On incremental change,

Well, Obama promised to be the "change" president. And while his supporters and admirers read many things into that statement, what few people imagined was that the change would be incremental, and certainly nowhere near the sweeping changes that we need and desired.

We've seen this time and again in the past five months. Gitmo is ordered to be closed, yet the Obama administration keeps Bagram open, all the while shooting up trial balloons about continuing to keep some detainees indefinitely. The LGBT community is thrown under the bus until the money is threatened, then Obama comes out and tosses a few benefits to the partners of fed employees. It is vital to bring justice to the Bush administration, but other than polite mouthings on the topic, little else is done, nor does appear little else will get done.

This is the pattern that we're seeing, time and again with this administration. Elected on the believe that sweeping change will be made, instead we wind up with incremental, if any change.

*Obligatory statement concerning the fact that no, I don't wish that McCain had won, etc. etc., yadda, yadda.*

That said, Obama needs to follow up on his promise for change. He needs to be bold, in the style of FDR, and not give a rip about what the 'Pugs think, or about being bipartisan. The people in this country are looking for real, substantial change and they simply aren't getting it from this administration. I think that's one of the big reasons that Obama's poll numbers are dropping, these promises of Change, Change, Change, while writ large during the campaign have now come to be written very, very small. Obama has the political capital, he has both the House and the Senate in Democratic control. It is time for him to bring about the large, sweeping changes that he promised, or at least implied, during the campaign instead of these incremental changes that we've seen so far. If he doesn't follow through with this, then he'll simply be another disappointment of a president, and our country will be the worse for it.

This train won't even be stopping on a dollar.

I understand that Obama has been in office for five months, yet let's look at what other presidents have done in that span. There is the gold standard of FDR and his famous one hundred days. Yet LBJ managed to flog the '64 Civil Rights Act through Congress and signed it, all in the span of six months. Obama hasn't even begun to come close to that mark with any legislation.

Nor do I expect Obama to achieve final products in such a short period of time, but the kicker here is, he hasn't even started to bring about the major changes that he implied in his campaign.

Not expecting miracles here, but many people are starting to wonder if there is any substance behind this promise of change. Obama needs to start following through on this, now, while he still can. Otherwise his administration will be one of only incremental changes.

"Yet LBJ managed to flog the '64 Civil Rights Act through Congress and signed it, all in the span of six months." So 2 and a half years of Kennedy, his murder and the largest civil rights movement had nothing to do with that? Be honest, LBJ took over when this issue was rounding third. It did not take 6 months.

Yes, it languished in Congress for a couple of years, and yes, LBJ had the Kennedy legacy on his side. But frankly both Kennedy and LBJ weren't wanting to deal with this issue, but were forced to by public outcry, much like we're currently seeing on the issue of LGBT rights. Yes, LBJ flogged this one through Congress in his own unique way, and prevented it from dying in the Senate Judicial Committee. It was a masterful piece of work, one that most political scientists acknowledge to this day.

Another example of LBJ's ability to get things done is the '65 Voting Right Act. Introduced in March of '65, signed in August, five months later. Hmm, five months, where have I heard that figure before:think:

Yes, The Voting Rights Act of 65 was done in 5 months, 19 months into LBJ's presidency. There really isn't anything wrong with a little honesty.

He pulled it out of mothballs shortly after he took office, and as I said earlier, flogged it through Congress.

There isn't really anything wrong with educating yourself on the topic you're discussing.

I'm educated enough on the subject to not rewrite history to fit into my argument. You're better off saying LBJ pushed hard to see the Act go through. It did not take 6 months. It did not start with LBJ.

I originally stated that LBJ flogged the '64 Civil Rights Act and signed it, all within the span of six months.

Yes, it had been sitting in Congress for a couple of years, but the fact of the matter is that it was LBJ who did the heavy lifting on this, and got the CRA passed into law.

Again, I suggest you go study your history on the passage of the Civil Rights Act, you might actually learn something.

LBJ became President in November, not February, making it 7-8 months into his presidency. The bill wasn't flogged through Congress, it stalled and sputtered in both houses. Howard Smith of Virginia tried to keep the bill bottled up in the House. Byrd filibustered for 54 days until a compromise bill was written. Not saying LBJ didn't do his part to push things through, but it wasn't all his doing and the WHOLE process took much longer than you're claiming.

from us while we work, at least 40 hours a week if we're lucky, to pay the bills and take care of our families.

