It feels a bit like the primaries at DU, except that Obama's opponent is invisible.

There are some that say that Obama is screwing up big time and is shifting rightward in his actions in the last month since the election. Other folks are saying that this will make it hard of Obama to be re-elected in 2012 as he is reneging on many of his campaign promises.

I am responding to those various posts that I have read on DU, in where the posters have voiced their total disgust with the incoming administration before it is actually confirmed and sworn in. I am reiterating here my previously posted responses to the various gripes that have vocally been heard here and elsewhere.

Additionally, I would hope that Obama is not yet campaigning for re-election in 2012. I would prefer that he concentrates on coming up with solutions to the problems that he will face during his first administration once he is inaugurated.


POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama ran on the promise of repealing the Bush Tax cut on those who earn over $250,000. Currently he has reneged on that promise, and has chosen to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 instead.

POST ELECTION FACTS: Obama did not run on the "promise" of repealing the Bush Tax cuts, but rather he ran on the promise of giving the middle class tax cuts. He did, during the campaign, offer to repeal the Bush tax cuts as the way to pay for those Middle Class tax cuts. Since the Middle Class tax cuts will be paid for within the large stimulus package (made possible by the economy taking a nosedive) that is currently being formulated, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 should be acceptable. He promised to return to fair progressive taxation, and I don't doubt that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire will do just that, without Obama's first action in office being to "increase" taxes, period. Further, Pres Elect Obama has not determined which he has chosen; repeal or allow expiration. He has stated this clearly.



POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama ran on the promise of taxing oil companies via a windfall profit tax, and now he is backing away from that promise because now that he has won, he is on his knees bowing to the oil industry.

POST ELECTION FACTS: Obama did at one point suggest that he would enact a windfall profit tax on oil companies due to their large profits at a time that Americans were paying a record +$4.00 per gallon at the pump. This was his alternative to his opponents who had offered to suspend the gas tax for a limited period. However, since the economy fell apart in mid September, the price of a barrel of oil has fallen from $147 to under $50 now. The price at the pump has fallen by more than 50%. As early as October of this year, the Obama economic team realized that by the time Obama took office, the profits of the oil companies will have fallen to a point that attempting to tax profits would amount to not much. The October budget numbers that Obama campaigned on starting October DID NOT include a windfall Profit tax as part of any revenue included. Those who proposed to cut the gas tax would have also reviewed their promise, so Obama adjusting his plan due to the facts on the ground is what should be expected of any rational thinking person.



POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama plans to propose taxing health benefits, although he trashed John McCain's plan of doing just that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4577159
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/12/01/democrats_may_tax_health_benefits/

POST ELECTION FACTS: Obama does not plan on taxing health benefits. There has been a news story that implies this (link is above), but it is piece of Sen. Baucus' health care proposal, which is not Obama's health care proposal. Obama is working with Ted Kennedy in fashioning the health care proposal that will resemble what he proposed while campaigning, and that plan has not yet been written. Currently, public comments are being accepted by the Obama transition team as input and I would suggest that those concerned about the Health Care plan that will be proposed to participate as well as contacting Sen. Kennedy directly.
http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/join_the_discussion_daschles_healthcare_response/



POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama is not going to go single payer in his health care proposal, and progressives should fight this. Single payer is the way to go, and there is a clear mandate to get this done due to the economic disaster we are currently facing. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16092.html

POST ELECTION FACTS: Obama did not run on a platform that included Single Payer Health Care as a proposal, and Ted Kennedy's proposal will not be a Single Payer Health Care plan.

Beyond the fact that voters did not vote for such a plan, that Republicans would fight this with every fiber of their being, the hard truth is that government cannot afford what it would cost just to transition into a single payer plan at this time more than any other due to the economy and the growing deficits. There are too many industries tied to health care that would be put out of business if a Single payer proposal was enacted, which would further erode the tax base revenues to the government currently generated by the health care industry.

Single Payer Health care is something that can realistically be arrived at gradually if we enact Universal Health Care....and proceed progressively from there. Considering what Obama promised; Universal Health care by the end of Obama's first term, this is what is doable in a relatively short period, and this is what American voters bargained for, since this is the proposal that Obama ran on. This is the plan Ted Kennedy is working on.



POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama in keeping Sec. of Defense Gates is signaling that he is not that interested in keeping his 16 months pullout of Iraq proposal as was made during the campaign. Plus, he is now warmongering in respect to Afghanistan.

POST ELECTION FACTS: Sec. Gates is accelerating the plans to withdrawal of troops from Iraq even now. He appears to be in si-nc with Obama's proposed plan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28022197
In addition, Sec. Defense Gates' current deputy staff will be replaced by Obama appointees, another sign that the Pentagon will not remain "as is", and that Obama will have a strong hand in controlling what goes on there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102891.html?hpid=topnews

Obama's plan for Afghanistan aren't new at all, and he has been consistent on his proposal in reference to this war.


POST ELECTION MYTH: Where is the Change that we can believe in? Obama is not a progressive and that can be proven by the personnel he is bringing into his administration; all Clinton retreads who are strict Center Right folks and who were part of the problems we currently face. Old Boss meet the New Boss is the same boss, etc....

POST ELECTION FACTS: Obama is a progressive, as his life story and track record indicates.
He is someone who saw poverty first hand up close as some of his first memories while living in Indonesia, is of minority status, helped organize the poor on the South Side of Chicago, attended Trinity Church for 20 years, married a Robinson originating out of South Carolina, attended Columbia and Harvard (two of the oldest established liberal universities in the United States), who has family living in huts in Africa, who not only represented some of the undeserved as a Civil Rights Attorney but taught Constitutional law, ran project Vote out of Chicago to get Mosley-Braun Elected (first Black female Senator), chose to lives in Hide Park, represented the South Side of Chicago for 8 years in the State house, has never been a member of the DLC, was adamantly against the Iraq war, and ran a campaign that was anything but status quo. Strictly speaking, Barack Obama is simply not a Centrist nor does his ratings by various progressive institutions on his Senate votes indicate such.

Meanwhile he has appointed to high ranking cabinet/advisory positions, 4 African-Americans, 7 women, Hispanics, several Jews, and Gay folks as well. In addition, he has just begun, and is not near finished with his appointments (I know, diversity no longer matters unless it does).

In addition, to bring brainy realists, many who served in the Clinton administration, and some who have admittedly made prior errors can be effective, as they are more likely to have learned from mistakes in philosophies that they may have subscribed to. Considering that there will be a new leader at the top driving the agenda, blaming all that has happened on those he has chosen, when we know that the problems that we face were caused by a number of factors and timing, not all directly related to certain individuals who have been out of the picture for some time (8 years in some instances) is ignorant. That is like blaming Clinton for 9/11 although it occurred under Bush's watch.

If Obama has got folks fooled, well that's mighty artful of him. Means he's playing a great game of political poker thus far....and will get far before being assaulted by the Corporate media (hopefully, he'll get his FCC pick in before they can strike any blows).

