One minute they are waving a list of 87874242309298432 things Obama has accomplished - until it comes to actual progressive/liberal legislation and campaign promises. Then he suddenly can't take a shit without a filibuster-proof majority. They have 'the list' to prove it.

There's even an active OP that starts off calling the "Obama is powerless" meme RW, and then at the end talks about how Obama is unable to do anything. The word 'disconnect' springs to mind.

Several posters here are even going so far as to claim that congress is supposed to force Obama to be progressive/liberal and that we can't expect anything until we elect enough to over ride his veto. That ranks among the most deliberately dishonest things I have encountered here. I am baffled as to why they think they could peddle that kind of simple minded lie here.

that has been used more in his Presidency than in any term in history.

For 50 days he had 59 Senators, not even 60 then (Lieberman was an independent and voted as such).

Your excuse isn't particularly persuasive.

Let's not forget basic civics, since FDR passed NOTHING with just the Senate.

And while Pelosi was Speaker, we passed the Affordable Health Care Act -- which has already put millions of young people on their parents' insurance, among other achievements -- a stimulus bill, and a number of other bills that were strongly opposed by most of the Republicans. But lacking a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, it wasn't enough to have Pelosi in charge of the House.

As you obviously know, but for some reason want to pretend you don't.

House.

of the filibuster

And the Republicans in FDR's era weren't resorting to the filibuster as they have been recently.

The Depression was much more visible to EVERYONE. Unemployment was even greater than now, and we didn't have unemployment insurance, Social Security, or Medicare, so even more people were in crisis.

The Republicans in the Senate didn't try to block everything FDR did with a filibuster.

The media, including the entertainment industry, was supporting FDR's efforts to fix the economy. (How many movies have you seen about the great recession?)

And Smedly Butler was just making up stories about the coup....

Your version of FDR didn't exist.

Last edited Sun May 6, 2012, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Obviously and grossly untrue.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you believe the New Deal made the Great Depression worse.....

I'm not saying that the current recession is worse than the Depression.

But I am saying that Obama's had a worse time getting legislation passed because of the Republicans' filibuster and other tactics.

I think part of the problem has been racism and the Republicans questioning his legitimacy as a President. Do you think FDR ever had to deal with that?

Dealing effectively with political obstruction and leading congress is the president's JOB.

I'm no expert on racism or race, but as far as I can tell FDR was white and probably didn't have to deal with racism - but that's just my lay opinion.

did that happen?

As you no doubt know, Smedley -- who was a friend of FDR -- testified he was approached by conspirators but didn't do anything. If there was any conspiracy, it never got past its early planning stages.

How do you know that there hasn't already been a conspiracy against Obama that went as far as that one did? Which is to say, nowhere.

It just came out last week that Bin Laden had targeted Obama personally. I guess that would be no big deal in your opinion.

against Obama?

No. There wasn't.

Furthermore there isn't going to be. Obama isn't 'standing up' to anyone (except Liberals and Progressives). FDR DID.

If something happened, it didn't get anywhere.

The thing nobody wants to really acknowledge is the fact that this all leads to the same conclusion. Left, right, republican, Democrat, all are elements of the same game, giving the sheeple the illusion of choice while they are herded into the kill room.

Sure, there are differences in the path that will be taken, but the end of the journey is exactly the same, and until enough of us wake up and look at what is, this is what we have.

But ... I do have to say that I question the ability of the Chief Executive to thwart the layers of corruption now so well integrated into the system. In my view, the system of checks and balances has been overwhelmed at last in a manner precisely predicted by George Washington. Washington feared there were insufficient checks built into the Constitution to balance the influence of accumulated wealth. Smart guy, Washington.

The system is broken. It needs repair and revision, and the scope of the problem is such that it will require massive grass roots involvement to accomplish these tasks. FDR was in much the same predicament when he told labor leaders they would have to make him implement the changes they both wanted to achieve. That was an expression of sympathy with the cause, but also a statement of fact: Without public pressure on the entire system, FDR would never be able to achieve those changes.

I think Obama faces a much better organized and systemic opposition than FDR had deal with ... and he faces it with far less pressure from the public.

Just my take on it. But I think it's more on us than it is on him to provide the impetus for change.

Trav

the Evil double-crosser, liar, etc. etc.

Everything cherry-picked to establish what a traitor he is, instead of talking about the whole context of an issue, NDAA 2012 for example, and then kicking butt in light of the whole truth.

Criticism is fair if it is framed authentically.

And any time someone brings up the rest of the story, you're likely to get accused of being an Obamabot.

