TYT: Obama Losing Three-Dimensional Chess

Run time: 04:29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Agm5a1I20   Posted on YouTube: August 19, 2011 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 303   Posted on DU: August 19, 2011 By DU Member: pokerfan Views on DU: 4778

 
President Obama has incredibly low approval ratings on his handling of the economy and the budget deficit. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

Gallup has "Liberal Democrats" overall job approval rating for President Obama (as of 7/31) at 83%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148760/Obama-Weekly-Approval-Liberal-Support-Remains-High.aspx

Edited to correct my grammar!

it was with W and would be with pArry or Batchmann.

I can't help from expressing something that may get me in the dog house. It appears that Obama is afraid of confrontation. Could this be because of his heritage in which to be any outspoken minority could lead to ostracism. Is he too willing to go along to get along. I read both of his books and his emphasis on bipartisanship was a major issue. He was nostalgic about some supposed era in which Republicans and Democrats actually worked together to solve the nation' problems. He certainly isn't a FDR who stated that the wealthy regarded him as a traitor to his class to which he responded, "I welcome their hatred."

He's not afraid to have his lackeys call us fucking retarded, ought-to-be-drug-tested, professional leftists.

He just doesn't want to confront the neo-cons.

Now why is that?

A lot of that 83% is in there.

As Cenk said the other day, unfortunately most people don't have the luxury of spending their days reading every article they can get their hands on (or the luxury of interviewing experts) to dive into the details on all things news/politics/policy. One of countless examples is the financial "reform" that did nothing to address the underlying cause meaning a second collapse is ensured:

Cenk Uygur interviews Neil Barofsky, former Treasury Department Inspector General who oversaw the TARP program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXyouR_aa8g

Does the average voter, even the average self-described liberal, have the level of understanding that Barofsky has on financial reform? The obvious answer is no, so the next question is if they at least get the gist of what was passed. Apply this to the healthcare reform and on and on and on.

Don't get me wrong, the right wingers hate financial reform because they are uninformed AND misinformed by right wing media like Fox News, Limbaugh, etc. They've incorrectly been told that the financial reform goes too far (sort of like health care reform), it hurts capitalism and so on. But the facts show it was actually toothless and incredibly weak. Part of the reason for the poll you cite is the natural reflex to defend our president and party against the stupid, hateful attacks from the right. The problem of course is when our president and party are putting out right of center/mediocre/bad policy which has far too often been the case.

And the Repubs (from the sound of their talking heads) hate him more than ever. We got rid of Bush and we're about to get him back with a vengeance.

Although I do believe that the first compromise was on the GLBT community: "It's just a prayer".

Mr Uygur comes out swinging with "Turns out you don't know what you are doing". He's taking his disapproval of Obama further than I have ever heard any American progressive do so. He's stating that Obama has disqualified himself.

As a narrative, this piece is staggeringly strong. But it offers very little hope. I think I have lost hope in Obama too.

to walk down the middle, promise and not do, so you keep both sides happy.

I never had faith in Obama from the start because my first thought was that he's not going after Bush for his 9/11 role. (Sorry, I don't want to just look forward.) I always thought there should at least be a real investigation into all of that, especially on the torture issues.

So my reaction to the "fundamentally change" promise was that if you don't clean it up and put it to rest, we're going to get it back and have to deal with it later.

And the LGBT community is another good example. We have an opportunity here to grow up and start accepting all of the people in our country. I don't see Obama's (Republican) successor making any strides on gay rights.

The brilliance of his strategy seems to have been running as a Democrat, and getting us to believe him., when actually he is a Corporate Republicon.

Run time: 04:29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Agm5a1I20   Posted on YouTube: August 19, 2011 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 303   Posted on DU: August 19, 2011 By DU Member: pansypoo53219 Views on DU: 4778

 
and hard to play the chess when the opponents are crazee.

People who proclaim to be progressives like this Cenk clown have NO idea how our government works. The funny thing is I use to like listening to TYT and Cenk. Even when he was on Air America years ago.

