Any good reason our new administration should NOT do the following things?

[Ken Burch]

1) Immediately end the economic embargo on Cuba?

2) Join the World Court?

3) Close or radically reform the School Of The Americas?

4) Ratify the UN Convention on Genocide?

From where I see it, we'd lose nothing in any of those steps and we'd gain a lot of global respect.

Anybody think of any possible reasons to maintain the Republican status quo on those issues instead?

(this is about persuading the president WE elected to do these things, NOT attacking him, so nobody but conservative Republicans have any reason to be angry about this thread).

[BlooInBloo]

1. Yes: Because he lives for nothing so much as to betray "true progressives"...

He cackles himself to sleep every night, planning his next betrayal.

[Ken Burch]

2. Dude, I wasn't ATTACKING Obama. This is an argument for DOING these things, not a slam. Peace out.

Why the automatic hostility?

And would you like to actually answer the thread questions?

We're now out of the period when it's legitimate to demand that nobody ask anything of our president.

(If not, may I assume that you agree that there's no good reason not to do these things?)

[Skittles]

4. it's called blind adoration, Ken

learn to Ignore it

[damonm]

3. Can't think of a one...

1 & 3 are failed or failing - what's the definition of insanity?

2 & 4 are just good ideas.

[FrenchieCat]

5. He's got 1,425 days......

I'm sure he'll get to these issues one way or another, ASAEC!

[Ken Burch]

6. Well, It doesn't hurt to bring them up.

Responses like Bloo in Bloo's help nothing though.

Can't people trust that a thread like this is NOT an attack, but instead sincere and positive issue advocacy?

Remember, the president WE elected said he wants us to be involved.

[vaberella]

8. Thanks Frenchie, you summed up my post in about 12 words.

[vaberella]

7. I'll answer a few.

First off let me say I'm a bit pissed off by these threads that keep popping up why Obama hasn't, isn't or won't be doing such and such. People are expecting miracles in a mere month that hasn't been done in the past 40-60 years. It makes me wonder if Clinton had gone through the same, or even if Gore made such promises before Dems were going to vote for him in numbers. Let's be serious. You have to give the man and his administration time to look at not only the details, or situations, that we ar not privy too before taking actions. If people sat and thought throw things they wouldn't be putting such demand and making their list or what they feel needs to be done or what is on the agenda for the progressive thinker. Every progressive has a to-do list and wants things done, and each is subjective and has a sort of "mandated timeline"; added to this some have longer lists than others. Then you have the right-wingers who also have a time line that might appeal to some Dems and that has to be weighted as well. Not to mention any information that there is assymetric information. Meaning, there are many things we may find horrendous but there could be viable reasoning for it, that we know nothing about. Sure that doesn't mean it's correct, but it does mean that if we were in power we'd have problems as to what to do about them. Remember Obama said he and his staff will be looking at everything before making any solid decisions. He can make a few, but there will be a few that may take longer than others...that being said I'll continue on with my answers.


1. I personally would prefer they end the embargo with Cuba. But keep in mind that Obama has been president for what? A little over a month. I'm sure he's going to start making some changes in regards to Cuba because he will see Cuba as being punished enough and there is no other reason but for political/traditional reasoning. With four years to go, he might be able to focus on it after focusing on the elements of our economy and social structure later on. I don't think there needs to be a rush decision on it, since this has been in the works for a while. Right now he's dealing with a major economic crisis that is taking down the US. Bankers are acting stupid and basically fucking WS, so there could be a chance of more problems.

2. The World Court, I'm assuming you mean the ICC? As in the International Criminal Court, if we do that we have serious problems with our world leaders being taken captive and causing some unrest. Remember there is a lot the US could be facing and reparations or some sort of reparations that will be needed to be paid or done. I don't see this being a problem in relation to me. However, I can see Clinton being taken into this sort of court system, we have Kissinger who would probably the first to go and since this new Gov doesn't even want to touch the Bush admin, be sure the ICC will do it. Not to mention the ICC is still making up it's laws and getting things together. When I last worked for a coalition for the ICC, which was admittedly years ago, the main problem facing the US was not only because of it's war crimes was because the laws were a bit broad and went against a few of US regs...of course that could have changed. I could see Obama and his admin actually considering this however, they would have to see if it's in their best interest and I personally think it is, but considering all the people in our past political heirarchy of power....it might not be and seen as problematic. Not to mention it would hold presidents accountable in their actions and possibly mistakes <---which may not be seen as a positive.


3. School of the Americas. Good point here...I'd support a reformation since the plan was to reform. They make claims they have reformed it and considering that the last horrible dictator that came out of that school was about 15 years ago or so...there might not be a need to actually do anything. However, I respect the watch team for it and I do think there needs to be some other changes in regards to transparency. I agree with this, but this is something else that can take a back seat.

4. I have no clue why. This is definitely something they could do now or in the future.

Again I get the feeling there is a lot of informationt that we the people are not privy too when it comes in relation to the Government. So that being said, there could be valid reasons. I get the feeling that on a few of these conditions the Obama admin will look into but give them some time. I don't see the massive rush and lists people on DU keep making. I always get the feeling it's a way to undermine the gains that Obama has made in the short time he has taken office. There seems to be a lack of patience, forthwith, and understanding when it comes to him, his decision making, and his administration. I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk about it and discuss these issues that matter and have some weight in importance. But many of these posts imply that he's going Republican and doing republican. Remember Obama is still chosing his cabinet and having them verified by the committee, yet people are jumping down this throat. So it's not about you not "trying" to attack, it's the undermining affect it presents.

