A continuous misunderstanding I see on the board...

A lot of people have said that Obama has surrounded himself with the wrong people in his White House Staff.

I find that to be utterly incorrect. We're talking about law making here. Laws that are progressive and innovative is what we need and demand, correct?

WE surrounded him with the wrong people! The American people failed to give him the progressive tilt (irrespective if they are Repubs or Democrats---YES! Republicans CAN and HAVE BEEN Progressive----YES! For all intents and purposes---Snowe and Collins ARE PROGRESSIVES! And have shown to be so consistently!!!). This is further proved by the fact that extreme Repubs have taken the house.

If it's true (and I don't see that but I find that Dems, are generally lazy when it's not the GE) that "the Left" or "Obama's base" failed to vote because they're upset with him for some reason or another--- then they would have now managed to make the nation that much worse. If the above thought is true...then it would be our fault that the nation has moved progressively worse and has remained progressively worse. People may have voted for Dem without checking background---meaning are they pushing what we want in the sense of a progressive wide spread view. Then Blue Dogs lost seats. That doesn't mean that America wanted Liberals in power that's why the liberals managed to remain. That's hardly the truth, although I've seen many on the Left push this meme. If that was the case then the House would never have gotten eaten by so many EXTREME Repubs---they would have kept at least a few moderate Republicans in office.


In any case, Obama had a difficult situation when he went into office. No one can deny that. And I'm not speaking about the economic situation---but the coma-induced dog that is the Congress (it woke up for a short time during the lame-duck season---maybe it was the talk of duck). What does that mean? It doesn't matter who the CoS staff is, if you have a crew that has ALWAYS said they will not work with the President and FILIBUSTER all of his agendas or halt all of his office appointees then you have a group of people who do not want to work with who we have in power and who don't give a flying fuck about the CoS would say or do.

I think people have failed to say this because they want in some way to diverge responsibilty. There has to be some time or another we have to see that the real problem is not always Obama. It's getting the American people on message and making sure our Representatives are on message. In order to do that we have to have a consensus as to the message. One can't say, poll 3 states that the nation is more Liberal---yet the House proves otherwise. That doesn't add up---especially also when the House even while had Dems had DLCers or Blue Dogs who sounded more Repub than anything. Keep in mind it was House Dem reps who wrote letters saying they wouldn't support the removal of Bush tax cuts for rich---or did we forget that. It was Congress in general who FAILED twice to remove the tax cuts of the rich. It was not Obama, like so many like to believe. The vote was dead on arrival because of Congress.

I find that, even if it there was a progressive tilt---with a Republican leaning Congress---no matter what you might think. Obama's progressive agenda would always be thwarted. He doesn't have the back up. People say FDR---he had a nation in duress and people wouldn't to do anything to turn things around. And he managed to do a lot. Obama has a set of people who would rather watch the nation fail in order to ensure he fails. THEY EVEN SAID SO!! So I'm trying to see how Obama is supposed to twist arms and get things done. We're not in the 20s and 30s or even 40s where a few death threats from Al Capone would get the nation to turn your way (I realize that government never ran this way---it's an OTT statement). We've got to work with what we have here. And unfortunately Obama has no one. William Daley, I find, even if he was a leftist---would NEVER achieve anything with this Congress. Let's be real now.

I don't see many on this site taking responsibility for their representatives and some of you guys lives in Red leaning Reps. Why aren't we seeing that even Blue leaning districts puts in people who do not have a liberal agenda. This is irrespective of political leaning actually. Why aren't people voting in moderate leaning Repubs? Does the American public even realize there's a difference?

I think we need to be honest with ourselves here...that Obama has done very well with the impediment of government structure he's been dealing. However when people claim he's not "progressive enough"--which I state is due to his Congress. Or his pick of Daley as CoS ---because he's not a progressive. A progressive once again IS NOT A POLITICAL leaning. Let's get that straight. PROGRESSIVISM HAS NO PARAMETERS. This means that incremental change is as equally significant as sweeping change. Progress can never be too little--change towards something better is still change with the broader intention in the horizon. The political climate just gives us the results. It is a way of thinking and that is all. That means anyone can be a progressive---that means you can be a Republican and Progressive. Therefore---Daley for all intents and purposes could be a Progressive.

Aside from this point---the real issue is who we have backing up the President in the Legislative branch---who also appoints the Judicial back up for Obama (sadly enough). The Legislative branch is singularly important and can be extremely destructive as well as supportive to our development. We need to see that we have to get these people in order.

Obama's staff is not really the issue for legislative change and never has been. We have to get the public informed. I see way too much whinging in the blogosphere or even this board about things that we need to change through actual activity. If we work this year to put some Liberal Dems in Congress this year----that's one step. If we push like beasts to find and support Dem and Independent liberal Reps in the House---that's the second key. People want significant liberal change. Find the candidates and put them out there and pimp them out. Then we'll see something.

I've already talked to someone and I'm starting a site on this. Hopefully it will be launched in the next 2 months. It will list all incumbents and candidates. Only those who are progressive leaning. I will not touch progressive Repubs...yeah I find Snowe and Collins tolerable and they're strong in their community. However, there are many Dem candidates that are progressive but aren't spoken about or ignored---McAdams in Alaska was one of them. I think there were probably 80 more.

In any event...I just wanted to comment on that and my solution to do something active to give Obama the progressive leaning back up. Progressive leaning Reps in Congress will get what we want in the end. And I think this CoS talk is a divergence from the real issue at hand...our own failure as citizens to get the reps we deserve and need to meet our agenda.

-Edited to clarify some points.

to change that the people develop themselves. The people can decide for themselves what they will and will not give to see things change for the better.