Anything even slightly to the left of Obama gets lambasted regularly now here on DU..

Point out that the mandate for private insurance is a Republican idea straight from the Heritage Foundation and you get attacked.

I doubt there is more that one or two DU'ers who would say such a thing. You seem to be wanting to generalize that to all DU'ers who find some positive merit to Obamacare.

Before Obama, it was routine to call democrats various nasty names to express disapproval.

When Obama became president, the rules changed and calling Obama a name was rare. The rule change applied to other dems as well, peoples treatment of Pelosi for example improved drastically even though if anything she moved to the center.

I dont have any problem with that, I never did care for the namecalling, but for you to suggest that criticism of Obama is excessively harsh in tone, that is dishonest. Criticism of Obama has been fair, but a certain group of Obama supporters simply wont accept any criticism.

I disagree with some progressives who pretend there's no difference between Obama's positions, and those of the modern Republican party, which is now dominated by extremists. I also think it's stupid to make threats about not voting for Obama because he's not liberal enough, when he's so much more liberal than the only alternative, given the current realities of our 2-party system.

I agree that compared to the current Republican party Obama is "liberal" but some of us have political memories that go back to the sixties and some small number go back further than that, we do have historical references to compare with.

I know, it's very painful and dislocating to see how things have changed, but in today's era, Obama's liberal.

The break-up of the Soviet Union had a lot to do with this. Decades ago, some Iranian friends predicted this. They said that without the Soviet Union existing as a kind of intellectual and political anchor on the left, our whole country would be pulled to the right. That many of the "socialist" benefits we enjoyed -- Social Security, Medicare, union support -- would be threatened. It was so hard to believe this then, but they were right.

that weak opposition?

dupont, jp morgan, etc?

as post #1 said, its usually given as an excuse for why Obama can't do this or do that, that he is somehow powerless, even though he is the president of the United States.

No, of course it never makes any sense.

He can only work with the Congress that is actually in place, and he's never had enough votes to overcome the filibuster (Lieberman was an independent during the couple months that there were close to 60 votes in the Senate.)

I don't believe I have ever heard an Obama supporter say "Obama is powerless."

But I have heard several anti-Obama and anti-Democrat DU'ers say "So Obama is Powerless" in order to misrepresent discussions about how Republicans have fucked up this or that piece of legislation.

Nobody beleives Obama is Powerless. It is basically a Strawman argument coming from a loud handful of DU'ers to shut of discussion.

So Republican obstruction doesn't enter into it with that particular example.

On edit: See my post 54 below, I think that explains it, the poster is confused.

In one post you said it was a left wing meme and in the other that it was a right wing meme..

"Obama is powerless" is the implied excuse in case after case, even in those cases where Obama is clearly not at all powerless, such as rescheduling drugs as I wrote in my OP.

Chattering Republican pundits, Republican Politicians, etc constantly claim "Obama is weak". Fox News, RNC etcetera

"You're saying 'Obama is Powerless'"is a DU meme used to misrepresent the positions of other DU'ers

It is a straw man that originated with hard line anti-Obama DU'ers. I have no clue what their politics are.

So there are two different memes.

You quoted a post where a poster claimed "Obama is Powerless" is a right wing meme.

I explained to you, that to me it appears the poster you quoted appears to have confused the two memes.

"weak" is wingnut meme. "powerless" is hard line anti-obama DU Strawman.

Poster has confused the two.

Hope this clarifies.



Hope this clarifies.

It's part of the executive function, under the POTUS.

And yet every time the argument arises over the drug war, which is basically daily now, all of the moderate centrists say that Obama can not reschedule any drug, that congress must act before anything can be done.

How else is one to take that than as "Obama is powerless to act in this matter" used as an excuse to disguise a political decision not to reschedule drugs as an outright inability to do so?

He's accomplished many things. He is restricted in what he can accomplish, though, by an obstructive Congress. Even so, he has had many successes. No President can accomplish everything he or she wants to without a Congress willing to pass legislation that implements those things.

-approve a new OSHA rule on silica dust
-finalize the SEC rule on corporations publishing the CEO to average worker pay ratio
-stop Cass Sunstein from his latest bullshit anti-regulatory initiative
-go after China's currency manipulation at the WTO
-pull troops out of Afghanistan now

Nothing was ever about his impotence. The "Obama is powerless over Congress" meme was always an excuse to keep up the illusion that he is more progressive than he actually is. So that the lefties he and Rahm Emanuel hate so much don't stay home at election time. He needs us, and instead of just folding and complying, we need to play politics as smart as he does -- and get something in return for our support. Politics is an art, and instead of simply saying "I'll vote for the lesser of two evils," the left needs to get more skilled in the art if we are to ever get what we want.

