Jesus Christ, these people are far too politically skittish to be in charge of the country...

Come on now, grow a spine will you.

Instead of thank you sir can I have another why can't we get someone in the white house that has a pair, a big enough pair to ignore the shity sniping that now passes for news.

They didn't even try.

They didn't even try....

I'm ashamed to be a Democrat today....

nt

I could rationalize a lot of the other stuff simply because I was a professional political person and I know that compromise is not a sign of weakness. I have to admit though that I was having a lot of doubt, a lot of questions about their tactics.

But this, this is the stuff that shows people how weak they are...

And you're right- it's part of a larger pattern that continues to be exploited by the right wing in both parties.

with you, wcgreen

several times today. I try to squeeze a couple dollars his way when I can. Now that man is "wow" on two feet.

However, Serial Capitulation (appeasement) IS a sign of weakness.....or complicity.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

And this is an important distinction to make.

K&R

:grr:

when it is used to undermine and harm the powerless it is criminal --

And, I'd give as an example the Founders compromise with slavery in the Constitution

which eventually led to the Civil War . . . from which we still haven't recovered!

Who made that decision? Link?

a person from the white house that made the call...

Looks like Sherrod did say the pressure came from the White House.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/20/cnr.04.html

HARRIS: So the pressure came from the White House?

SHERROD: And the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.

HARRIS: Are you willing to name names?

SHERROD: And that's exactly what I did.

HARRIS: Are you willing to name names?

SHERROD: Pardon?

HARRIS: Are you willing to name names?

SHERROD: Oh, I can tell you, that was Cheryl Cook, the deputy undersecretary. She called me and said -- because she called me, and I said, "Cheryl, I've got a three and a half hour ride to get into Athens." She called me a second time, "Where are you now?" I said, "I'm just going through Atlanta."

She called me again and I said, "I'm at least 45 minutes to an hour from Athens." She said, "Well, Shirley, they want you to pull over to the side of the road and do it because you're going to be on Glenn Beck tonight."

HARRIS: Wow. So the administration pressured you out?

SHERROD: Yes.


AFAIK, Cheryl Cook doesn't have the authority to ask for Sherrod's resignation without approval from the WH.

who works for Secretary Vilsack.

Any call coming from the WH would have gone to Vilsack, who has said that is NOT what happened, that the decision was his. The decision to fire would have been passed down the chain of command.

This is how things work in the USG - and I am speaking from the perspective of someone with quite a few years of experience in higher (not the highest, certainly) chains of command there. If someone from the WH had called Cook, she would have had to clear any action with the higher-ups in the USDA; she would not have had the authority to do it without coordinating with them.
The President, OTOH, has delegated authority to manage their own agencies to the Cabinet Secretaries. They would not have to coordinate actions like this with WH. At all.

I have seen no proof that the WH even knew about this beforehand. Vilsack has said that they didn't call him - he didn't say whether they had called anyone else, but the implication is there that they didn't. Vilsack and his minions made a horrendously bad call. They fully deserve to be castigated for it.

Yes, I too am disappointed with a lot of the WH appointments. But Vilsack is certainly not the worst.

but Joe Scum said it doesn't matter that if WH denies that they made any calls because he knows it was the WH.

ty! ;)

Any employer deserves criticism for that, especially when the action is based on a Faux news report.

Conservative reactionary racists on Faux news and in tea party are what we thought they are. I expect more from the Obama administration. Don't you?

I was not talking about the WH reaction, nor anyone else's.

I merely pointed out that the Washington Post quoted Sherrod as saying, "I got three calls from the White House," and that Sherrod never said any such thing.

because Britefart and Fox are lying doesn't mean the Obama administration is off the hook for believing them. I'm not going to make excuses for Obama when he (of all people) should know better.

overseas this, I could think of others but I'm sick of this. If george and dick were responsible for all and any actions of their (mal)administration, so is Obama. He can end this by doing right but I won't hold my breath.

