What President Obama is, and what he isn't..

President Barack Obama is a Democrat, and as President the head of the Democratic Party.

He is not the head of the Libertarian Party, Socialist Party, Republican Party, Communist Party, The Green Party, or any of many other political organizations. He is the head of the Democratic Party, the oldest Political Party in the nation

It is his duty as the duly elected head of the President of the United States, and thereby head of the Democratic Party, to try and get through as much of the platform of the party as he can. That is what he ran on.


I just started re-reading the Platform, and was quite amazed and pleased at how much of this platform he is working on simultaneously.

If you have not had a chance to read the platform fully, or as I did, have forgotten it here is a link:
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Page 12.

Don't you find that somewhat contradictory in view of your strident defence of everything this Administration does?

of why many of us support this President.

"The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties."

:eyes:

...but do you really think your reply, "Abbot meet Costello", casts you in any sort of positive light?

There are those of us who support the president, even though he hasn't live up 100% to every thing that he expressed he would do.

And there are those of us who never supported him at all.

Elsewhere on DU and in other venues civilized discourse takes place between the two camps.

Does anyone think that name calling advances their argument?

Apparently, they do.

and think of all the things that we have been moving on simultaneously.. it is mind boggling. It is like Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, etc etc, have rolled it up under their arms and are marching it through all at once.


People talk about a platform, and what various politicians stand for.. these elected Democrats are moving the Democratic platform front and center.

refuse to give it, enact their ideas anyway?

for them, no matter much they want it.


But he will listen to them, and if they have ideas he can work into what he is pushing forward and still keep our platform intact.. looks like he is doing that. He did run on that also.. listening to all sides.

It is going to help us with our sons college education. Bushs tax cuts which the President is going to let expire, is what got us in this GOD awful mess in the first place. I am with you all the way on that one.

But tax cuts to small businesses to expand and hire more American workers, I am okay with that too.

''Al Qaeda.''

Their idea of a small business is usually a transnational corporation that can only afford to buy one senator.

Why does he have to advance a purely democratic agenda? Shouldn't he be allowed to advance the agenda (perhaps sometimes bluer, sometimes redder, and all shades in between) he sees fit to advance?

"Is something Good because God says it is, or does God say something is Good because it is so?"

Considering such a question, if it is the former, then "Good" is relative to an arbitrary standard (God's opinion), and therefore quite meaningless in a universally true sense
("Omnibenevolence" therefore means "God does what he wants", and nothing more). To parallel, the promotion of an arbitrary, morphing party agenda is not universally "good" for the people by its very nature (it just means "they are doing what they want", but doesn't attest the benefit of what it is they want). In the political sense, it is not even universally good for the party if enacting such an agenda has few social benefits than negative backlash.

What is known, is that this is no longer the party and agenda of FDR/Truman. Parties morph and change as the political spectrum shifts. While it may be Obama's duty to promote the platform (as well as engineer it), it is the people's job to try and manipulate the party to act in their interests. Just because the relative, arbitrary platform of the Democratic party may be pursued according to some measurements, that is not any true indicator that the resulting policy will be in the favor of the people (and most certainly not if they do not lobby and try and influence that policy).

In otherwords...what's your point? If this was a 'shut the fuck up and sit down post', I feel it is a bit misguided. Everyone has every right to petition the president and their party with legitimate concerns, and even attempt to alter the very platform itself. If the people don't have their hands on the wheel, then only the lobbyists and party leadership will.

so fearful they are of offending people that won't vote for a Democrat no matter what. Offending the Left is okay, where are they going to go, but offending the religious wackos and their stupid faith based tax-payer supported programs is not okay.

"what's your point?" you asked

My point is that he is trying to get the Democratic platform passed.

I am a Democrat.

My point is that I am pleased that the President is pushing the platform of the party I belong to.

Nothing theological about it.

The Democratic platform has to actually be in the interest of the Democrats and the American people at large to make its progress a good thing. People can influence and shape this arbitrary and morphing agenda, just as politicians and lobbyists can. To simply accept it as beneficial, due to your party registration, is neglectful


"Nothing theological about it."

Nor did I say it was. I was drawing a parallel. When theists believe that God is omni-benevolent, they therefore believe everything God does is "good" by definition (otherwise he wouldn't do it); that includes destroying cities, flooding people, and using war to shape mankind.

Now, when people first believe their party is "benevolent", they must similarly believe all such policy they create will therefore be so (despite the fact that the same party may of had a drastically different focus 50 years ago, its shifting contradictory nature at each point in time must illogically be accepted as a perfectly true form of goodness).

But there is nothing inherently, universally "good" about the Democratic party. Enacting their agenda is only "good" so long as its in the interests of the country, and it is therefore your responsibility to not be silent & content, but attempt to influence this malleable platform.

I am a Democrat.. There is a platform my party ran that I agree with...

So the fact that the leader of the party I belong to is pushing forward a platform I believe in

I am quite happy with that.

So you are right and I agree with you when you said "therefore your responsibility to not be silent & content."

That is why I posted this op.

Or do you think shifting times require different approaches? And what about the current times doesn't require such radical change and fighting against private industry?



Or...do you think they are both the same?

I am talking about the platform written and ran on in 2008.

They are not the same.. addressing different issues at different times in different centuries.. with different realities.

We, in these current times, do not require such extreme government intervention in the interest of the people?

"and it is therefore your responsibility to not be silent & content".

It is also my responsibility to say and stand up for what I believe in and voted for and not just sit on the side lines.

I am not being silent on this fact, that I am happy with how this President is trying to get through the platform.

And believe it or not, Im not "sniping" at you, but trying to have an elevated discussion that is absent often these days on this board.


Its your right to "believe" in the platform (and subsequently, its manifestation into policy, which is more of a concern to me). Its just not universally "right" is my point. :)

:) ... I will be back in a couple of hours .. family is here for Sunday dessert..

"...and never will be"

It would have been so much more concise and just as accurate.

Is this how it is? You don't care about the effects of policy but only the that its passed by your victorious policy?

Im sorry, but I feel a better pre-requisite for being a Democrat and liberal is caring about the people winning, rather than caring about if a party wins. If you do not feel a party is on the side of the people, it is your job to attempt to change such a party.

Excuse me for attempting to participate in an intellectual discussion. Now back to smearing Kucinich and just making up other people's positions to attempt to cheaply win an internet argument.

:P

Thanks.

Hekate

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

I personally am in favor of this so I congratulate the president
on a wise policy. It will go a long way in ABSOLVING innocent people
wrongly accused of a crime.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest

.... he has to look after the best interests of the country as a whole. The progressives and the moderates AND the independents AND the conservatives AND the neocons AND the teabaggers and, yes, even the darned libertarians. (Note: I said "best interests" which is not to be confused with "special interests.")

As he pointed out on election night, he's EVERYONE's President, whether we like him or not.

It's easy to want him to base his agenda around the Dem. party platform, but we have to do it in a way that demonstrates to those outside of the party that WE really are the party that bests leads America, best takes care of her citizens, is the best ambassador to the world, or we will give the GOP the opportunity to lead.

That's one reason why Barack Obama was elected. George Bush and the GOP forgot that important fact.

Are you trying to break the brains of the "Obama equals Bush" folks here?

:rofl:

he is selling is the product of a C student.