One of the intrinsically relevant qualities, which would be different between ANY kind of change mandated by "authority" from the top down compared to change that grows out of the grassroots themselves, would be the quality known as sustainability, which is something that we REALLY need in order to actually solve several of our problems.

ANY kind of change that proposes increased levels of HARM TO OTHERS is not only not sustainable (because it doesn't actually solve) it ALSO gives us strategically insurmountable political problems in trying to enact that kind of change through "our" representation, because it puts us in the position of being hypocrites who say "Harm is bad, unless it is harm proposed by the Left."

No matter how right anyone is about what needs to happen and why, if the process by means of which you bring that about increases harm to others, your case against the status quo and FOR change is nullified before you can even make it politically.

For example, no matter how right "the Left" is about how we got into this situation, no matter how wonderful their vision is, no matter how much it solves, if the processes by means of which that comes about harm others, and especially if harm is prolonged and likely ir-revocable, HOW do you say to those who oppose the kinds of change proposed by "the Left", "We must change, because your way of doing things is hurting people"? Doesn't the Right get to say, "The way that you propose to change things is going to hurt people too"? We would have NO way to make a case against the harm they are causing if we make an exception in that regard for ourselves. That kind of exception makes us = them and the grounds for change disappear.

This is not to say that change is going to come without pain, but just that no process that does not honestly recognize and design to control for that up front would be functional, so why bother with that kind of "change"?

Step #1 in designing to control pain caused by change as much as possible: Begin at the bottom, not the top.

There really is no unity...well not in a strong majority and no understanding of what the agenda is in order to have the reps we need in office to reflect the goal. I think at times the Left rarely and clearly lack to really explain their position, or even do it in a way that refutes the right logically. A good example is even Dean in this situation. He considers himself the left and a progressive who supports Daley. I have no opinion either way, but I can tell you that after hearing Dean I was not convinced. Taking a chance is not what people want to hear. They want reasonable response with plausibility. I'd have to say if I was the left who wanted to ensure the confidence of the right or even other leftists---Dean would have failed miserably.


Thanks for the response.

I don't mean necessarily IN church, but more WHAT they are doing and how they do it.

.....heard otherwise. To the point of your post, she had to have been elected with a lot of Democrats votes; why didn't they vote for the Democrat???? He sounded pretty prgressive to me.

Most Dems also believed he had no chance considering that Miller had gathered a lot of support and seemed to lead in all polls. The Dems didn't want to lose or waste their votes on a man who might lose. This is also the case for Meeks and Crist who managed to split the Dem vote amongs themselves assuring Rubio to win.

:hi:

There is lack of push to get "real" progressives on the national stage...they are normally subjugated to regional or no voice. Well if we're looking for progressives we need them in office. More often than not you'll find that Dems and Liberals are more Progressives, but of course this is not to say that Repubs can't be. However I cater to the former.

Especially in my red state, the Dems are soooooooooooo passive, regressing to the mean constantly.

There are a few like me who are working with them though; OFA has been around. We'll see where it all goes.

the public option had it passed. Progressives keep complaining that Obama didn't get it, rather than complaining that Congress didn't do it. Had Obama vetoed a bill because it had a public option they'd have been justified. Progressives treat him as if he'd done just that. And don't bother to criticize Lieberman or the Senate. What they should be mad at is the Senate, the filibuster rules of today, and Lieberman.

Obama was not going to allow himself to be cornered into a veto so it was killed before moving on. Lieberman is a patsy.

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

That's taking it too far.

Nutty conspiracy theory stuff, that.

a veto.

You have no proof he wouldn't veto a plan with a public option, the evidence is he killed it in the crib. Your magical thinking doesn't fix the reality. He killed it long before Lieberman and friends pretending to do so.

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

Since I don't know what you're defining to be corporatist. Since I'm sure I can counter each think you call corporatism with something as equally progressive. Not to mention do you think that if CONGRESS was progressive that Obama would not sign into law progressive things. He' spoken on several progressive platforms but when came to a vote in Congress many of them have failed because Congress is corrupt. I'm utterly boggled when others don't recognize this.

There are too many right-leaning decisions that he has made that have nothing to do with resistance from Republicans for me to believe that he's some kind of liberal pragmatist.

I outline Obama's betrayals of the left here: http://laelth.blogspot.com/2010/12/kissing-butt-and-taking-names-obamas.html

-Laelth

Their party who believes that DADT should not be repealed. And if I remember strongly believed in health care reform---despite the agenda of their party---who say one thing but believe something else entirely. You don't know the definition of progressive if you think they are not. The decision to even go with it is important to recognize. Why? Because those positions, amongst many others are VERY progressive ideas.

Therefore, his cabinet will reflect that. It is what it is. Take it at face value instead of projecting what you want to see.

Progressivism is not like Liberal or Right wing---it is not political ideological party.

It seems you are saying that even Republicans can be progressives in the ideological political sense.

I do think that Obama is making plenty of progress for the Republican party though.

I posted this in a separate post by itself, but it's worth a new link.

http://spilledink.net/?p=177

The Progressive Party was a party, and there is much 'tradition' and context that can be learned from that history. Rather than argue with you, I'd like to pm some links to you. Hope you will take a look. Amazing history.

Theodore Roosevelt's, Robert LaFollette's, or Henry Wallace's? There is a pretty broad spectrum of ideology between Roosevelt and Wallace, with LaFollette falling somewhere in the middle.

She says that Obama is working his ass off for us and that we don't recognize this because we are ungrateful putzes. For her, and those who think like her, it's all about how great and smart Obama is. It's cult-like behavior.:crazy: