Questioning what the president 'stands for' is an old political ploy

[bigtree]

. . . most often a tool of the minority, but just as often used by those whose personal policy prescriptions have been left out in the cold. It's an attempt to brush off everything the president has said and done so far and wipe his political slate clean to make room for someone's own agenda. That's fair enough, I guess. Politics is like that. But this president has been clear that his core agenda is to work to solve the problems we face, together, without adhering to rigid ideologies which only serve to divide.

To acknowledge the president's sincerity in his earnestness to find solutions to the problems we face doesn't prevent any outright criticism of those efforts at all. But we should first acknowledge that he does have an agenda; of which many planks and initiatives certainly deserve Democratic support.

Second, we should recognize that he's just now finished his first year of working to implement that agenda. It's been said, but needs repeating often, that the problems he's inherited were allowed to fester and grow throughout Bush's eight-year term. Mr. Obama didn't create the bad economy; didn't initially commit our nation to the dual occupations he's working to manage to an end; wasn't the one who exploited the 9-11 terror attacks and proliferated the nation and government with anti-democratic laws and practices; wasn't the one who let industry write the regulations intended to govern them; isn't the one who stood in the way and organized resistance and obstruction to our social needs and concerns.

Most importantly, the president isn't in any position to dictate his agenda to the divided, reflexively-centrist, functionally conservative Congress that we're now graced with. Much of his focus in this early stage of his presidency has been to work to achieve things both parties have said they agree should happen, and to take a precious chunk of his political capital and work to achieve his promise of health insurance reform.

A great deal of the progressive energy was drained out of the early days of his term by the Herculean task he was faced with in preventing what many had decided was an economic catastrophe threatening to permanently cripple our credit markets. The rest of the pixie dust from the election was spent (in my view) on lingering in Iraq and escalating the occupation in Afghanistan.

But, despite my disagreements with the president, I do believe there is a government right now (a Democratic-led one) to appeal to and lobby with the expectation that there will be some level of responsiveness to our concerns. It may seem like a small thread to hearken back to the dark days of the previous fascist-minded autocrats in office, and to reflect on the positive change in tone, accessibility, and agenda of this new administration.

Yet, the tenor of that change is an opportunity for us to build on our political advantage by continuing to challenge and motivate the political system with our activism and advocacy; this time with an expectation that we will be heard and considered by our Democrats in power. That's not a guarantee, but it's nothing less than what our democracy offers and demands. I expect the days ahead to hold the most opportunity for progressive change in my lifetime. Despite the resistance our progressive agendas are facing, our Democratic party has the floor and the attention of the nation.

I think the return of David Plouffe is an excellent opportunity for the president to restate and sharpen his agenda; not necessarily redefine it. I like his admonition in the WP about resisting 'bed-wetting' and standing ready to fight, in the next congressional election and beyond, for the issues we want to advance into action or law.

"This will be a tough election for our party and for many Republican incumbents as well, Mr. Ploffe wrote in his must-read article: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204216_pf.html)

"Instead of fearing what may happen, let's prove that we have more than just the brains to govern -- that we have the guts to govern. Let's fight like hell, not because we want to preserve our status, but because we sincerely believe too many everyday Americans will continue to lose if Republicans and special interests win."

"This country is at a crossroads. We are trying to boost the economy in the short term while also doing the long-term work on health care, energy, education and financial reform that will lay a strong foundation for decades to come. Let's remember why we won in 2008 and deliver on what we promised . . ."

Remember why we won and deliver what we promised. That's where our Democratic president stands; that's what I believe he'll be looking to reaffirm to the American people in his SOTU.

[bigtree]

1. .

[goclark]

18. K and R this well thought out post nt

[Winterblues]

2. Remember why we won and deliver what we promised.

I'm waiting...Biggest Defense Budget in America's history, escalated War effort in Afghanistan, Still well over a hundred thousand troops in Iraq, AIG is still too big to fail and paying largest bonuses in their history. Freezing spending for cancer research while increasing spending for the War Machine, All Republican criminals go unpunished,

[bigtree]

3. we're all waiting

I really didn't expect the big issues to be resolved in an year, tho. I think the freeze will be doa, btw.