Meanwhile, Obama Teams Are Scrutinizing current Federal Agencies. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4577291

putting out strict rules on lobbyist activity
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/11/1669889.aspx

So to believe that this man is somehow not a progressive when he is still more than 45 days from taking office is simply absurd. In fact, staying away from labels at this time would bode better in order to get a progressive agenda put through congress (strictly my opinion).



POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama has not named any progressives to his administration, and it appears that progressives will not have a seat at the Obama table. We must fight this, and we shall not be silenced.

POST ELECTION FACTS: Obama has named progressives to his administration, although he has not yet named Dennis Kucinich to a cabinet level Post. Of course he is not finished, and a holding pattern prior to making judgment on who is what within those he named is strongly recommended.

Obama has tapped Melody Barnes, of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, to serve as his domestic policy director; Patrick Gaspard, a political organizer for the Services Employees International Union, or SEIU, as his politics director; Ellen Moran, of the liberal fund-raising group EMILY’s List, which backs pro-choice women candidates, to run his communications shop; and Phil Schiliro, a former aide to Sen. Tom Daschle, to serve as the White House’s liaison with Congress. http://washingtonindependent.com/20365/progressive-circle-forming-around-obama

In addition, Susan Rice is more than progressive enough on world affairs. Another good sign is that Samantha Power is on the Transition Team, and will have a voice on who in addition is selected to complete Obama's national security team.



POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama worshipers are telling the "real" progressives on this board to STFU. Criticism is good for Democracy, and they are squelching dissent which is stunning.

POST ELECTION FACTS: Obama is not perfect by any means, but as a "real" progressive, I believe that we can debate issues and even political personalities without calling folks out of their names, and accusing those who support Obama in all of his endeavor thus far, as well as not accusing those who have real issues with some of the folks that Obama is appointing and some of the stance that he is taking. I believe that we can all have discussions using real facts, as we are all on the same side, and I think that most of us can probably agree that Obama is a vast improvement over Bush in every way, and that he is a blessing compared to what McCain would have been.

Let us look forward toward his inauguration and celebrate the fact that we will all continue to pay close attention to what is proposed during his term in office, and that we should make our voices heard in instances when he does great stuff as well as when he fucks up (which will happen). :)

This took me a while. :(

Great post and totally agree with you. Thanks for the hard work :hi:

:kick:

What you wrote is a bit of a cop out. I mean, he did publish a position on taxes and it included rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthy. Non-partisan groups that studied the candidate tax plans used that published plan and Obama even set up a tax calculator web site based on it.

I have no problem with going the expire route but to say he wasn't running on a roll-back isn't true.

accomplishes the same goal...which was not to "punish" rich people, but only to put balance back into the progressive tax code, and to help pay for the middle class tax cuts.

With the many issues facing Obama as soon as he gets into office,
could it be possible that having to spend time trying to roll something back,
would be less efficient than simply allowing those cuts to expire?

How long would it take to get the roll back through congress to enactment,
and how much political capital would Obama have to expand to get it passed?

If we don't know the answers to the questions above, I then suggest that what Obama is possibly proposing in not a cop out but simply a practical solution. In this case it is a 1/2 glass full or empty proposition, imo.

I've heard Obama called a pragmatic, and I believe that this would be an example of how he may earn that moniker.

But my real issue with Obama is that Pualson has made himself King, and that 7.7 Trillion dollars of taxpayer indebtedness Paulson has created might make it rather irrelevant who won the election.

My husband and I were discussing how a Republicans always steal all of the money while they are in office. This is the same thing that happened when Reagan/Bush left back in the 80s. At that time it was the Savings and Loan mess. This is of course, much more worse.

But I'm not sure why you say that this is your real issue with Obama. There is no way that he could have controlled Bush's secretary of the Treasury meanwhile fighting to get elected. He's good, but he's not that good.

Some of us are pretty worried about Obama. read mike_c's concerns here:
http://tinyurl.com/5v7opr


I mean, explain if you can, How Obama appointing Daschle will help those of us who want Universal Single Payer Health Care?

The corporate interests rule the day. There is absolutely no reason why Obama could not have called Paulson out on the BailOut, or offered either Issa or Kucinich the post as Secretary of the Treasury.

When the economy continues to tank all through 2009, you too might be forced to examine what Obama appointees' Geithner and Rubin are really all about.

I think you tried hard to accurately capture some of the concerns that some have expressed in as objective a manner as can be expected of anyone, which allows for an open discussion. Me, I tend to agree with your points. I think Obama has softened some of his more progressive framing on a couple of points, but not in any substantitive ways, and I think he did so to exploit an opportunity to achieve more unity behind some of his long term initiatives with the expense of less political capital while doing so. All in all usually a wise strategy in a political universe, though not always.

and nice to have read some of your posts recently, as you had been somewhat missing in action over here, from what I could find. I also read your CCN post from yesterday (I think it was), and found it well done. I would have posted there, but my recent memories of responses to my attempted posts there has left much for me to desire wanting to post there again.

I have missed you. :hi:

I have been around here a little more lately, just passed through a very busy time...

Good to connect with you again!

:shrug:

Pffft. Bunch of rabble pressing their issues and concerns. What do they think this is a democracy or something?

Pffft than your response, hence my call to us sticking to facts.

Of course you can have it your way......but you are actually examplifying some of what I mentioned in my OP. :eyes:

how far he will lean might be the question, but the facts are that he did campaign for Universal Health Care, getting us out of Iraq, using diplomacy as part of his foreign policy, giving Middle Class a tax cut, allowing for easier access to improved education for all ages, encouraging and taking steps for a transparent and open government, creating jobs, weaning us off of energy dependence, and moving us toward a 21st century global mindset. I would argue that these are the steps that one would take if going forward in a progressive direction......

My only problem with people who have supported Obama's every appointment so far is with the one's who feel the need to denigrate the left wing of the party. It was this very left wing that was insightful enough to see that Bush was making huge mistakes while many of these centrists were no doubt part of the 90% who approved of Bush at one point. At least give us the credit of having been sharp enough to see what you could not.

I have a problem with several of Obama's appointments and I am also quite pleased with several others. Some of the policy ideas that have been trickling out sound great (e.g. a "Health Corp" sort of like the Peace Corp was a recent one) ,so I am not actually upset with him myself. I do feel the need however to stand up for the people who are. They deserve the right to have their opinions respected. They have suffered just as much as everyone else under Bush and are often the people that saw the most clearly and worked the hardest. Those that would shut them up right at the very time when we actually have a chance to influence policy are being foolish. Those that would support any policy or appointment as long as it comes from someone with a (D) after their names have no place on a discussion board.

and the best way to achieve this is to stick to the facts.

I am of the left wing of this party, and I was a 10 percenter after 9/11 (that is, I opposed Bush the days after 9/11 more so than before 9/11 and I didn't support him then). So you are asking that I give myself credit as well as others here...

The point is that our party is varied in its views, and no one has a corner market on being right, and I believe it premature to make such judgments about Obama in all that he represents at this time. In fact, holding off at this labeling thing might be wisest....as I don't think it helps anyone of us benefit in any real concrete way.

I'm just trying to be reasonable. That's all.

There is no need to denigrate each other to defend Barack Obama, either.

One can have a problem, as I did, with Emmanuel being appointed and immediately saying "we welcome the ideas and concepts" of the Republicans, without being "against Obama," and without that justifying being called a purist and everything else under the sun.