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

positively are freepers who call him "messiah" and accuse democrats of being his "followers". Way to play up a right wing meme.

Many of us independently arrived at the same queasy feeling, and there's far too much cult-of-the-personality rife in the broad support of our President. People seemingly tend to place trust in him as a person, often completely ignoring his policy stances. This is not too shocking, since he has been very wary of every letting himself get nailed down as for or against much of anything specific.

This is a man who is proud of being viewed as a blank slate upon which people can write their various hopes, and that's a big red flag to many of us.

Not only did I advance this characterization, I saw it many times here before ever seeing it in the broad media.

The constant attempts to vilify and dismiss any dissenters is crappy peer-pressure groupthink, and it simply doesn't wash here; my problems with Barack Obama ARE ALL FROM THE LEFT, and have been screaming at me since his emergence onto the national scene: I can't STAND religion in politics, and he injected more into the presidential race than any serious candidate I can think of since William Jennings Bryan, he's a corporatist ultramoderate and he's an appeasing continual campaigner instead of a forthright leader. He's coming around now and calling out the reactionaries, but I'll bet he still thinks (in pure Bill Clintonian obliviousness) that the right will somehow stop trying to destroy him if he's just a little bit nicer.

The thread-starter is dead on with the accusation of skittishness: there's a steadiness that is necessary in leadership, and this kind of dancing-a-merry-tune to the barking of the monarchist attack dogs is nauseating. It's also terrifying in its action upon inaccurate information and the tiresome deniability; either he's in charge of his administration subordinates and responsible for their actions, or he's not doing his job.

We owe him some loyalty and solidarity, but he OWES US SOMETHING, TOO.

It is literally terrifying that such trumped-up cheesy-assed editorial tricks can force an immediate demand for pulling off the road and Blackberrying in a resignation, and it's galling to play coy with whether the Chief is responsible. We need to KNOW what he's for or against, and as much of this has played out, the seeming answer when Barack Obama is asked about a particular issue "are you for or against it?", his answer seems to consistently be "yes".

I have a big deal of trouble accepting the meme that was being pushed that pragmatism was a good quality for a politician. We need to understand that what may work for private industry, does not necessarily apply to public and governmental management approaches. Due among other things, to the fact that pragmatism implies a lack of ideology, where as ideology is one of the defining elements of politics.

It would be as if all of the sudden Catholics would start to croon about how great of a pope an agnostic must make.

heard of Obama called a messiah or called messiah-like by any liberal or Democrat. It is easy to pick out the Freepers. DU is full of Freepers and GOP activists.

July 20, 2010
Obama briefed after Sherrod incident
Posted: July 20th, 2010 07:17 PM ET
(CNN) - President Obama was briefed after Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack decided to seek Shirley Sherrod's resignation and fully supports that decision, a White House official said Tuesday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/20/obama-briefed-after-sherrod-incident/?iref=allsearch&fbid=Z-i4XtTQEfU

is full of undesirables, imo. It could be any of a number. But the firing of Van Jones and now Sherrod tells us that something is deeply wrong in the White House. As if we didn't already know.

Obama Backs Vilsack Decision On Shirley Sherrod’s Alleged Racism Remarks

Link: http://all247news.com/obama-backs-vilsack-decision-on-shirley-sherrod%E2%80%99s-alleged-racism-remarks/2283/

If he backs the decision, he is as good as culpable. In the real world that would be the case anyway.

Obama Backs Vilsack Decision On Shirley Sherrod’s Alleged Racism Remarks

Link: http://all247news.com/obama-backs-vilsack-decision-on-shirley-sherrod%E2%80%99s-alleged-racism-remarks/2283/

If he backed the decision, he is as good as culpable. In the real world that would be the case anyway.

.... crickets. Obama needs to stand up and speak up for the people on his side otherwise there is going to be no one left who will speak up for him!

How much time should we give him before we burn him in effigy?

Just sayin' :shrug:


You know what the man said...

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.... uh, I won't get fooled again."

I think that's an erroneous assumption.