It's obviously not when I can already see health care reform will fail in Congress---so I'm a bit fed up with that argument---since it's obviously not true.

I hired him for four years and I'm tired of the above statements. None of these threads call for discussion they just go on and on about how much Obama needs to do this or that. As though "incremental" as they describe it is not change. As though HE'S NOT DONE ANYTHING DURING HIS 5 MONTHS IN POWER.

Whatever...this is circular and I'm starting to see these as spam.

Even when those critical voices are becoming louder and more prevalent? What are you willing to accept? You state that health care reform will fail, well gee, whose fault is that? Obama came into office with a ton of political capital, an approval rating in the sixties and a Democratic Congress. If that's not enough to pass truly progressive legislation, then we're quite frankly screwed and should give up now. C'mon, if LBJ can push through Civil Rights, then Obama can push through health care reform unless he simply doesn't have the experience in moving Congress, and rather let's Congress control his agenda.

So how long will these excuses continue, a year, two? Will you finally realize that the promise of change is a hollow one when 2012 rolls around and very little change has occurred.

Obama himself stated that we need to "make him do it," whatever it can be inserted in that statement. Well then, that's an open invitation for people to make their will known, to push and push hard. You don't like that notion, too bad, because there are a lot of people out there who took Obama seriously when he promised change, when he implied grand changes, and we're going to hold him to that promise. That's not spam friend, that's how our democracy works.

I laid clearly these threads that really aren't set up for discussion but just to whinge are spam. That goes for those who are pro---indefinitely and don't open room for a discussion. There's nothing to bridge here, there's nothing to talk about because it's just one thing.

At this point I can honestly say there are no discussions much on this thread...just more of people choosing either they agree with the OP or disagree with the OP and that's that. But there is no open forum because it's all be exhausted. Same arguments over and over and it's most definitely a circular conversation.

I'm surprised you're not noting this. That's why I don't even bother with a thread at this point. It's all the same old regurgitated answers and arguments----hence spam.

vs. the grand changes that Obama promised and implied during his campaign. An entirely new concept. Yet here you are, calling it spam. Alrighty then, go ahead and be done with this thread, since apparently you POV is biased to the point of absurdity.

Where and when did I say that? My statement on spam, and I already detailed it, is in regards to the direction these threads take and the arguments that are made either for or against. Added to that how many times have I heard your argument in regards to Gitmo. And my response that follows is the same. In the end we participate in a circular conversation---considering a circular conversation doesn't go one way---and end up no where. I see that as spam.

But at this point, we're doing it again with the circular and I'm stuck repeating myself...before this continues any more and turns into spam in my eyes---I'll end it here. Because obviously you want to see my words the way you want.

This is the second post in this thread where you state that you're not calling my thread spam, yet you proceed to do just that, in your own circular way.

But you say you're going to end it here, and that's probably a good thing. When you want to have a linear, logical discussion on this issue, I'll be around. Until then, Peace:hi:

"Obama himself stated that we need to "make him do it," whatever it can be inserted in that statement. Well then, that's an open invitation for people to make their will known, to push and push hard."

You do understand that HE can do virtually nothing without congress. It is up to US to for CONGRESS to present him with bills to sign - THAT is how we "make him do it".

RE healthcare: he never promised sweeping change - his plan was always incremental at best. And it is CONGRESS that is standing in the way of even those modest changes.

Pinning it on Obama is disingenuous at best, and decidedly suspect at worst.

Part of the job of being president is to strong arm Congress in order to get your agenda into law. The best of these, FDR, was able to dictate to Congress, even LBJ was able to push controversial legislation through a reluctant Congress in short order. Hell, even Bush was able to get Congress to do his bidding. Yet Obama seems either unwilling or unable to strong arm Congress. Obama needs to either start bringing pressure to bear against both his own party(which has large Congressional majorities) and the 'Pugs, and start doing what he promised. Either that or step out of the way in 2012 and allow somebody who can lead to have their chance.

FDR did NOT strongarm congress - he worked to build consensus. LBJ DID strongarm congress a LOT - as a result, we got Nixon in the next election.

Now THAT'S a worthy goal.

I suggest that you start with "Roosevelt's Secret War" to get a flavor of FDR's strong arm tactics.

And to say that LBJ brought us Nixon, well that's just patently absurd. If that were the case, why did LBJ refuse to run? Oh, yeah, RFK climbed into the race, and LBJ knew he couldn't run against the Kennedy legacy.

some little used action that's taken by presidents when they're trying to make some change but it's difficult moving it forward.

Hmmm, let me think...executive order. Yeah, that's it -- executive order. In fact, I think my governor just did it to do some carbon reductions. Everybody bitched, but it worked. It's impossible to clear a chasm in small jumps.

If we'd hired him as our pro quarterback... all you guys waving pom-poms are keeping us from seeing the game.

As I've said in other posts: the only change I've seen is that the guys screwing me have D's after their name instead of R's.

Instead of Geithner doing his circle jerk with AIG, how come it isn't Holder?

<on edit: fixed wrong remembered word.>

have Obama sign a bunch of executive orders and for 8 years (some here hope it's only 4 by their words) the Gay Community will have all the equal rights they want, DADT will be repealed and so on and so on.

But what happens after that? A Republican somehow finds his/her way back into the White House and the Gay Community will have the rug pulled right out from under them again.

He wants to do things the right way ie; have Congress do their fucking jobs and repeal these ancient fucking laws so that it will be harder for a Republican President to just get rid of them.

I know I know, you'll say I'm waving my pom poms but in reality, I'm not. It's just that I listened to the man for 19 months and heard him say, not in these exact words, but heard him say that he's not going to do anything half assed.

Congress is the one dragging their feet here, not the President.

How many times did he say that things wouldn't be fixed in his first year, and probably not his first term. Did no one hear that but me? Many great things have happened in 5 months. Many more will happen in the next 5 months.

But those same folks screaming now, tell me, in 4 years, when some how Obama loses the White House to a Republican, what then? You'll have zero chance of getting DADT repealed, you'll have zero chance of getting the rights you want for the Gay Community and you'll have zero chance of getting anything done that will right the world.

Sorry for the rant and it's really not directed at any one person but I'm one that tends to look at the bigger picture and while executive orders are a fix, they're only a temporary fix so lets get Congress to get off their asses and do what we hired them to do.

And it seems with this incremental, half assed "progress" that he's pushing, he'll get just what he wants, no gay marriage.

nothing less from you and the other one who replied to my post. Nothing this man has done has been good enough for you and nothing he does in the future will be good enough for you.

Change doesn't happen over night. Of course I'm sure your candidate would have had all the worlds problems fixed by now right?

By the way, I haven't heard many politicians state that they're in favor of Gay Marriage. Care to list those who ran for President that takes the position of favoring Gay Marriage? I'm sure there might be one or two but the names seem to evade my right now.

Bottom line, more kids will have health insurance, women will be paid equally, more will be able to afford college, our foreign relationships are starting to brighten, those with illnesses now have a glimmer of hope thanks to stem cell research.

Why you sit and dwell on what he hasn't fixed yet, I'll be happy with all that he's fixed in his first 5 months.

How do kids have more health insurance right now? More students are not able to afford college right now. We've doubled down in another illegal, immoral war, right now. The man hasn't fixed anything yet, all he's done is feel good rhetoric, much like his hero Reagan!

As far as many politicians being against gay marriage, many politicians were against integrating the military, yet Truman went ahead and did the right thing. Many politicians, both within and outside the Democratic party were against the '64 Civil Rights act, but LBJ pushed it through anyway. Yet what does Obama do on gay rights and gay marriage? Let's see, states that he is against gay marriage, panders to the homophobes, has his Justice Dept. defending DOMA in some of the most insulting of terms, and then when the money starts to pull out, throws the LGBT community a bone. Oh yeah, that's real "change", he's being a real "leader" there:eyes:

No, change doesn't happen overnight, but we're five months in and the "change" that we're seeing is incremental at best. How long are you willing to wait for this change, how long can you make excuses for the lack of change, a year, two years, his entire term in office? Sorry, but we can't afford to wait that long, because if Obama doesn't enact real change shortly, he's going to start losing his political backing and he'll wind up being a one term wonder. Obama promised change, well, we need to start seeing real change right now.

saying he's done nothing? Bullshit.

You just prove my point that you close your fucking eyes to everything he's done up to this point. This isn't about right and wrong to you, it's about you being able to sit here with your bullshit saying Obama has done nothing in his first 5 months.

Oh well, one thing he said was that he was going to piss people off, you're living proof that he succeeded on that one.

Let's see here, a compromised stimulus bill where he sacrificed good jobs for tax cuts in a misguided and destructive effort to be "bipartisan." Continued the previous administration's policy of throwing money down the rat hole that is the financial sector in our country. Bailed out two car companies while simultaneously destroying the last vestiges of a strong union system in this country. Oh, and yesterday threw a very small bone to the LGBT community. Am I missing anything here? Let me know, specifically, if I am.

Like I said, virtually nothing.

I'm not in favor of abortions, but I'm never going to have one so it's a moot point.

Many, most even, politicians have personal issues that are at odds with policy, but they don't allow their personal issues to overrule public policy. There are many good liberal catholics who support R v W, even though they personally object to abortion. Do you really think Obama incapable of separating his personal life from his political ideals?

If the people push the majority in congress to submit a bill for marriage equality, Obama WILL sign it. If the people push the majority in congress to repeal DOMA, he WILL sign it. He has stated many times that he favors fully equal rights, and the key to those rights is repealing DOMA, which he has unequivocally said he wanted to do. Maybe you should give him the chance to do it. Instead of bitching about Obama, work on your congressmen.

Ooo, is that more of the change we were promised. Sorry, but a politician's personal opinions have been shown time and again to effect their policies, and once again, we're seeing that play out here.

had recently, obeys the law.

Don't like it? Get CONGRESS to CHANGE THE LAW.

Doesn't mean that the Justice Dept. has to use such insulting case references concerning pedophilia and incest, but they did. Hmmm.

NOW?

I utterly fail to see the value or the logic in the argument that it's preferable in any way for gays in the military to keep risking their careers and their benefits and their retirement, etc., on the crap shoot that is DADT, while congress fiddles (pointing its fingers at Obama to do something while Obama points his finger back at them to do something), and their hope burns -- than it is for Obama to just sign an EO and give them some breathing room!

If NOTHING else, four or eight years of protection from being kicked out of the service for being gay is a hell of a lot better than none! Why can't that be the first step in this process? Why NOT offer it to gay service members NOW? What better way is there for Obama to show that he really means business in shitcanning DADT than effectively putting it OUT of business at the first opportunity he has?

Even if he does nothing else and congress does nothing else, that moratorium gives EVERYONE the chance to see just what happens when gays are as free to come and go in the military as straights -- i.e. nothing. Nothing except the injustice of DADT will no longer be perpetrated. That can only be a positive advertisement for (which provides cover for, if any is still needed) the legislative shitcanning of DADT.

But even if Obama and congress still do nothing to repeal DADT, even if Obama just signs an EO, at least there will be people whose lives won't be ruined because of DADT for four or eight years. Four or eight years is better than no years at all -- don't you think?

As it is, the constant harping of the argument that an EO now is worse than legislation somewhere down the road just comes across to me as nothing but a cover for Obama for not signing the EO.

After all, that's how Truman started integrating the military:shrug:

need another one even if he is on our side.

As for "gives EVERYONE the chance to see just what happens when gays are as free to come and go in the military as straights" - let me give you a little clue. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT ALREADY. There have ALWAYS been gays in the military, and their presence has NEVER been deletarious to the service, and EVERYBODY in the service knows it.

There is an entrenced religious RW establishment in the service, and it is THEM who are the obstacle. A stopgap measure will not change that. That is why it MUST be dealt with by congress. And while I have sympathy for those who will be shitcanned in the interim, the big picture demands that CONGRESS deal with it - and no, four or eight years is NOT better than no years at all. Is California better off having had gay marriage for a few months? Is the current legal limbo a desirable place to be?

Fuck no.

Half-measures only embolden the opponents of equality - it gives them something to rally around.

Your excuses for this failure on Obama's part are patently absurd. Why would, or should Obama hesitate to use his constitutionally granted powers. After all, he hasn't refused to use those unconstitutional powers that Bush took upon himself, like warrantless wiretapping.

serving, only regulations that segregated them. The regulations can be struck down by EO. LAWS CANNOT.

Take your bitching to congress for not giving Obama what he said he was pass - the REPEAL of the laws on DADT and DOMA.

While Congress works on repealing.

Meanwhile Obama's Justice Dept. could vacate their defense of DOMA, or at least leave out the truly insulting shit.

He's got to start somewhere, he's got to get Congress moving, yet all he's done is toss out a very small bone yesterday, only in response to the loss of campaign cash.

"Ruling by decree"?

Was his EO ending te ban on federal funding for international groups that provide abortions/abortion info "ruling by decree"?

Or is it only "ruling by decree" when that's the only defense you have against Obama's inaction on at least HALTING the DADT injustice?

established by EO, and could be struck down by EO.

You CANNOT overturn a law by executive order. It is illegal.

He can issue an EO about how he wants the law to be enforced, but he CANNOT OVERTURN A LAW WITH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.

Congress changes the law. Talk to THEM.

Just because Bush pulled this illegal shit, that doesn't mean we are free to emulate him.

That is almost always how change happens. Even the landmark changes are just the crest of an incremental wave usually preceding the big moves.

Competent and willing to be responsive management was the watershed event to me but undoing the mess of the last forty years just isn't going to happen in a week, month, year, term or Presidency. I never had any illusions of Obama being the end of the battle, just a beginning, a change in direction from the cliff. I believe if we relentlessly push in the right direction we can put our nation on a course of peace, prosperity, and fairness but the changes we need to have a sustainable future are more of a twenty year project than twenty months. We can ill afford our fiercest advocates to quit before we can turn our feet in the right direction. The results of that pattern are clear-two steps back for every attempt to take one forward. The energy people's reserves of patience and "fight through" falters and the whole country goes backwards and the situation for the people gets worse not better.

Whatever was won in November does not undo the last forty years, that win was for nothing more than the chance to start the long hard road. The decades of floundering and going backwards hasn't been erased. The losses are real, must be accounted for, and dealt with.

And they brought about sweeping changes, in the face of hostile forces both within and outside their party. Yet Obama, not so much, not so much at all.

Obama promised the closing of Gitmo, yet he continues to keep Bagram open and states that some detainees will be held indefinitely. Is that change?

Obama promised repeal of DOMA, yet his Justice Dept., despite what he said yesterday, continues to defend it in the most vigorous and insulting manner.

Obama promised that we would be getting out of Iraq, yet that date was pushed back sixteen months, and now turns out that the fine print states that we'll be leaving up to one hundred thousand troops behind, and worse yet, we're doubling down on that other illegal, immoral war going on in Afghanistan.

This isn't change, this is reneging on his promises. What good is it to close Gitmo if we continue to torture in Bagram, and hold detainees indefinitely? What message is this administration sending when, on the one hand it defends DOMA in Bush-like terms, yet on the other hand pushes Congress to act? What is the net result of a "withdrawal" that leaves behind a hundred thousand troops, and we continue to ramp up another war?

I'm tired of increments, of measured, parsed phrases, of excuses and inaction. If Obama is going to bring about real change, then it's time for him to start. If he isn't, or can't bring real change about, then in 2012 he needs to get the hell out of the way and allow somebody who can enact real change the opportunity to do just that.

They didn't accomplish everything in a few months some of their accomplishments tooke years.

Go look that up, go look up LBJ's first year in office. Both good lessons in how to achieve a lot in a short period of time.

That took 2 years until 1935: http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrbill.html and in the end he had to compromise on his original proposal.

Plus JFK did the initial work on civil right legislation before his death and LBJ was able to push it through saying it was part of JFK's legacy which still took him a year to do.

I suggested that you go study his first hundred days as a great example of how a president can set, pursue and achieve his own agenda. Same goes for LBJ. I suggest that you stop trying to put words in my mouth, and rather go educate yourself instead. You might actually learn a few things.

Oh, and while you're doing your research, and since you like SS so much, why not go out and research why FDR pushed Social Security into law, and where he got the concept of Social Security from. It's a fun little fact that the Social Security Administration will never tell you.

So get off the condescending high horse.

And your analogy to FDR and LBJ is intelletually dishonest. As I've shown, what is considered their major accomplishments took them years not were in their first six months. But if you want to look at what President Obama has done so far, here is a list to educate you:

* Starting to close down GITMO
* Allowing Caskets to be photographed when the return from Iraq with family approval
* Working on getting us the heck out of IRAQ by next year
* Filling the SCOTUS seat with Sotomayor instead of a 6th Right Wing Justice
* Not drilling in ANWAR as a knee jerk reaction
* Getting Partner Benefits for GLBT Government Employees
* Lifting the ban on Stem Cell Research
* Banning Torture / Waterboarding
* Protecting Wilderness Areas
* High Speed Rail Plan
* Lily-Ledbetter Act,
* Assisting the Auto companies, and keeping thousands of Union employees employed
* Increased funding for sciences and education
* Created a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
* Established a credit card "bill of rights"
* Expanded loan programs for small businesses
* Extended and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
* Expanded eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
* Expanded funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
* Granted Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
* Restored funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program
* Pushed for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
* Created a White House Office on Urban Policy.
* Increased funding for the NEA
* Funded a major expansion of AmeriCorps
* Banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees

you know...the Democratic-controlled CONGRESS??

yeah...they really have his back, giving him ALL THE SUPPORT he truly needs to achieve ANY TRUE CHANGES...

yeah, it's the one guy...

criticize him all you want, he needs the heat...but please, at least don't be disingenuous and leave out the full story in your analyses...

The truly great ones like FDR dictated to Congress, hell, even LBJ could successfully strong arm Congress. Yet Obama seems to be using Congress as an excuse for why he can't get things done. Rather than trying to be bipartisan, rather than flying all over the country to speak in front of special interest groups, Obama needs to bring in all the Congressional Democratic leaders and dress them down, and get them off their ass and doing something.

That too is part of being President.

then I'm afraid that you will most likely be perpetually disappointed in him for the next 3.5 years because "dictating" to Congress like FDR, "strong-arming" Congress into submission like LBJ, or shutting out dissenting viewpoints (i.e. Republicans) was NOT how he promised to govern during the campaign. Maybe you should go back to some of his campaign speeches or his 2004 Keynote Address to the DNC and come back and tell us whether or not you are surprised about how he is governing now as POTUS? We can certainly agree or disagree with how he's handling Congress, as well as decide to replace him with somebody else or simply not vote for him in 2012 but AFAIK he never promised that he'd "jawbone" anybody to get things done like GWB nor do any of the aforementioned things that you suggested. Also, just because FDR and LBJ did great things doesn't mean that Obama or anybody else is going to (or should seek to) do things the exact same way they did what they did. I don't recall many of us speaking highly of Bush's ability to "get things done" in Congress when he was (P)resident nor were we exuberant about the Republican Party's "discipline" when THEY controlled Congress during six years of the Bush/Cheney (mis-)administration. Might does NOT make right and that applies to us, as well as them.

At any rate, according to the election results, a majority of people in this country apparently agreed with Obama's proposed approach to governing as POTUS and elected him POTUS by a relatively significant margin over McLame. In approximately 3.5 years, we'll have an opportunity to decide whether or not to continue forward with President Obama's leadership as POTUS or look for somebody else entirely. Heck, you could even write him a letter NOW and tell him how you feel about his leadership style and how he interacts with Congress. He doesn't seem to be bothered by suggestions and would probably welcome your thoughts.

Along with regular letter to my reps in Congress, but that's neither here nor there.

The reality of the matter is that any President who wants to get any portion of their agenda through Congress has got to, at some point, get tough with Congress, otherwise they will achieve nothing. Whether this is through strong arming, or jawboning, or the bully pulpit, whatever, it has to be done. If Obama refuses to do this, then he's not going to achieve his agenda. This is a political reality that he and every other high level politician knows. So why isn't he doing this now? To keep his campaign promise? Well, by keeping this one campaign promise he is in serious danger of not keeping the rest of his campaign promises, and he will wind up being a one term wonder. People in this country want meaningful change, and if that means strongarming Congress, well, that's what he needs to do.

How does he lead when so much money is thrown at re-election campaigns.

Was able to advance his agenda against a well funded Congress, one where his party didn't have near the majorities that Obama has. Perhaps there is a lesson there:shrug:

Easier to corral Dems when well-paid to follow..

:rofl:

IMHO if there is a lesson "there" with Bush, Obama had BETTER do the EXACT OPPOSITE or even I'll put down the Kool Aide and not vote for him again!!!!!