One can object to the same people who were seen as the enemy, the people who we were supposedly rejecting by supporting Obama, being welcomed into positions of power, without being "against Obama."

One can object to apparent moderation of positions on foreign policy, tax rollbacks, and other issues without being "against Obama."

Most of the labeling going on is being used against dissenters and the Left right now.

I wasn't. You weren't doing the things I was talking about. I also wasn't talking about you in post 8 which was a response to another person on the thread.

...very few people are trying to truly denigrate the left wing of the party. I have yet to see anyone say outright "STFU" to anyone in regards to their opinion - I have seen disagreement handled improperly, and people claim they are being told to shut up, but no one who has made an outright attempt to deny anyone's right to an opinion.

The problem that appears most often in the posts of those who disagree is not that they disagree, but the tone they take when they do. Many come across as knee-jerk reactionaries, already proclaiming that Obama has failed, the 'new boss is the same as the old boss', etc. These posts do not come across as asking for rational debate, and many make outrageous claims of having their opinions shot down or their right to free speech being attacked if someone disagrees.

By all means they have the right to express their opinions, and it's greatly encouraged. Everyone has to remember, though, that EVERYONE has the right to free speech, and disagreement is part of that - if it weren't, politics would be unconstitutional. Disagreeing with someone's opinion should not automatically be considered disrespect.

Just my own observations :hi:

be questioning Obama or raising concerns. There was only one that literally used STFU but there have been many that strongly imply it.

...there have also been those who are criticizing who tell those who disagree to STFU. It's only fair that if they expect their views to be respected, that they should respect the vies of people who disagree?

Some people who do say STFU, I think, are those that don't want to see us turn so quickly on Obama; Democrats have a bad habit of turning on their own, and the Republicans exploit that every time. I'd like to see us remain the majority party for a couple of terms at least so we can get as much as we can done, and that ain't gonna happen if we're constantly at each other's throats.

Disagree, yes, by all means, dissent - but we have to keep in mind that the Right is the enemy; other Democrats are merely the occasional opposition.

:blush: :hug: :loveya:

(you can't tell by my post count) I fell in love with this board. I knew I wanted Obama to win the
Presidency as he was the first politician I ever listened to and fully understood. I love the fact that I can look at his website and see his agenda and feel confident that he will work on the promises he made during the campaign. I'm not as knowledgeable as most about all his cabinet picks but in selecting him as president I feel strongly that he is picking the right people to get the job done. I'm glad you summed it all up in one place. Again, great post and I'm not allowing anything to stop my excitement about this new administration.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

sarcastic.

other than the words Election, Obama and Promise. :shrug:

We cannot AFFORD what Obama campaigned on, because we don't have the money to subsidize further insurance company theft. It is incrementalism that is truly unaffordable. Affordable means that you get all the money that people are currently paying to private insurance and devote 95% of it to actual CARE.

Universal Healthcare is what Obama campaigned on.

Certainly there are many, especially liberals, who would prefer a single payer health system......but the stats you are citing are not based on support of a single payer health care system. You are skipping straight to a finished product in what you call affordable and leaving out the transition process going from one form of Health Care that is almost completely private to one that is almost completely government ran. That's nice, but in reality is not as ideally simple as you would suggest.

--to campaign on single payer, which, BTW the government just pays for. We keep our mostly private delivery system just the way it is, only without the absurd fragmentation of risk pools and provider networks. However, it is a straightforward FACT that single payer is the cheapest possible way to pay for universal health care. We can't financially afford Obama's plan, period. At least not if we want to invest in the green jobs program he is advocating.

when what we need is access to health care.

...NOT Universal HealthCare.

Good post FC.. K&R. Too bad the people complaining about Obama are only going to use it to bitch at you for calling them out for calling out Obama. Seems like it's ok to call out Obama but if you get called out for calling out Obama then you are being persecuted. :crazy:


I voted for Obama for one really good reason. He came up the hard way. No silver spoon, no bullshit. He was the one candidate I thought could still relate to people who make decisions like "do I pay the water bill or buy food". The problem with this country is the people running the show have no understanding of what it's like to be one of the "little people". Until Obama starts governing and calling the shots I will not piss on his parade. He can put all the conservatives he wants in his cabinet, he's still the boss the decisions are his.

I find it amusing that the same people who hated the fact that Bush ran with his "gut" and there was no debate about policy, are bitching that Obama is actually going to listen to other opinions.

If not Obama, then who?

It feels a bit like the primaries at DU, except that Obama's opponent is invisible.

His alternative is not seen, only heard.

:hi:

Raising the specter of an "invisible" enemy, vaguely defined, and then smearing all of "them" with a one-size-fits-all set of derogatory accusations, is itself the greatest threat to the new administration and to the party.

You have set up a series of straw men - slanderous and exaggerated mis-characterizations of your opponents opinions - and would have us believe that you are piecing together some secret agenda on the part of your invisible enemy.

You are the one still fighting the primary battles, and dredging them up here. I think this is highly suppressive and destructive.

There is no "them," no group, no invisible enemies that threaten "us."

then what are you doing? :shrug:

Speaking my mind, and not taking sides on any of those phony issues, all of which revolve around a love-hate debate about a personality and that have little if anything to do with politics.

There are people who have expressed some of the different opinions on your list. But I don't think any one person is taking all of those positions, let alone is there a group if visible enemies all taking those positions and sharing a destructive agenda.

After decades of all of us being victimized by these same tactics - "you are a liberal and so of course you would say that (with the presumption that all "liberals" think the same, or all who think the same are therefor "liberals" and with the malicious implication that "liberals" are a group that "hates America" - that has an invisible and destructive agenda) one would hope that we would not use these tactics on each other.

Calling people on attempts at suppression of freedom of speech is not itself suppression of freedom of speech. That "reverse" logic is another tactic that the right wing has used with great effect against all of us. Talk about racism, and you are accused of "reverse racism." Advocate for the have-nots, and you are accused of fomenting "class warfare." Support affirmative action, and you are accused of persecuting white people.

But well, that's the beauty of all of us having opinions. :)

I don't know that I necessarily disagree with your opinions, at least about Obama. I am talking about the debate tactics being used.

IMO, we have as much to worry about living with the DLC infiltrating the

Democratic Party for capitalists as we do in worrying about the GOP --!!

One of the first things that should be going on in the Democratic Party is showing

the DLC right-wingers the door --- mYet, Obama has embraced them and kussed their

asses --

Anyone hear the GOP complaining about Obama's picks?

Of course not -- !!

The Democrats will be the minority again --!!

you are out of sync with reality.

Each point has been brought up here, and debated, as it should be.

However, I take exception to stringing them all together and implying there is some nefarious group, some invisible enemy, and that any and all critics are of this same group and are working off of some destructive agenda.

Thank you, Two Americas for telling it like it is.

:thumbsup:

Note: I've gone through the DU rules this afternoon and have yet to find the clause that prohibits praising threads and/or expressing delight in the replies to an OP.

I rec'd it earlier and got distracted by something.