I listened to him as he proclaimed that the President isn't doing enough to increase Jobs in this country. Given the fact that in order for the president to increase jobs in this country, it would take legislation from congress to implement the president's job proposal. In the first year that the president took office, he started off with an aggressive agenda with the stimulus, health care, SCHIP, and the GM Loan as some might refer to as the GM bailout. In fact the first bill he signed was the Equal Pay Legislation for women. Each one of those legislations were hard fought to get through congress. In fact, Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that she may lose the house because the healthcare bill.  A year later, she was right. Why? because of the road blocks in Congress and there were no counter progressive protest against the Tea party.  In fact the progressives were upset that the President didn't fight hard enough for single payer. The right wing and the tea party were upset that the single payer was even suggested. Even the Blue dog democrats would not support single payer. This legislation barely passed the house and Senate but with Single payer it would not have. Who got the blame? Was it the republicans? No. Was it the blue dog democrats?, No. Was it the progressives who did not come to Washington in support or make calls to congress? No. It was the President.  And look what happened. Progressives stayed home and did not vote in 2010 and now we have a tea party house. I see on the blogs that the president isn't doing anything to help the people. They say we got him up there and he is not fighting for us. Well that like giving him a gun with no bullets. To blame the President for the jobs crisis with out blaming the Congress is straight out WRONG. Everyone so quick to say it's Obama's fault. He is not doing enough. Well what are you doing besides blaming him? What are doing to give him a congress he needs so that he can Pass these things? If he had a progressive house and a super majority in the Senate, meaning no filibustering, and he still does not do anything, well I will be the first one leading the charge to say get rid of him.  And now there is talk to get someone to Primary him? Please give me a break. If the congress don't change, you can have a President that has the tenacity of Dennis Kucinich and you will still be where you are at now if not worse.  If you want the President to do something give him the ammo he needs in Congress. Instead of blaming the president, start calling on people to vote out these tea-parties and blue dogs. This cannot be only on the President. Let's not do the work of Karl Rove. If you keep blaming the President and not focusing on getting a progressive congress, then say hello to President Bachman with a tea-party congress. I rather watch Fox news then to listen to Cenk Uygur. Rove must be happy with him.

And it's my right to spread truth. Let's see if Bachman or Perry will start a Jobs program.

When he took office he had a majority in congress,. and did not act. He lost the congress BECAUSE he did not act. We should have had; posecutions for the crimes of the previous administration,. the banking scams, the war/torture/gitmo crimes,. an actual investigation of 9/11,. etc., etc. No change came from the new president,. progressives saw the lame healthcare bill (that forces people to buy corporate for profit insurance),. in place of what is needed- a functioning healthcare system like most of the world enjoys! Claiming that people now need to wait for the next election to "give him the congress he needs" is admitting that the system is completely broken.

"To blame the President for the jobs crisis with out blaming the Congress is straight out WRONG." Who did this?? What people have had enough of is the lack of actions that can be taken,. holding on to positions that need to be held,. even if untimely lost. At least we need to see the guy make an effort to do what is right,. not rollover for another repug screw-job. He does choose his appointments,. the financial terrorists to regulate wall street,. he could close gitmo (as advertised), end the multiple wars (not strat new ones), defund the military,. etc. etc, what is lacking is a will to do anything meaningful that may anger his corporate wall-street buddies. fail.

Did he NOT have a large majority when he was first elected?

Did he NOT ignore progressive/liberal economists that said he wasn't doing enough?

And, you need to learn a thing or two about compromising. If you're a Democrat, and you care about getting at least something in the middle, you start by proposing your most left position and move to the center from there, not start in the middle and get forced to the right. President Obama has compromised from the middle each and EVERY time. If he would have started with single payer and got a strong PO (which would have been very likely) progressives and liberals would not be so angry. Understand?

I wonder how if he had all progressives on his economic team would pass the Senate. You see we had a majority in the Senate not a Super Majority. How will he get around the filibuster? Tell me that.

Or, you can be a weak president that gives everything without getting anything.

I prefer a President that fights. Not one that gives in because it's difficult.

That's great governing. :sarcasm:

The health care bill was passed with a simple majority, not a "super majority," so that nonsense can go out the window. While a Public Option was never guaranteed to pass, under the reconciliation process it was much more likely to succeed. Sadly, Obama never intended to actually push for the PO as he had already bargained it away in private talks with the hospital and insurance industry. His stimulus was too small by far, and he botched that by starting at only 50% of the recommended minimum amount and then dragging it down from there by making 45% of the rest tax cuts, the least effective form of stimulus. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? That was passed by the Senate on January 22, 2009. When was Obama inaugurated? Oh, yeah, January 20th, 2009. Wow, he really is good.