Part of the problem here is how effed up the American political system is.

As far as I know, this is a uniquely American phenomenon. In other Industrialized democracies you will never find the center-right feel entitled to the proactive support from the left through thick and thin. And also, you'll never see the left acting surprised and betrayed when a center-right administration presides from the center-right.

This is both fascinating and also an indication that Obama, the Blue Dogs, etc are a symptom not the disease. The disease is systemic, and we have not even started to even pretend to face the reality of things. The USA is one of the most diverse societies on earth (if not the most right out), and yet we're the democracy with the least varied political offer. That has a huuuuge set of implications.

get some damn guts!!!!!!! :mad:

I mean d*mn - because of Faux sNooze? A woman's career is over because of that blubbering gaggle of racists??? I think I have to agree with you on this one.

That's when it became clear that nothing was going to change and that the Democratic "Leadership", whether due to complicity cowardice or whatever, were going to play the role of the Washington Generals to the Bushies' Harlem Globetrotters.

It no longer matters WHY, only the reality that is.

I didn't want to believe it, but the evidence is OVERWHELMING and the results are in. Final straw after final straw after final straw.

And more coming...

a lot of "weakness" seems to be cover for complicity.

Never was I so angry as when Senator Clinton and Kerry supported that, and then claimed they were making "the best decision they could at the time."

what was going on. I called and called while it was all going down, called dozens of senators, listened to all of the speeches. Hilary's speech actually sounded like she was going to be a Nay.

It was such a Real betrayal. I cried for hours after the vote.

She and a few others had to be roped in at the last moment, not unlike Colin Powell at the UN- the people weren't buying it. With that last push, the public was sold.

Ironically, supposedly 75% of America was for the war. Why the big push, then?

March 19, 2003, when Bush supposedly made his final "decision" to start Shock & Awe.

The Democrats were afraid of being called unpatriotic in the aftermath of 9/11...

They are lacking in courage. Devoid of loyalty.

on it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8783029

what I have received from the current crop of Democratic office holders.

Breitbart's comments are sociopathic and pathological and destroys Beck's and FOX's claimed credibility. Deceitful lying propaganda bastards got caught big time. Now they have no justification to call themselves journalists or anything but republican scum and make their viewers and supporters accomplices. hahahahahahahaha. Republican self destruction continues.

unrec and hide.

:hi:

If you look I have defended the Obama Administrations pretty consistently over the last year and a half...

I will still vote for him but my passion is now ebbing...

put out a statement that made it easy for Vilsac to can her.

Oh, and the WH didn't call her directly http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/07/point_of_clarification_1.php?ref=fpblg

The NAACP had the full tape the whole time. And why wouldn't they? The whole thing took place at one of their events. They could have spoken up right away, and they didn't. This whole thing could have been avoided, Breitbart could have been outed as a lying tape doctoring tool once again. This administration is SO oblivious to everything one could wonder (but I don't) if they are in a collective coma. Tone-deaf, slow moving, not on top of things at all, and oblivious = 1 term.

:pals:

but YOU say this is overreacting. I'll tell you what, this weakness, or perceived weakness is taking President Obama's image down a notch. We want to preserve a positive Obama image. But when the Administration does things like this it is harming its own image.

...have also been told here, and everywhere else in the left blogosphere, to not be passive, not be reactive. To get ahead of the news cycle. To not let the media seize and set the agenda. To not let things build up till they appear scandalous, but to get ahead of the story.

With friends like that....

trying to appease republicans than getting the job done. That's the part of this administration I don't like. I think if the senate would take away the 60 vote crap they would get more done. But as I said they appease the republicans instead of their base.

f*cking mad! :mad:

still beats the hell out of being a Republican. But yeah, the Dems really do need to stop playing the republican game and play their own. I know plenty of liberals who would always stand up and fight for the right thing. Too bad Obama's a corporatist and not a liberal.

K and R

than this. Jesus.

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

..mice when it comes to actually governing.