These are all great points. There are always people who are going to "willfully misunderstand" the facts. In fact I just learned a great phrase in the other article that distracted me:

"In the film, Ben Stein asks predictable questions, and exploits an unending capacity for counterfeit astonishment."
(from http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html)

I've seen excellent feedback and I've also seen "counterfeit astonishment". Facts are never going to matter to the latter. Hopefully the signal to noise issue here at DU will fade in the coming weeks.

Posts like yours are the reason I keep coming back here.

:thumbsup:

It made me feel all warm inside too. Roger Ebert nails it.

and will read the article that you have linked.

I just don't feel like going back into primary mode at this time, where I am compeled to justify every single utterance and move by the now President Elect who happens to be a Democrat. The primaries were long and exhausting as they were, and just hearing that some of the Republicans are visiting Iowa is enough to make me take a deep breath and appreciate where we are, as well as where we are going. I'm not asking others to do anything other than to base their assessment on how Obama is doing thus far on facts and calm, not panic and forgone conclusions.

I enjoy reading your posts, and this is one of your finer ones.

:yourock:

Thank you for this fine OP :)

and missing you something fierce! :hi:

:hug:

Don't you know that if you don't agree with those
who bash Obama you are taking away their right to
free speech?

In fact, to a degree, we are as a unit quite hillarious!

Thank you so very much FC. You make life here quite enjoyable. :hi:

I think the misunderstanding here is based on the all-too-visible divide between center-left and plain ol' left on this board. If you see someone say "REAL progressive," that probably means she is plain ol' left, and has plenty good reason to have a chip on her shoulder, what with the center and the right trying to convince her she is invisible and all.

(And I'm really not talking about myself here, I'm a socialist so I know damn good and well I'm on the fringe.)

Most of the folks I've seen on this board, who are of the plain ol' left who wish to have exclusive rights to the moniker "progressive," would not count Obama as one because he is center-left, and has been all along. To some, this comes as a nasty shock, because they didn't pay attention and/or failed to understand that "Change You Can Believe In" is just a fucking slogan.

We will soon know whether Obama's trajectory is different from Bush's and can therefore be called change.

Personally, I don't believe that Obama's change is just a slogan....as there has already been change occurring as far as I can tell to date. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7943115

That's what makes it an empty slogan.

In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama said something about being a blank screen, on which people of vastly different stripes project their views, and that as such, he is bound to disappoint some of them.

The same holds true for that slogan. One must be careful not to confuse "Change We Can Believe In" with "Change I Often Fantasize About." That's easy in my case, but maybe not so much for those who are not as extreme as I am.

I would think that you could agree with me about that.

Empty slogans are part and parcel of marketing, which is an unavoidable aspect of political campaigning at the present time. One could argue that it was always so, but I recall the marketing aspect of politics used to be more specialized, back in the 20th century.

To make an analogy here, I can enjoy a glass of Coke without bothering about whether "It's the Real Thing," or even what the hell that means.

And a drink of the "Real Thing" is gonna taste real good after 8 years of shit milkshakes, to the point that I really don't give a damn if it's got high fructose corn syrup.

Give me a glass of Coke over a Shit Milkshake any day! :hi:

:yourock:

:kick:

:hi:

"POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama worshipers are telling the "real" progressives on this board to STFU. Criticism is good for Democracy, and they are squelching dissent which is stunning."

I am having a hard time understanding, so pardon me for a sec, k.

That seems like a Strawman. It contains two suggested groups of people that probably would not identify themselves as being in either group. Who are calling themselves "real" progressives? Most of us know that the members of the community hold a mix of views but this site is oriented for the Progressive community. Obama 'worshipers' is just a lil offensive but of course, I have seen the words used and we have chatted about them. I am unsure if this particularly described MYTH is at all constructive because I do not understand what you wrote.

And "Criticism is good for Democracy" is a myth? I don't think you meant that but I am trying to work it out.

If ANYONE tells ANYONE else to STFU, is that not really squelching dissent or at least discussion?

Now, just in case anyone misreads what I wrote, please try and focus on what I am about to say to help makes sense of what I am saying. I am not always 100% clear.

Your RESPONSE to this particular "MYTH" I do agree with, I think 100%. Perhaps you could focus a piece on discussing your response to the "MYTH" you presented there because I am interested in your opinion and would like to hear more especially on this subject. If you already wrote one and anyone cares to link it for me I would be grateful.

With the exception of that last part, excellent post, I really mean it. Thank you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7947509
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7895750


and of course Dissent in a democracy is required and mandatory.....but should'nt be used as an excuse for those who destructively rail instead of constructively comment.

I'd been thinking the same thing about it seeming much like the primaries. I wondered what would happen to DU when we were no longer fighting a common enemy. Now I know. I may not last much longer. I don't care to watch my party cannibalize itself.

Just for the record. But I do agree with most of what she said.

:)

:pals:

I wasn't an Obama supporter, but he won, so I wish him well for the sake of my country.

What I don't want to see is DU turning into an echo chamber/free republic type of site that circles the drain on "other" sites. There's good debate potential here, and as long as members don't piss down each other's backs and shriek it's raining, this can still be a good forum.

When he f**k's up, will my voice still be welcomed here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmt0DmiRhTw

:shrug:

Let the man get in office first and get a chance to make some direct decisions and then hold him accountable.

Then decided to take what you said as a joke......
cause how could it be anything else?

Cause they are the only ones petty enough to attach labels to everything that they don't agree with. So there!

And you're making me more curious about your true interests here --

We can't even enjoy the freaking win; he's not sworn in yet, and he's already to be feared and condemned at every turn.

Very well done! :thumbsup:

We voted for a PARTY which is supposed to be different from the GOP --

Do you seriously think anyone who understands what is going on will buy this--??

Our nation and it's citizens are in crisis -- probably in even worse shape

than '29 -- with derivatives still to be crashing down next.

We have TWO wars going which DEMOCRATS have kept going past two years --!!!

Where are we getting the money to pay for these wars --??

Why is Obama finding it essential to bail out capitalism which has failed repeatedly--???

Why is Obama supporting positions COUNTER to the original FISA laws--???

Why is Obama continuing to give money to organized patriarchal religion--??

Why has Obama supported so many HAWKS in his cabinet--??

Why -- given the pollution of the planet and the huge profits of oil companies

over last year is he not NATIONALIZING OIL and getting ELECTRIC CARS going--??

Obama originally supported Single payer and then turned from it --!!

This is garbage and not even half of it--!!


Beyond the fact that voters did not vote for such a plan,

Now how in holy hell would YOU know what voters were voting for--??

As far as I can see that's one of the things they certainly voted for --!!

that Republicans would fight this with every fiber of their being,

And isn't it amazing that we're supposed to FEAR the GOP and their corporate agenda--??

The Democrats have the control now ... and what did the GOP do when they had control--??

THEY USED IT -- !! AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DEMS SHOULD BE DOING-!!

What you're trying to suggest is no matter the numbers we always have to fear the GOP --!!

This is the same ole BS we've seen from Pelosi and Reid and if you don't want to be

the MINORITY again in two years, then it's time to wake up from this BS...


the hard truth is that government cannot afford what it would cost just to transition into a single payer plan at this time more than any other due to the economy and the growing deficits. There are too many industries tied to health care that would be put out of business if a Single payer proposal was enacted, which would further erode the tax base revenues to the government currently generated by the health care industry.