His relentless pattern of "start in the 'middle' and run right" is a proven failure. The economy is getting worse and his "bipartisan" band-aids aren't stopping the bleeding. How much help is it to extend unemployment benefits for a year if you don't do anything to help promote job creation? How is it helping to extend the tax cuts that are fueling the debt that he is now trying to cut by slashing necessary services from the domestic budget? Which do you think will help the unemployment rate more, free trade deals with Korea, Panama, and Columbia, or cutting funding for government services? Try neither.

And please stop with the straw man arguments that people angry with Obama are letting Congress off the hook. The Senate is completely corrupt and the House is nearly as bad, we get it. You can't, however, give Obama credit for magically passing some legislation and then blame Congress for failing to pass others. We've all seen how the White House works when they REALLY want something to pass, like war funding for Afghanistan. Sadly, we also know how the Obama administration works when they DON'T want something to pass, like the Dorgan drug importation amendment (stop me if you've heard this one, Obama supports something as a Senator only to oppose it as President...seems familiar...).

Obama is failing to L-E-A-D, that's the point.

Especially the ones that end with the fearmongering boogie boogie -- look out for (put whatever puke is the craziest in the spot).

Rather than actually discuss how the Democratic rep we voted into office has failed on major points - we get fearmongering chicken little and *you're too stupid to understand* -- all the smoke and mirrors that can be tossed out, to diminish REAL problems Americans have.

Fearmongering -- it ain't just a puke tactic anymore, is it?

let's discuss it like rational human beings. No name calling, no fear mongering. I would like to know how the President no matter who it is gets legislation through congress?

Never mind the hysterical rhetoric from the blind ideologues. They DO NOT represent the majority!

Nobel prize winning economists like Krugman and Stiglitz can explain the failure of this administration with regard to the economy and lack of serious financial reform much better than I can, so I'll leave it to them.

And I'll continue to accept the reality of how government works and feel confident in the ability of this Nobel prize winning president to prevail despite empty platitudes coming from the right..and the left.

The right wing is incredibly misinformed. They think the president and Democrats in Congress are radical socialists, largely because of propaganda and lies from Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Their criticism of the Obama administration is at best misguided and at worst insane and hateful.

Criticism from, for example, the aforementioned nobel prize winning economists falls in a completely different category. In general, most of the criticism from the left (Cenk included) comes from people who strongly supported Obama in the beginning. Over time they judged him based on his actions (and inaction) on a variety of issues. That includes balancing ideals with what is or should be possible in a particular political climate and after the 2010 elections, losing a little political power.

PS---Sirota had a great piece the other day addressing the bullshit myth that the president is powerless, I think it's very fitting here:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/democratic_party/index.html?story=/news/david_sirota/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable

anymore than President Barack Obama. To suggest that everyone should defer completely to anything his critics have to say...based on their Nobel prizes, is just ridiculous.

"Over time they judged him based on his actions (and inaction) on a variety of issues. That includes balancing ideals with what is or should be possible in a particular political climate and after the 2010 elections, losing a little political power".

I'm sorry, I don't see anything in that statement that suggests anything other than an opinion.

I'm off for a stay-cation in the morning so no comprehensive point by point argument for why this president/administration/Congress has been a massive disappointment (I'm sure you've dismissed those before anyway).

Don't be worry, you haven't provided anything other than opinions other, so in that generic sense we're on equal ground. I will add that of course I mentioned Krugman and Stiglitz as two of the many excellent examples of those who have in fact provided well thought out, fact based arguments for why the financial "reform" was a massive failure, why the stimulus was terribly weak (and could've been much better, even WITH GOP opposition), why the debt ceiling/deficit debate and plan are disasters and the list goes on and on.

I refer you to Cenk's interview with Neil Barofsky, a Treasury Department Inspector General who oversaw the TARP program - excellent discussion on financial reform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXyouR_aa8g

I know, it's almost 23 minutes, a big time investment. But it's worth it to get a good understanding of the good and bad of what was passed.

PS---Have a good weekend. I'm sure we probably agree on more than we disagree, the quality of the policies and politics of this current administration aside.

Enjoy your staycay...

...who signed a letter to the President dated September 16 of last year (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1691700 ), urging him to focus on jobs, not the deficit, and warning him that a premature focus on cutting government spending would stall the economy, possibly sending us back into the throes of recession. So to say that "Krugman is not ifallible" as a means to dismiss the underlying point is to attack a straw man of your own making.

The banks should have been broken up...they have more power than ever. Wells Fargo is going to start charging it's customers $3/month for using a debit card and double the fee for merchants per transaction. I can go back to checks. They can shove that. Merchants should reject this too.

We lost the message I'm afraid early on. The administration didn't know just how bad things were and renewing tax cuts made it worse. Krugman is right. Sanders and Kucinich have been right, and the adminstration has been wrong. The part that hurts the most is this political fight is not for the middle class but for who will own Wall St support while we fall into a depression.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/awesome-wrongness-2/">Awesome Wrongness

does not control the banking regulations. It start in Congress. There are comittees in both the House and Senate. They write the regulations legislation, not the President. Let work on getting a progressive congress.

Do you think he WANTS a more progressive congress? Serious questions.

Throughout the 2010 campaign, he was stomping for Democrats. The fact is, the President cannot write the legislation. Since he took office, the republicans has opposed every proposal that the president has sent to them. If you are going to criticize the Prsident then fine it's your right. I just don't see how that is going to help. I just don't see without educating the people that Congress is a Major part of the problem is going to help any of the progressive cause. I don't see how the President fighting and calling the republicans names is going to help push legislation through Congress. All it's going to do is turn people off from voting and there goes the country.

Secondly, Obama has consistently supported blue dogs over their progressive primary challengers in Congressional elections. Therefore, your claim that he wants a more progressive Congress fails miserably.

Congress abdicated that role with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They passed a bill creating the bureau itself, but did not include any regulations for it to enforce, leaving it up to the bureau itself to create those regulations as it saw fit. Congress should have created the regulations, as then banks would be operating under regulations created by persons answerable to the people of this nation, but instead those regulations will be created by people answerable to no one but the sitting President.

Congress is increasingly unwilling to make decisions which are difficult in the face of its position between the need for the money it receives from corporations and the votes is needs from people, so it does things like creating agencies which write their own regulations and "super committees" which create financial deals to trim the deficit. Thus, individual legislators can, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands and remain able to cater to both sides of the conflict between oligarchy and democracy.

He should have come in swinging a club given the circumstances. The market starting crashing under Bush. Look who he picked for his adminstration and deficit commission. Centrist/Wall St. cronies..not staunch democratic policy fighters. If he didn't realize the hatred the right has for equality and fairness he should by now. But now it's too late unless he changes course.

:evilfrown:

I'm angry too.

PB

He is pleasing his campaign financiers (Wall Street). Unless he is primary challenged, he doesn't need to do squat for liberals. It is that 10% independents/centrists/undecided that will decide if we get corporate tool (D) or corporate tool (R).

the vineyard and Rick Perry may be our next president.

God, I am depressed.

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

Man Cenk reminds me of Howard Dean when he gets this fired up.

I don't want to lose Cenk in his role now, but imagine in him a presidential debate? (Yes I mean Cenk for President!)

If the reporter wasn't throwing utterly softball / establishment questions of course ....

Cenk's a fireball - that's what I can believe in.

1. Obama is not a progressive nor even a liberal democrat and actually never was and is not inclined to ever be. He is funded primarily by the forces of the ultra-rich elite and he in fact is product of that culture. He sees himself as doing what he must to "move the country forward." Cenk apparently (like many of us - myself included once-upon-a-time) thinks that in his heart of hearts Obama is a progressive - he isn't. Yes - he managed to fool us during the election but frankly we wanted to be fooled - didn't we!

2. Obama still has a winning play and it is grand stroke if he pulls it off. It is called "The Jobs Bill." Checkmate of his opponent for 2012 will likely follow. I'm not being optimistic nor do I think Obama is a "genius" but I think he's got this one solved. Remember that the public has a very short attention span. It basically doesn't matter what his approval ratings are right now.

If he had stayed at MSNBC, he could not have said things like that.

And that is why I respect him so much.

If he had stayed at MSNBC, he could not have said things like that.

And that is why I respect him so much.