Government.

It is a Strawman argument.

When DU'ers point out the unprecedented use of the filibuster, a handful of other DU'ers deliberately misrepresent their argument and reply with a sarcastic/ vitriolicthat as "You are saying Obama is Powerless."

That's indeed is right wing meme. It has a close cousin: " Obama is Cartereque".

So to me it appears that poster is confusing his or her memes.

Unfortunately my mind reading skills have declined markedly since I was a teenager..

a dislike for Obama.

And I answered that question. I didn't make any statement on what I thought your opinion on the matter was.

It "Obama is powerless" meme comes from both the right and the left, and in caricature form regardless of which side uses it.

The right tends to use it as an attack, to claim he is weak and ineffectual. On the left, its used as a strawman, often by those who think Obama should have been FDR, and if you disagree with them, then you are told that you are claiming he is powerless to defend him. Both of those are caricatures.

Now ... the right also has the "Obama is a scary dictator" meme. And there is a version of that one from the left as well ... recently seen in an OP discussing an article claiming that Obama is "the most imperial president the US has ever had." Again, both are caricatures.

The reality is that Obama is not a dictator, nor is he powerless. But his detractors, from the right and the left don't really care which of those opposite positions their audience takes, just so long as individuals take the core message ... Obama's a bad guy.

So no, I don't know what your opinion of Obama is, I just tried to provide an answer to your question.

A purely executive function, scheduling drugs, no Republican input needed.

I pointed out that Obama wasn't powerless within my OP and yet the argument is always that Obama cannot do that, not that he will not do it.

You want to make everything about personality, it's not.

In fact I've seen you say that Obama was bad more than any other DUer I can think of.

Or he needs to do that to ... well, what exactly?

And does he needs to do it more urgently than what other things?

My sense is that no matter where he puts his focus, the complaining will continue. It will just shift to something else.

The outrage seems to be free floating.

And in almost all cases, it quickly becomes a caricature. Regardless of whether it comes from Obama's right or his left.

Oh, and when you see me post "Obama bad" ... it is the caricature that I refer to ... so if that confuses you ... just think ... ... when you see it.

Obama could do something to lessen his perceived hypocrisy on the subject of the drug war.

But he will not do so..

That is different than he can not do so, he has the power but refuses to use it.

...the Unitary Executive. I have callouses on my knees from bending over and grabbing them so frequently. And now we elect the guy who's supposed to, ya know, at least give it the ole college try to undo some of that shit and...even after all we've seen that a president can do if they want...we are consistently told how little is possible.

I'm real fucking fed up with that. It's a shell game as far as I'm concerned.

Even when we had all three branches under Democratic control after the President was elected, the pea was under some other shell that apparently wasn't even on the table.

PB

It's an excuse for Obama's method of pushing right-of-center legislation. It's always done under a very thin veneer of "compromise", that isn't convincing to anyone looking at the process critically. But when people want to believe a thing, even an unconvincing excuse can be pretty powerful.

No one said the Presidency is without power. But it is of limited power.

It is a DU Strawman used to mischaracterize other DU'ers arguments.

This is what I was responding to..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002649226

The "Obama is so powerless" is a right wing meme started via emails and I can't believe I see that crap on DU...

Oh you know we had to rescue Reaganism from its final flaming crash. We were just powerless to do anything but put trillions of the public's future earnings into the hands of banksters and thus restore their iron grip over our national politics into perpetuity. We just had to and still have to shield these psychopathic monsters from investigation and prosecution. And we just had to stuff every working age American into the slavering maw of the Insurance Cartel, like so many bleeding sausages, since Insurance goons are the system we have, not the system we would design if we were designing one from scratch. Honest. We just had to double down on the failed war in Afghanistan. General Petraeus looked at us crossly as soon as the subject came up and simply would not hear of cutting our losses. We were only the party with control of the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate. Obama is just one man. We were just powerless to do else.

Centrism: feigned helplessness masking an aggressive rush to the right.

In this case it's referring to prosecutions for financial fraud, a function entirely under the executive branch that does not require Republican approval or acquiescence to happen.

Some people really cannot help themselves from using this meme even in situations where it does not apply at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002657064#post26

Manny, I'm really sorry that Obama didn't have a "magic wand" that could make all of your personal dreams come true. But this is the Real World. Are you going to blame Obama for only being Human?

We know where the problem was - Republicans TOLD us that they would oppose Obama and all DEMOCRATS at every step. It's not difficult, because they TOLD us this is what they would do.