Where do you get the gall to say something like this?? Other nations can care for their citizens

but the wealthiest nation in the world can only afford the MIIC and capitalism--??

That's crap --

Who cares if insurance companies go under??? We need to care for workers and create

green jobs and union jobs--!!

and proceed progressively from there.

You have the nerve to use the word "progressive" ...???

THIS is the deluded DLC THINKING which will lose you the next election --

and there ain't nothing wrong with that.

But I pay $1,100 per month for health care, not including the $30.00 co pay and prescriptions on a family of 3 (I also have to pay Blue Cross for my other daughter away at college at $2,000 per term...as she is in MA, where our Kaiser does not service, and where the state forces insurance due to mandates). We are self employed. We are hanging in there by the skin of our teeth in terms of health coverage at this time.

So, I'm not in this for the drama, I'm in it for the possible benefits, like many more than just myself. We would like them sooner than later....so staying realistic just appears to be a better option to getting things done without too many delays.

Some of us don't have time to wish for what will not be. We can only hope that we get what was promised to us in Obama's campaign platform.

So you can get exorcised if you must, but I'm obviously quite practical and calm, or as you state....I have some gall and then some nerves! :hi:

DLC reality will serve them and GOP -- it's Kool aid -- you'll end up no better off.

Stop fighting for the lesser evil ---

Really .. in the richest country in the world, our citizens are

too WEAK to do what citizens everywhere have done--??

Though Lord knows folks have tried.....
here in 2003....

He's not finding it now either. He instructed Michelle to throw out the dumbass labels around the time that he was being called a communist. :eyes:

Pelosi
Hillary
Emmanuel --

and many other Dems --

And, who did Obama support for key postions ... DLC and Hawks --

that's what the GOP does.
They divide and call names.
You aren't doing anything different here.
Take that as an insult.
I love discussion and debate,
but not with the unreachables.....

That would kinda suggest that you're something other than your pose ....

and that you label everyone and don't really have real discussions.
That's what I'm suggesting.

I am suggesting that you start your own thread....
because you are not really contributing anything constructive to this one
at this point.....because name calling just to name call is not a solution.

or deny --

but you should start a thread about the DLC since it appears to really be of great interest to you.

I'm just not into the "J'accuse" syndrome that you seem to suffer. I'm not here to accuse anyone of anything. I want to have constructive debate, not a destructive yelling matches.

than for DU'ers to know about the DLC agenda to move party to the right --??

And, Obama/Emmanuel/HRC are furthering that agenda --

Sometimes, people think the DLC is teh root of all evil. Sometimes, it's more convenient to say otherwise. Could be cognitive dissonance, could be outright deception. Who knows?

I'd simply ask that folks take the time to find out what my views are before they start questioning my passion for justice or the integrity of my campaign effort. I'm not hard to reach.

We passed the "self employed, hanging in there by the skin of our teeth" point this time last year.
We have NO health insurance, after 25 years of getting it through my employer. And we are not well.

Barack Obama said he would help. But if I have to spend $300 a month on it it is not a help. That is a help to those who can still afford to pay a thousand. And a help to the medical industry. Many of us can't afford to pay a penny. If you make it 200 a month. We still can't pay it.

And we should not have to. Having a body should not a a liability, or a source of revenue to any corporation.

And that is the difference between your idealism and my reality.

I would guess about $4000-$6000 per month is the real difference that separates our opinions on this matter.

So hey employed people who are having a hard time- come home to reality.

There are hard times, and then there are real problems.

Will Obama help you? No doubt you have cause to be sanguine? Will he help me? No doubt I have cause to be worried.

so I believe that although nothing is totally free, the cost will be minimal to those who can show that they have a hardship....and they can join a government type plan like what Federal workers are offered.

I'm self employed, and my income varies, and I have children in College....and so I don't believe that I am more idealistic than you are. I want something that can be done, and done pronto; just like you do. Worried? Obama is not who we need to worry about because he will deliver, as long as he's got a wind in his back known as the American electorate.

and blame all the woes of your world on Obama. Is that what you call 'dissent'?

Surely you jest... It's different, but it's not the Kucinich party.

... progressives these persons are not... (to quote Yoda) ....

unless your idea of progressivism happens to be neoliberalism/exceptionalism.

I'd like to see what it takes to be a progressive who has actual experience in foreign affair.

damn. I'd like to see your idea of progressive experts in foreign policy willing to work in the U.S. Government.

and added my real name to thousands of others in tears that we would not let it happen again. And we did not!

I will take the silly stupid shit here while everyone is bored any day over what we went thru then.

Of course we should all have a bit of trust in Obama cuz he's a real smart guy. Let's cut him some slack he has probably more stressful problems to take care of all at once than almost any other pres in a very long time.

or even, more slickly, "helping Obama".

But it's gonna be like that all the way thru.

and the man hasn't been elected a full 30 days yet! What the hell is going on? Help me Bloo! Why would DU be the biggest detractor? Unbelievable!!

and never liked Obama for some reason. But they just pretended to get on board, and now that he's elected, they are taking advantage of the fact that they're allowed to "criticize" all they want, because it's "patriotic", and anyone who doesn't make shit up to bitch about is a lock-stepping nazi who hates America.

IMO.


EDIT: Many, but not a great many.

just wanted to be sure I wasn't losing my fucking mind! Thanks....I like your posts as well as frenchie's...

to, largely are not.

Do you believe Obama will never do anything wrong?

If he does, what guise will be acceptable to criticize him under?

If you won't criticize, do you just remain silent, or do you have other ways you express your displeasure?

Defensive much? :crazy:

Yes, I believe that Obama will fuck up...hopefully not royally, but one never knows.

Folks should criticize using facts and not making shit up.
When I read posts like...."He got me to vote for him, and then he betrayed me"...like I have read, that's like over the top, for the occasion of him appointing Clinton as SOS (I thought).

I was thinking about us doing petitions when something happens when many are unhappy about it. Unlike Bush, it would make a difference with Obama....I believe.

I don't mind the coherent criticism that appears constructive at all. I just think it would be kind of nice to allow him to get into the office. The GOP will certainly be on standby to do their own damage, and like anything else in politics, one has to understand the ramification of one's actions, i.e., do we rail to the point that in 2012, a Republican ends up in the office instead?

Preferably without busting out the knee-jerk nazi crap that your paranoia apparently compelled you to do.

Look into decaf.

I'm starting to think the times you actually are right on DU are just guesses on your part. I'd ask if that's true but I can only imagine the wild fantasy induced reply it would produce.

"Do you believe Obama will never do anything wrong?" is a very disingenuous question regardless of whether or not you can admit that (or even perceive it).

It is, I believe called a "question of intention", a logical fallacy in which, by it's very nature, places an onus of bias on the person who is supposed to answer the question which has only one valid answer...

Or it can more simply be called a bullshit question. And as grandad would say, "bullshit questions require bullshit answers..." So I think the Nazi answer was on quite on target.

I think the question is a totally valid one. Bloo wanted to make it sound like any criticism of Obama would be under the guise of patriotism. He deserves to be challenged on such shit, and if he can't handle his opinions being questioned then too fucking bad. He can deal, or turn 10. Either one is a step up.

One would assume that bloo himself would think that Obama would do something wrong, but with an answer like that I felt it had to be established that was the case before moving on onto the second question. Damn right it's a question of intent, and a well deserved one. If he doesn't like people interpreting his shit for brains replies like that maybe he could actually type more than one sentence to explain. He makes my posts look like Tolstoy, and then doesn't like it when he gets misinterpreted.

The third question I was genuinely curious about. If criticism of Obama is just phony patriotism, as was clearly implied by bloo's post, I think it's completely within the lines of reason to ask how bloo actually does voice his displeasure, assuming he ever has any, which question 1 tried to establish. Frenchie's answer was exactly what I was looking for from bloo, different ways to reach our leaders. I was genuinely curious how bloo speaks out, if criticism on DU is just phony "patriotism" he must have another way to voice his displeasure, no? It's totally fair to ask what that is.

The questions are only disingenuous to anyone afraid to answer them. As noted, Frenchie gave me a serious reply and got a serious answer. Bloo could easily have done the same thing but chose the cowards way out. Not surprising as bloo spouts off about a lot but rarely in the years here has he backed up said opinion with any facts, ideas, or thoughts beyond his simplistic nonsense. If he can't handle having his nonsense challenge he should try thinking before shooting off at the keyboard.

Are these valid questions (open to more than one truthful answer...)

"Are humans perfect?" or "are parallelograms a perfect circle?" which are no more, nor no less valid that asking, "Will Obama ever make a mistake?"

It's a logical fallacy. A Logical Fallacy by it's very nature is invalid. Thus, a disingenuous question. Or as grandad would say...






"The questions are only disingenuous to anyone afraid to answer them"
Hey-- good on you-- some good, old-fashioned, self-validation-- haven't seen any of that in a while.

That's the kind of answer I was genuinely hoping for.

Yes, I believe that Obama will fuck up...hopefully not royally, but one never knows.

I don't think he's going to fuck up royally either. I know there will be things I'll be disappointed in (nature of the beast), but I don't foresee anything too drastic. I hope not, anyways.

Folks should criticize using facts and not making shit up.
When I read posts like...."He got me to vote for him, and then he betrayed me"...like I have read, that's like over the top, for the occasion of him appointing Clinton as SOS (I thought).

Agree entirely. However, it doesn't answer my question of what guise that criticism falls under. Bloo said it would be under the guise of patriotism if someone criticized Obama. I'm curious how bloo feels about even the fact-based criticism, and if that falls under the guise of phony patriotism. And obviously, I don't expect you to have to answer that part for someone else. :)

I was thinking about us doing petitions when something happens when many are unhappy about it. Unlike Bush, it would make a difference with Obama....I believe.

It can't work any less than it did with this bunch. I think Obama wants to do what's right, and will try to do so, and that puts him way ahead of Bush right from the get go.

I don't mind the coherent criticism that appears constructive at all. I just think it would be kind of nice to allow him to get into the office. The GOP will certainly be on standby to do their own damage, and like anything else in politics, one has to understand the ramification of one's actions, i.e., do we rail to the point that in 2012, a Republican ends up in the office instead?

I don't really have any problems with what he's done so far. I can understand being concerned if that's how someone honestly feels, but I too would prefer to give him the chance to do something in office before running too far with any fears. But we also see throughout history instances where a little more concern could have come in handy. It can be a fine line on when to speak your concerns and taking those concerns too far.

Thanks again for answering. :toast:

nice post. I think i love you! :loveya:

I'm reading a lot more than I'm posting these days... thanks so much for your efforts in attempting to steer the conversation in the correct direction.

for your positions. I wish more of this were done on DU
besides namecalling and condemnation. However, people
will be people and it will continue. I guess we just
need to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nice post.

:kick:

Nice post, Frenchie.

The primaries are over. The elections are over. I'm trying to keep it cool....
but it got hard towards the latter half. Someone is instigating hurling the DLC useless label about,
and It appears that I'm not as cool and calm as Obama might be, even when I try. :(

I move on. Great Post...Great Attitude.

There has been so much undeserved, premature criticism, both here and in the media. F'rinstance, I heard complaints on the news that O hadn't appointed any Hispanics, when he hadn't started appointing his team yet. Yesterday, there were complaints that he hadn't ended the Iraq war yet.

Give him a chance! He can't begin to cure our ills until he takes office. Even then, the country's in bad enough shape that it'll take a week or two to sort it out.

Great post. While I personally wouldn't have made some of the decisions he has made, I don't have all the details either. And I like a lot of them.

I am far more concerned in keeping Shrub from burning down everthing he can in the next 50 or so days.

This thread will be bookmarked and rec'd. But, I have a question for you: how do you explain the picks of Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner--especially when they both http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/opinion/25tue1.html?_r=1">have a role in the financial crisis we are experiencing today?

As for the dissent issue, there have been a lot of instances of name-calling and bullying that can't be ignored. Surely anyone can say that no one is being silenced, but no one can deny that for those who express dissent, they are being forced in no uncertain terms to adopt a "party line" instead of letting them explore their questions.

Summers was involved nearly a decade ago. Times changed, another administration came in, and so to blame it all on him, or even partially on him is a bit much....I think. It is very possible had he been still at the helm, he wouldn't have de-fanged the SEC, or looked the other way when certain actions went down. Same with Geithner but to a different degree. There were a lot of variables involved....and to blame them, when Bush & Co. have been at the helm for the last 8 years, and the Hedge Funds, and the new instruments, and the home loans and the way they were crafted are not necessarily all on them to blame.

It would be like saying because the Internet Dot.com era when bust, that it should have never happened and that anyone associated with it, whether when the going was good, or the going was bad should be labeled as unsuccessfully from that point on.

I find that when folks are involved where mistakes are made, many learn from that. Bet these guys aren't gonna be for Deregulation anymore, are they? Seem like Obama has an inkling that they have learned a valuable economic lesson. Bet some theories are crossed out of their notebooks as we speak.

Its not to make excuses, but I don't believe that anyone with experience in the financial industries has had clean hands in any of this....even the folks who bought a home knowing that 3 years down the road they would be able to afford to mortgage.

Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine, said Paulson has been “a complete failure,” but Geithner’s front-row seat means “he can learn from the mistakes.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/23/politics/politico/main4628591.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4628591

The Un-Paulson
http://www.slate.com/id/2205257/

But it has also been argued that Geithner, being under Paulson's leadership, will follow his lead and not do anything differently. I've always been of the camp of never assuming anything. Depending on how the economy turns, who knows truly how Geithner will act--especially if Paulson is going to be there for a year?

It's true that people do learn from their mistakes. But, then again, many do not. There are some leopards who will never change their spots no matter how many turns of the fortune they have.

That's why I am going to be very vigilant and watch what they do under a case by case basis, if the confirmations pan out.

Other than that, how would you explain Mr. Obama's choice to keep Gates on as Secretary of Defense? How can anyone believe that Gates has all of a sudden turned over a new leaf when he has been up to his neck in Bush foreign policy (especially when it is related to the Iraq War and the Surge)?

There are actually better reasons for Gates than there are for anyone else, IMO.
In my op, I provide links for reference.....click on them and read the articles.

Gates knows exactly what is happening in Iraq....and logistically, I'm sure there is a lot to know.
who wants a SOD who would have to acclimate him/herself before being able to know
how everything is set up?
Gates has already accelerated troop withdraws (before Obama is even sworn in).
Gates doesn't get to keep his deputies. Obama gets to select the new ones.
Gates is only staying on for a limited time, like a year or so...meanwhile getting the new deputies up to task as to what is going on, etc...
If something fucked up goes down, Obama doesn't take the same kind of heat if he retained Gates.
Obama has a lot on his plate, and he needs to be dealing with a known quantity that folks have confidence in, not just here in the U.S, but also in the region....and that includes the Troops.

I know that you have full confidence in Gates. That is not only admirable, but it is your perrogative.

However, I disagree firstly because of the companies Gate keeps. Furthermore, there are questions concerning some of the aspects of his service in the government as this http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-obama-gates,0,2429668.story">Chicago Tribune article indicates:



Thus, Obama may have removed some of the innards of the snake, but he has left its head.

Furthermore, there is the story of what happened in the 1980's where Gates was involved in the Reagan Administration. Robert Parry has an interesting article why Gates should not be kept as Secretary of Defense as told in http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/111208.html">The Consortium News:



This is a small snippet of Gates' career, but it is telling why people are a little leery of this man.

Imho, I think Gates' retention borders more on the lines to keep the promise politically to retain a "bi-partisan Administration" instead of working towards a true end to the conflict in Iraq. In essence, it is like having the fox guarding the hen house, unfortunately.

Despite all this, I will continue to be vigilant on Gates' endeavors as well. Because Gates is a crony of Bush (despite the loss of his staff), this choice to keep him isn't reassuring in the least. I'm sorry that I don't share your outlook and optimism about this pick.

I have worried about Obama's first appointments. They all seemed not extremely right-wing, but further right than I expected.

The appointment of Richardson as Secretary of Commerce is encouraging. I am especially pleased with the appointment of Xavier Becerra as U.S. Trade Representative. Becerra is my congressman. He is a very patient, compassionate man with an amazing ability to communicate with just about anyone. The position of U.S. Trade Representative does not sound so important or impressive, but knowing Becerra as I do having watched him for some years, I feel certain that he will have far-reaching impact on the tone in the administration and the thinking of others in the administration. He is just an extremely humble, but very effective person. I cannot say enough good about him.

I am very concerned about the influence of lobbyists on people like Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emmanuel (to name two names). As I stated in an earlier post, even if they do not accept gifts from lobbyists or name lobbyists to their staffs, they are accustomed to working with and relying on lobbyists in a lot of ways. In the book, See No Evil, Robert Baer raises questions about ties between top Clinton aides and the Clintons themselves and lobbyists including Roger Tamraz. I am not in a position to know whether there is any substance to Robert Baer's accusations, but they are published and are out there for all to read. So, I hope that Obama will be able to enforce his no lobbyist policy. It's fine to include people with close ties to certain interests in panels and give them the same access to government that others like them and the voters have, but it is not OK to give better access to some and worse to others based on money or influence.

I agree with you on Obama's health insurance and tax change policies. I always understood that Obama was talking only about making health insurance more accessible, regulating insurers to require them to provide broader coverage to all, but that he did not propose single payer healthcare. I liked Edwards' healthcare proposal better than Obama's because Edwards' proposal was clearer. Also, since Edwards was the first to come out with a really detailed plan, I trusted his sincerity on that issue more than Obama's. As for the tax changes, I heard Obama say several times that he would let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. I do not recall that he proposed immediately changing the tax code.

As for telling progressives to shut up, I recall that you were very rude to me personally during the primaries because I supported Edwards. Those of us who supported other candidates, in my case Edwards, in the case of many others, Kucinich, did so for good reasons. We supported Obama because he won in the primaries. I worked hard for him. But he still has to earn not just my trust but the trust of the American people. We still have government by the people, at least in theory. It is not my job as a citizen to pledge uncritical devotion to any elected officer including the president, and I don't plan to do so. Had my candidate, Edwards, been elected, I would ask just as many questions and watch just as carefully.

I don't consider myself rude....but I am probably as tenacious as you are, which may have been the bigger problem; a clash sorta speak...because if I recall correctly, I felt the same way about you.

I'm just glad the primaries are over and that we have a Dem in office....and I know that you are as well.

Regards.

So far, they appear to be purely political, instead of finding the best person for the job.

This appears to signal that he will try to govern from the mythical center, thus, make the same mistakes Clinton made and end up leaving us far worse off in the long run.

He hasn't DONE anything yet, so no one can be sure what he will or will not do... but the tea leaves don't look promising.

So I wouldn't go with the tea leaves if I were you.

As for the rest of your post, I disagree with you.

Since he was the only viable candidate who was considered anti-war.

I actually predicted his victory back then... so those tea leaves have worked well for me.

Thanks for the timely posting. :applause:

Yes, I voted None of the Above.

And I'm in a swing state even.

And I aint the only one.

because you see, we don't owe you a thing.

So as of right this minute, you are on ignore.

Life is too important, and there are too many things
that need tending to for me to waste my time
with folks that don't really give a shit......
which is what I consider people who didn't bother to vote
for the Democrat running.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

anything anytime, the rubber hits the road when something is actually done.

are criticizing him even before he's taken office.

Not that we shouldn't hold our elected officials' feet to the fire, but geez...let's give the guy a chance, for pete's sake!


Whatever platform he did or didn't run on, what should that matter as long as this country gets back to some semblance of what it was before George W Bush and his minions raped and plundered it.

I think it'll be okay. He's strong, not likely to have *-style temper tantrums, and may be taking on the Biggest Job Ever.

If it helps, think of the criticism as a measure of our desperation rather than as an indictment of the President-Elect.

You say that he did not "promise" to reverse the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, rather he "offered" to repeal them as a way of paying for tax cuts for the middle class tax cuts.

First, I don't see any substantive difference between a "promise" and an "offer".

Secondly, your implication is that as long as he keeps his promise of middle class tax cuts, then postponing the reversal of the tax cuts on the rich is ok. But if he postpones the reversal of the Bush tax cuts for two years, that will cost our country hundreds of billions of dollars. Where is that going to come from? If that money doesn't go to the wealthy it could go to badly needed social programs, for improvement of our infrastructure, or to reduce our massive national deficit.

Thirdly, it is completely unnecessary IMO. Tax cuts for the rich do not help our economy in the slightest degree. FDR raised the upper marginal tax rate on the rich to 90% -- in the midst of the worst depression in U.S. history. And that was followed by decades of the best economy our country has ever seen, until Reagan came up with trickle down economics in the 1980s.

because she's trying to spin it that Obama didn't get elected because of all his rhetoric about raising taxes on the wealthiest of all Americans, those making over $250,000. She's trying to convince all the minions here that the only thing that matters are half of Obama's promises, not all of them. IOW, it's like saying that it's alright for Obama to hold off on raising taxes for the rich as long as he cuts taxes for the middle class. I'm not buying it.

