change is good, but what we do overseas and continue to do, will continue to have us be high on the list of most hated countries. We still have the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the war on terror, idiotic policy on Israel, and drug wars continuing.
<
p>Guantanamo most definitely will not be closed (Robert Gibbs told us so this weekend). I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this President has institutionalized the very worst civil liberties and war on terror abuses of the Bush administration. I guess he doesn’t brag about torture in the way the Cheney-ites did, but that almost makes it scarier, because most people believe the policies have changed.
<
p>The economy may be better, but will have little to do with Obama’s bungling of the first stimulus and his worship of Wall Street. The economy is and will continue to be better for the rich, but for the rest of us, we won’t see changes for a while. We also might have a double dip of the housing market (see Nouriel Roubini). We’ll certainly have a lot more people losing homes in foreclosure – something that the administration, bizarrely, has done almost nothing about (except hold up legal aid for lower income people seeking loan modifications).
<
p>One of the things I was most hopeful for with President Obama was that he might be a President for the middle class rather than the rich. I don’t think that’s happened. The wealth and opportunity disparity in this country will increase unabated during the Obama presidency.
<
p>Yes, we will have billions in new infrastructure. We really need trillions. We are just scratching the surface on what’s needed. I don’t think this is a matter of slowness, I think it’s a problem with the President’s priorities. He thought it was more important to have tax cuts to make a more attractive stimulus plan than to have a plan that might actually work.
<
p>He has had a lot of legislation passed, but I think a lot is crap. And a lot of it could have been much better with a fight or even simply by submitting better packages initially. For example, deals with PhRMA and the hospitals and giving up on the public option BEFORE the health insurance package went to Congress ensured it would be a weaker result.
<
p>Don’t look to progressives to look fondly on the Clinton years. His was a horrible mess of a center-right administration. This administration is very similar in that points on the board matter more than actually solving problems. Clinton just got lucky to have a great public personality and a great economy compared to Bush and his tenure.
<
p>My bitching is about trying to pressure this President to be better. High fiving him when he makes a bad deal and then berates liberals is just dumb. Frankly, it’s suicidal.
<
p>I bitch because I wanted a pragmatic progressive, but instead got another DLC-style center-right guy.
<
p>I don’t bitch because of the slow process. I bitch because of the large steps continually taken in the wrong direction.
<
p>And I bitch because my progressive values matter more to me than my party ID.
<
p>
I have to conclude after 52 comments that we don’t all have the same criteria for what constitutes progress. In fact they are surprisingly divergent.
For the most part, the legislation of the last two years has been regressive or a reviving of previously GOP-sponsored ideas, e.g. the Dole-Romney Health Insurance reform, the Bush tax cuts, and the START treaty. This “slow and steady” progress is pretty discouraging, to say the least.
The national health reform is nothing like what Romney did in MA. Just ask him! He’ll tell you that it’s totally different.
<
p>It is sad that Obama’s legislative record does not compare favorably from a progressive standpoint to Nixon’s.
I guarantee you it wasn’t because some progressive Democrats and Greens voted for Ralph Nader.
<
p>Maybe it’s a good idea to go back and analyze.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Presidential Debate 2000 Part 3
<
p>Presidential Debate 2000 Part 4
<
p>Presidential Debate 2000 Part 5
<
p>Presidential Debate 2000 Part 6
<
p>Presidential Debate 2000 Part 7
<
p>