I remember when Lt AWOL stole his first election in 2000 and his boss cheney went on the sunday morning gloryhole shows and said that regardless of the margin of victory, they would still pursue their own agenda wholeheartedly...and boy did they ever...I wish the Dems did the same..

They weren't nor will they ever be afraid of power.

I think the problem is that the democrats are worried more about offending their large donors who have a vested interest in power and not so much in party. You know, the donors who give to both but favor the more conservative approach to governing.

The democrats must believe they can't gather sufficient funds to win without this "non partisan" financial support so they are more timid about the use of power.

That's the only reason I can see why they react so negatively to wielding the power of the office and they bully pulpit.

the eye.

Gross, just gross.

Originally captioned: Special Delivery from Howard Dean

White House Asks for Review of Firing of Official
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html?_r=1&hp
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and SARAH WHEATON



/begin rant

I'm going to add that the "mess" in this "mess" I lay directly at Vilsack and Cook's feet (and they should not lose their jobs over this - *no* Democratic job should be lost because of Breitbart's crap) -- if Vilsack or Cheryl Cook had had the decency to at least hear Sherrod out for the full story, this crap could have been put to rest solely at the feet of Breitbart/FAUX. Instead, we have this firestorm.

However, while people here were busy hurling their favorite epithets at Obama, he was working to get Sherrod her job back after apparently not having been at all involved in her firing.

Huge irony on this story - while everyone's condemning the supposed rushing to judgment on the part of the WH, people on this board were going hogwild rushing to judgment against the WH, at the very time the WH was working on behalf of getting Sherrod her job back.

/end rant

"working on behalf of getting Sherrod her job back" if they hadn't acted so irresponsibly to begin with

The WH backed up Vilsack based on supporting his judgment call.

When the whole story came out, instead of doubling down, the WH realized the mistake made, and went to bat for Sherrod.

Now is not the time for a "review." The time for a "review" was BEFORE they fired her.

They should reinstate her. NOW. Just like the left is demanding. But hey, I guess the left doesn't matter to them. Only the right does.

When lower level Bush appointees did wrongheaded, abhorrent crap, all of us on this board sounded off against Bush. This is because the administration - headed by POTUS - sets the tone, policies and reactive sensibilities of everyone in the org chart. The president is ultimately responsible for anything his appointees and their appointees do. Remember "the buck stops here"?

The whole food chain in this administration has been conditioned in the practice of jettisoning anyone who's the subject of even a hint of scandal.

In this case, the administration committed a punitive act based on an unverified right wing hit-piece. They acted without an ounce of study or backbone. If this isn't letting the right wing make you trip over your own dick, then I don't know what is...

i know, wtf

Repuglicans keep us honest!

--I guess that's because we Dems are always so DIShonest!


I wanna cry...

Every time 'ole Doc Colborn holds something up on the Senate floor, The Pentagon should take dollars out of his district of equal amount. Lots of military stuff in OK, but there are bases who have unused capacity.

How sad that we demand complete and total perfection and are intolerant of people actually being imperfect human beings who actually make mistakes in their lives!

People are sounding like the right....Bill Clinton had an affair...he MUST be impeached! Off with his head!

This need for blood on the left is making me ashamed to be a Democrat today.....

Do you know what homework and research is, verses Kneejerk and Frightened Reaction?

Perhaps if this were and isolated boneheaded mistake, it wouldn't be so significant, but you would have to have been asleep for the past 1.5 years to believe that.

I don't need blood, I am witnessing it daily in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, and Main Street where I live. I see it in the hundreds of new homes sitting empty and rotting while people fall deeper and deeper into poverty and going homeless.

As for perfection, I admit, I DEMAND PERFECTION, because we are OUT OF TIME. Get over your "We're only human" defense, or the meaningless "Mea Culpa" that issues daily from our broken, ridiculous Corporate controlled government.

FFS, they fired Van Jones over Glenn Beck's crap. I don't need blood. I need elected Democrats to quit soiling themselves every time right wing media says 'boo.' Is that too much to ask?