I'm willing to wait and see what actually happens after Barack gets into office, but I'm not going to be hoodwinked into giving up on anything before we even get started.

...is how everyone here currently curmudgeoning all of the Obama cabinet picks give off the impression that somehow they're giving seminars at a convention of psychics. They "just know" how this will all play out. I wish I had that kind of prescience.

I just love how in your eyes it's okay for a president-elect to back away from some of the campaign rhetoric that got him elected and how you justify his change of heart by saying things such as "Obama adjusting his plan due to the facts on the ground is what should be expected of any rational thinking person."

Amazing how it's only the people YOU support who get that kind of consideration. Funny that.

And I didn't realize that letting the Bush tax cuts expire instead of repealing them meant so much to you that you'd get personal with me and want to question my motives.

I learn something new everyday. What I learned from your post is that you don't really support Barack Obama as President Elect, and that anything that you can find to justify this lack of support, you will go for.

That's your choice, certainly....
and at least in your addressing my possible motives for this post, you revealed your own in your posts. Good to know you.

I voted for Obama, I supported him, I sitll support him to the T, and I worked my ass off for him IN THE REAL WORLD, not just on some forum of words, but I'm not going to sit here and buy your artificial EXCUSES that you're providing for him in the event that he might renig on some of his campaign promises.

And I don't appreciate you sticking your sick words in my mouth and accusing me of not supporting Obama. You're just trying to bully people into complying with you and your daily spinnorama, but what else is new.

You are the one that stated about me...." Amazing how it's only the people YOU support who get that kind of consideration. Funny that."

Besides that, I have nothing else to say to you....as I understand that you aren't really interested in constructive debate, but just interested in being angry and negative and personal.

Please note that these are the last "sick words" that you will read from me addressed to you.

Good luck to you in your endeavors and goodbye. :hi:

In the past you have attacked me more times out of the blue than probably anyone else by far, yet you have the nerve to whine about someone making it personal? Now that is precious!

BTW, this is more than the first time that you told me you're putting me on ignore. All you're doing here is what you always do....you're trying to intimidate anyone who disagrees with your spin into shutting up. Oh well, you can just get one of your other handles to attack me if you want, so good luck to you, too.

(Oh, and I know you're reading this. lol)

You have listed some of the platform on which he campaigned as myth, and this is too much of a stretch for me. Especially the first few. Although i agree that some of the others as mythological in nature, it is undeniable that he has backslid a long way on a lot of issues, from filibustering FISA to opposing offshore drilling to ending the Bush tax cuts to pulling out of Iraq rapidly and onward. i believe the party should hold him accountable for how he presented himself in the election and primaries.

i am more than willing to give him a chance and will wait to see how he runs the white house, but i am getting more skeptical with each cabinet pick where a qualified progressive is passed over in favor of a Clinton administration figure or middle-of-the-road-er. Actions matter.

Don't you really mean *your* opponent?

Or are you Obama's appointed representative on DU?

I support the President Elect of the United States, period.

I am not an appointed Representative, but I am his constituent,
and he is who I voted for this past election.

Beyond that, my op wasn't about me, but for whatever reason, you are making personal and about me.
I don't know why that is.....but realize that in earnest, I likely don't really care that much.

who don't need no stinking facts. It seems like DU has an attack-mode mindset and feels free to pick apart Obama under the guise of constructive criticism because he will not do as they think he should do and he will not jump through their hoops. All of this and he has not taken office yet.

So yes, it will be interesting to see whether after helping ourselves win by utilizing the Internet, we can now help ourselves fail by operating as though Obama is the natural opposition without differenciating between the two administrations. I'm sure there is a fair number who will simply continue to be against all that the top represents. My curiousity are how many will be there to balance out the fact that Obama is not Bush. That will be the interesting thing to watch for.

So yes, I'm hoping that those who wants to see us succeed and are willing not to be automatically against will continue to frequent this place, but I almost suspect that they may be the first to go (to get away from the negativity)...which will leave us quite out of balance.

Time will tell.

He's the Obama we need as president. Named Hope, or something.

The Obama we're getting isn't diametrically opposed, of course, but there may be serious disagreements.

it is appreciated.

As for me, time will tell.....As I don't see it as clearly as you obviously do.

I will leave you with what I'm sure you have heard before:

"We know the road ahead will be difficult. None of the problems we face will be easy to solve and change will not happen overnight. It will take a new spirit of cooperation and sacrifice. It will require each of us to remind ourselves that we rise and fall as one nation; and that a country in which only a few prosper is antithetical to our ideals and our democracy. And it will take a President who can rally Americans of different views and backgrounds to this common cause.

I'm reminded every day that I am not a perfect man. And I will not be a perfect President. But I can promise you this - I will always say what I mean and mean what I say. I will be honest about the challenges we face. And most importantly, I will wake up every single day ready to listen to you, and work for you, and fight for you not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. That's what I did for those men and women on the streets of Chicago. That's what I've done over the last decade for the working families of Illinois. And that's what I will do for the American people."--Barack Obama, President Elect of the United States of America.

Not even Obama, who may be the smartest and wisest person we could hope to put in the White House.

I'm more worried that the job before us is impossible than that Obama is less than honest/committed.

Great post - thanks for letting me know about the progressive members of Obama's transition team. I also appreciate your gentle persistence in having a fact-based discussion. Given how the national conversation has focused so much on Obama, it does seem strange that he's not president yet. Challenges galore, and we all need help.

My feeling is that Obama will take a balanced and thoughtful approach to governance, but I don't know about the rest of us, Dems and Repubs alike...will we be able to stop labeling each other for spite and support policies that get us some concrete gains? As a public, can we deal with the immediate and long-term effects of a major economic downturn, along with other issues? We'll see. At least Obama sets a good example. And so do you. :thumbsup:

Well written, well organized, well thought out, great information, great topic to open up for discussion... Thanks! : )

...I am really impressed and pleased with the job he is doing so far.

I'm not going to tell anyone to shut up. I would only ask that they think about what they are saying and remember that he will be managing the whole country and not just the Democratic activists.

But thanks for all the time you put into posting it. I sometimes can't believe what I'm seeing on DU these days, and I mostly ignore it because that's what most of it deserves. I would like to wait until Obama is actually PRESIDENT and see how he governs before I begin to complain about him. I am so excited that he won, and he has certainly proven how smart he is, to me, anyway.

It almost seems as though some people have forgotten who the current president is, and what he has done to this country. I voted for Obama because I believed in him, and I trust him to do what is best to begin fixing this country - when he's actually President, of course. When he has given me something to complain about, I'll do it, I'm sure, but I think maybe he should be sworn in first.

It was very educational, and a relief to me as I've been worried about a lot of what's being said here. Most of those things I knew already - a couple of them I did not know.

One question I still have... what if anything does Obama intend to do about the Patriot Act?

Have you been working around the clock trying to figure it out? :rofl::rofl:

All I would have to do is say Rev. Wright, most likely....or Farrakahn or a name similar? :shrug:

I know that your general method of dealing with Obama's "opponents" has generally been to accuse them of racism. I'm just curious to see how this one plays out.