[Ken Burch]

9. Most of us are just trying to keep these things from being lost in the shuffle

The thread title was NOT "Why hasn't that bastard Obama done everything yet".

Could we have a LITTLE trust here, please?

I do appreciate your other responses, although I hope you wouldn't really complain about certain of our past leaders being taken into foreign custody. Is there any good reason Kissinger SHOULDN'T finish his days rotting in a jail in Chile or East Timor or Cambodia? And on foreign policy, Clinton DID sign off on some fairly bad stuff, so why shouldn't he face consequences for it?
We should be under the same constraints on bad behavior that other civilized countries accept.

You raise a good point about whether Clinton was subject to pressure from below while he was president.

Part of the reason what I'll call "accountability threads" keep popping up is that Clinton was NEVER held to ANY accountability by our party while he was president, and as a result showed no respect for the base or for our party's principles.

This was a man who was allowed to pretend he was still a Democrat even after he threw THE POOR(a group Democrats have a moral obligation to defend from all attack)under the bus in '96, a choice that didn't gain him a single vote. Progressives remember this, and that's why we are determined not to let it happen again.

Those who start threads like this(and again, this was about pushing for these things, NOT attacking Obama, and you have to accept that) are trying to make sure that our leaders remember that they're obligated to respect the party and what it's about. Nothing undermining about that. Nothing good has ever come to this party from silencing or ignoringn activists. Nothing good has ever come from leaving the whole thing to "the grownups". And we all know that if we did just leave it to Rahm, this admin wouldn't be a millimetre to the left of Clinton's and might be several kilometres to the right.

[vaberella]

11. I realise what your post was intending.

I'm just saying the feeling the post would arise. It's not to say that it's even your post solely, it's the array of posts that have come up in the same vein on this thread, when he's been in office so little. If I had not "trusted" you, I wouldn't have responded.

I would far from complain. I personally think Kissinger belongs in solitary confinement in some hole with one meal a day of gruel. I agree about Clinton as well. And I fully agree with you on constraints, but I think that it's what keeps so many of our Presidents from signing off on that. They don't want to take accountability and be held responsible for their mistakes. We won't put them in prison, but the ICC can, well they could claim too.

I agree with you in regards to Clinton 100%. I realize that "some" may be creating these threads to keep Obama in line however, I think there is only so much Obama can do. You have to realize and I think this is what many on this board forget...everyone is putting so much pressure on Obama, who is getting pressure from other agents. I get the feeling that Obama would love to do a lot of things, but he's constrainted by the demands of people and things that have been in place by outside agents, upon president, after president. In order for things to happen is that Progressives have to stop depending on the President entirely and to actually crush the outside entities in the first place.

Take for example Banking. In order for Obama to really get shit going, and I mean dump this crap on tax cuts, stop the bailout is to focus on crushing the Banks themselves. What that means..is letting Wall Street fail, which it's threatening to do. The banks are not getting much of anything in this new stimulus bill so their messing with the market since them and a few rich people have access to them. Let them collaspe the market, that won't collapse the nation. The market was what got us into this in the first place. The banks can stay in place but we take control...ie nationalize it and then put in stiff regulatory problems and then sort of allow it to become independent...well sort of.

It's a bit radical, but the idea is that progressives are too dependent on Obama when we allknow we live in a political society and as such he's under other pressures. So we have to take action to get things done on our own and that allows him the free manoevering of sorts to take care of the rest, that is if you get my meaning. So this idea that Obama has to do that or this and all these threads are seemingly, at times coming from people who claim the title of Progressive but aren't doing their part in giving Obama the room to get things done. We got the man we need to make change and he's making changes where he can. However, to get more things done we need to be on the asses of those who might have some say in what goes on. That means when are on the ass of the BD Dems (when they get too repub for their own good). We to take the citizenry step to be actionary and do our own homework on some officials and report them to our congressmen and whoever might listen and put the heat so we can get things done.

Again, because Obama holds the highest office doesn't mean he's not facing his own constraints. We need to provide the evidence, because everything is lawfull and get things done. Do you see the Madoff thing as a great example. People are becoming aware and Markopolis wasn't heard before, but now he is. This is what activists need to work on. Get the sleazy criminals and bring forth the evidence where the state could or public officials could bring up the case. We now have the avenue where those things can't be ignored and when that's done Obama will have room for change. It's one thing to aim for the politician and put political pressure, but with no evidence it's worthless.

This is just something I've been realizing more and more.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Has There Been An Indication It Won't, Or Is This Thread Just Here For No Reason?

[vaberella]

12. There's no indication...I mentioned that in my post too.

As for no reason..I mean bringing voice to some of the issues of Progressives is valid. I also had the indication that the post might have implied that Obama won't do anything about it, when he's still working to get things done one at a time.

[Ken Burch]

14. There's been no indication that it won't.

This is just about keeping these things in play.

[Occam Bandage]

13. No, Yes, No, No. Is there evidence he won't? His term's still in the stage where most Presidents

are still trying to figure out what they want their first proposals to be.

(As for the ICC? I'd demand that the ICC not prosecute Americans for committing crimes that occurred before the date Obama joined. That's too much like stripping ex post facto protections from American citizens. I'm for prosecuting Bush, but for prosecuting him under domestic courts.)

[Ken Burch]

15. You do realize that no domestic prosecutor will ever have the ovaries to do it, right?

n/t.