... yet it is glorious in its unabashed PR angle.

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

actually it`s not hard to spot cowards.....


i`m more than ashamed ..i`m disgusted

King was president of the state senate at the time. Yeah, that Steve King.

harsh it may be, but 'complicit' is more accurate than 'skittish'.

Too scared to stand for anything. Scared of Glenn Beck. Scared of Mitch McConnell. Scared of Sarah Palin. Scared of bankers. Scared of BP. Scared of military generals. Scared of Frank Luntz` focus groups. Scared of Zogby`s poll numbers. Scared of the DLC. Scared of filibusters.

Bob Herbert is right. President Obama squandered just about every shred of good will handed to him in the last election. Now we`re supposed to believe inveterate submission is really compromise. Good freaking grief!

Don`t bother telling me I want everything perfect, everything today, everything my way. I`m too old for that crap and too fed up with the cesspool in Washington.

Reread Grinchie`s reply #65.

It's funny this post was very emotional and seems to have caught the mood of the moment and yet I wrote a more reflective post in GDP and it garnered a lot more negative reaction...

Be that as it may, I am sure of one thing, if this guy can't get his act together, dismantle that Spock like aversion to emotion, all of his brains and all of his coolness under pressure and all his ability to communicate will not save him.

It's been over three years now that he has been in the national spotlight and he has let far too many people define him without fighting back. I understand that he is under tremendous pressure to not be the "angry black man" but Mr. Obama, get mad once in a while, get mad not because your handlers say it is safe to get mad but because something you want, something you care about is under attack.

Only two other presidents in my lifetime were unable to communicate their anger effectively and that was Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford....

How could anyone possibly be afraid of Glenn Beck?

If you were in their position, you might be just as "skittish." Maybe they see problems you don't.

The only people getting criticized for this should be Fox News. Their credibility is what should go.

Fox for putting forth this crap, and this administration for caving once more in order to protect the sacrosanct sensitivities of conservatives.

If I were in their position, then I would be an official in a high public office, and thus fully responsible for my actions and open to criticism. Really, not a tough concept to understand in a working democracy. I could understand the whole "being in their shoes" red herring if this was about about some bad luck that fate had thrown their way and which was out of their control. However, accessing a high public office is a fairly personally controlled choice. If the heat is too much, they are free to step down and replace themselves with someone willing to at least put up a fight.

than you would based on their knowledge. Yes, Faux does afflict a lot of people. And charges of reverse racism will be very touchy for the first black President. So, yeah, if they thought there was a black employee making such speeches, they might well think it would hurt them. They are not "afraid" of Faux, but they know what it can do, especially with race. They pick their battles, this one did not seem to be the one.

They aren't "gutless" just because they evaluate the risks and dangers differently than you might. From the easy comfort of the keyboard, I might add.

Plenty of people on this site face tough decisions in all lines of work that they participate in outside of posting on DU. And this was not even a hard decision - it was a quick, timid, and wrongheaded decision. President, cabinet secretary, or anyone else in the public sector - you do not fire a person based on a news rumor and a hollow investigation.

I'm generally an Obama supporter, and I have admired his capacity to treat the public like adults and level with us, and that's what I would like to see here. Pres. Obama needs to come clean, direct, and public on this issue, take responsibility, and do right by the unjustly fired employee. This is 2010 - it isn't 1960 or 1980 - the administration does not have to run for cover whenever a black woman or man says something not pre-approved by neoliberal censors or the racist reactionary right.

Even better would be some actual policy proposals that address the huge achievement gaps in urban America, including African American communities, so we can work towards full participation for more of our citizens in the economy and rebuild our tax base and national health. If we're this afraid of charges of "reverse racism," we're never going to take the strong action required to help all communities reach a greater level of social health. And that's a shame.

And the only reason you would think he should is that Faux made a big deal of this. In other words, you are dancing to their tune also.

FUCK THEM!

FUCK BREITBART!

FUCK BECK!

FUCK RUSH!

FUCK THEM!