Also, it's not that hard to get your "agenda" through if you have a "rubber stamp" Congress like he did for six (6) years and even the Democratically-controlled Congress from 2007-2009 didn't turn out to really be that bad for him either.

President Obama has always seemed to me to be a pragmatic consensus-builder and as such I personally NEVER expected President Obama to rush in and make bold, sweeping changes all at once at any rate but I believed in the vision he was putting forward during the campaign and believed that he would put us on a better path leading the way towards the changes our country needs and he is largely doing just that IMHO. However, outside of a mass uprising and/or total submission of members of his own party in Congress to his agenda in Congress, there is almost no way that I can see for President Obama to simply "make it (whatever "it" happens to be) so".

President Obama, for all of the political "muscle" he has, simply doesn't have the complete unconditional support of all of the members of his own party and the Senate seems to be the biggest thorn in his side right now. He has to deal with the DEMOCRATIC SENATE MAJORITY LEADER who is on record as stating he "doesn't work for President Obama", an "Independent Democrat" who STUMPED for his opponent last year and spoke at his convention and yet managed to retain his chairmanships in the Senate, as well as a group of "Blue-Dog" Democrats like Evan Bayh forming a bloc of like-minded Democrats SPECIFICALLY to challenge some of his economic policies. He's currently got Senate Democrats like Landrieau and Conrad doing their best to sabotage his health care reform proposal containing a moderate but sensible "public option" and was denied funding to close Gitmo by nearly the entire Senate, most of which currently consists of Democrats. With "friends" like these who needs Republicans? :shrug: He has been mercilessly pilloried by some here (and elsewhere) for "continuing" some offensive Bushian policies and, while I agree that we need to "hold his feet to the fire" ensure that he eventually gets rid of them and/or brings them into line with the rule of law either through restructuring and/or Congressional review and approval, IMHO we need to remember that so many of issues and concerns we are all justifiably upset and/or concerned about were essentially "dumped" in President Obama's lap by previous administrations, in some cases going all the way back to Reagan and, unfortunately, it may take some time to sort through and untangle, certainly at least more than the (and I hate to say it but it's true IMHO) five months he has been "given" so far to "change" everything.

The bottom line is that President Obama is one of the few Presidents within the past century who has been faced with as many challenges immediately upon taking office. I believe that he will ultimately rise to the challenge like FDR, to cite a contemporary example, but it wasn't even that easy for FDR to do what he needed to get done (I think he had a more compliant Congress although I'm not sure) and there were those who felt that, even with all of the transformative things FDR did for our country back then, he STILL didn't go far enough fast enough even though he was elected to an unprecedented FOUR terms in office. That's a pretty high bar to set for President Obama during his first five months sure and if that is what is being expected of him, then he has already been set up for failure IMHO. President Obama certainly has the potential to be an iconic figure like FDR but expecting MASSIVE changes within only the first five months of President Obama's presidency (or any presidency for that matter)seems just a bit unrealistic IMHO.

But I certainly wasn't signing on for this two steps forward, one and a half steps back approach to change. Promise: To get rid of DOMA. Reality: A spirited, insulting defense of DOMA by the Obama Justice Dept., followed by throwing out a bone to the LGBT community. Promise: Close Gitmo. Reality: In some vague indefinite future, but continue to leave Bagram open, and hold some detainees indefinitely. Promise: To end the war in Iraq. Reality: But in the fine print we're going to leave tens of thousands of troops there for the foreseeable future, while doubling down on that other illegal, immoral war in Afghanistan. This isn't change, even incremental change, this is simply waffling.

And as far as Congress goes, yes, FDR was facing a Congress that was just as hostile, as was much of the press of the day (Father Coughlin makes Limbaugh, et. al. look like a piker). LBJ was having to fight his own party, those Southern Dems, to pass the '64 Civil Rights Act, yet he did so. Part of the job of president is to, one way or the other, move Congress in the direction that you want them to go. Obama seems content to let Congress drift, and accept whatever comes out in the end. He did this with the stimulus bill, and it looks likely that he'll be doing this with health legislation and other important issues. This isn't leadership, this is negligence. If he can't move Congress as other presidents have, then he needs to step aside in 2012 and make way for somebody who can. We don't have the luxury of drifting at this point.

We're talking in generalities here. On a few specific topics here are the "trades" in my mind.

Health care.

Incremental can be anything from what we seem to be doing now, which could be described as much as health "insurance" reform, to a more aggressive attempt to control costs through medicare, medicaid, veterans hospitals, and the "public option". To do the later, some of these increments are going to have to include the "ties" between the various programs so over time they can "grow" into the kind of large, spanning, authority to control costs. I don't see that happening. So the increments aren't toward large changes, they are towards "shifts".

DOMA.

Increments could be many things, but I don't see how arguing FOR it in court counts as one. An increment might be dialing DOWN the defense and in fact having the justice department draft studies on how DOMA is going to cause trouble in the near future as more and more states legalize unigender marriage. Such a report could be one of these increments. It could be used to involved the Judiciary committee in the issue (ya know, Joe's old stomping ground). Instead, we don't really have anything. Where's the incrementalism?

DADT

There have been many studies. How about getting a commission togother to do a meta-study. How about having the DoD "update" previous studies. How about having a White House level review of all cases prior to going forward with them? Exactly what "increments" are we seeing here?

GITMO

His announcement was a good start, it's been roughly 5 months now. His speech at the Archives was nice, but it really didn't move much along, it was just another "outline" of what's intended. Yes an increment, but almost a repetative one. Yes, he brought the case to the states. Okay, we've got another increment. But we're half way to next January. These increments are going to have to get ALOT bigger to meet the goal.

Torture.

Increments have to be consistent in one direction to work. Releasing some memos one day, then withholding photos another, then going over to the CIA and telling them he "has their backs" is inconsistent incrementalism. There could be increments we're not seeing, but what we are seeing seems to be all over the place. That's not really incrementalism, that spraying.

Open government

Again, although in someways we've seem some increments here, we also see apparent steps backwards. To some extent I'm willing to let the visitor log thing hang a couple more months. I really think they got caught off guard here. It was way down the list of things to get done and everyone forgot about it. But the state secrets stuff, its hard to see if that is a step forward or backwards? And where is he heading? Is the ultimate goal here to strengthen FOIA? It's hard to see how much of this is a step forward. Quite honestly it appears more to just be a "moderation" of the last 8 years. I don't really think alot of folks thought that "change" meant merely a "more people friendly Bush policiy".


If there has been a place where we have seen steady incrementalism it has been in his foreign policy. Every month we see a new initiative, another speach, another visit. THAT is incrementalism.

is "bold, decisive leadership".

If we know the way we have to go as a country, then somebody pull their dam thumb out of their ass and let's start moving.

Everybody is all apologetic...for 6 f--king years I heard "but we're in the minority (so they collect their paycheck and do nothing)". then for 2 f--king years I heard "but the president will block anything we try to do (so we better not try to do anything)". And now I hear "but we need 60 votes (but the repubs manage to get their shit added with 39)".

Making no decision is a decision.

He can have his f--king sweatshirt back. I voted for CHANGE -- in MY lifetime.

When little change has been accomplished.

:shrug:

Yes the majority numbers the press loves to foist on us show Democrats in the lead. But everybody who looks one slice deeper knows that some (many?) of these "Democrats" in congress leave something to be desired, to put it mildly. The current Democrats in the House and Senate do not have the ability to march in lockstep like the GOP does. It seems many here on DU are still surprised and disappointed every time that becomes evident.

Since long before he took office, President Obama has corporate-fascist voices whispering in his ear 24/7. The opponents of change are doing their best to guide him, so we must do the same.

Never stop reminding our elected officials of who elected them. Make sure your voice is louder than mere dollars.

Obama, like virtually every other politician, is a bought and paid for member of the two party/same corporate master system of government. Frankly, no matter how much we scream and shout, how much noise that we make, corporate money is always going to speak louder.

Which is why we need to either take corporate money out of politics via publicly funded elections, or only elect candidates that don't take corporate money, which pretty much limits us to Kucinich and the Green party.

do you dismiss that, too?

In order for things to get done in this country. Well, judging by the pace we're going, we'll see global climate change start to adversely effect this planet before we see real change from this administration.

Big enough to do heavy work, and lots of fertilizer for my fields;)

"his supporters and admirers read many things into that statement."