[hfojvt]

4. I am sorta dreading another

"the era of Big Government is over". Like somebody else here said "tax credits and spending freezes, where have I heard that before?" Did we elect a Democrat just to get Republican rhetoric and Republican economic policy?

[bigtree]

5. well, if you just focus on that one (lousy) proposal

. . . but, I don't see that as the totality of the president's economic plan or policy, or even the drift.

here's the president yesterday at his 'Middle Class Task Force' Meeting where he and the vice-president outlined their economic and job initiatives: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-and-vice-president-middle-class-task-force-meeting


PRESIDENT: Joe and I are going to keep on fighting for what matters to middle class families: An education that gives our kids a chance in life; new, clean energy economy that generates the good jobs of the future; meaningful financial reform that protect consumers; and health reform that prohibits the worst practices of the insurance industry and restores some stability and peace of mind for middle class families.

None of these steps alone will solve all the challenges facing the middle class. Joe understands that; so do I. So do all my members of the Cabinet and our economic team. But hopefully some of these steps will reestablish some of the security that's slipped away in recent years. Because in the end, that's how Joe and I measure progress -- not by how the markets are doing, but by how the American people are doing. It's about whether they see some progress in their own lives.

So we're going to keep fighting to rebuild our economy so that hard work is once again rewarded, wages and incomes are once again rising, and the middle class is once again growing. And above all, we're going to keep fighting to renew the American Dream and keep it alive -- not just in our time, but for all time.

So, again, to our team -- and that includes, by the way, the folks over here -- thank you for the great work that you've done. I'm excited about a lot of the proposals that you've come up with. And we expect that we're going to be able to get some of these critical initiatives passed soon so that folks can get some help right away.

[dotymed]

8. I worked for Obama's election.

I think you are one of those "party before people" posters. I believe what I see. It has been very disappointing. Now, the "spending freeze" in the depths of a recession (depression really)....wake up...

[bigtree]

12. I don't think we can accomplish anything

. . . by simply wringing our hands or hitting the door, like some here are suggesting. The political system is as it's been since I've been aware and participating. We still need to remain active and engaged. More importantly, the opposition benefits from vacuums in our support.

Sometimes we have to choose (after the primary is over) between supporting an objectionable Democrat and a republican. With the exception of clear republicrats, like lieberman and specter, I'll choose the Democrat every time . . . in my effort to put the people first. We always need to consider the alternative and avoid leaving the floor to the republican opposition. It's just damn irresponsible to let the republican candidate have all of the advantage of support, imo.

[dotymed]

38. Damn,

don't you understand? The "opposition" benefited from our support. The ONLY chance we have is if we can get true Progressives in Congress to leave the democratic party and form a Progressive party.

[Hekate]

42. How's that working for you so far? Forming a Progressive Party to get "true progressives" into Cong-

... Congress? Or even City Council?

I ask that because for years I've been telling hot young super-liberals their particular splinter won't get to Congress or the White House in one electoral season, but if they start running a flood of candidates for local offices they will certainly make strides in that direction fairly rapidly.

25 years ago I was in at the founding of a local group dedicated to getting Democratic women into office, the "Our town's name here" Women's Political Committee. They set their agenda, agreed on the goals, worked out the means, and ended up electing three mayors, at least half the city council, and getting at least two and sometimes three members on the 5-member county board of supervisors. One of their members became a state assemblywoman. Not bad for a group that originally was comprised of schoolteachers, lawyers, at least one nurse (who is now in the US House), and assorted community volunteers. The new mayor was originally a college intern mentored on the Committee, who served on the city council before running for mayor this year.

I don't see any of these women running for US Senate soon, but then we have Barbara Boxer and DiFi already in place. But imagine if many counties in many states had an energetic and focused group like this one...

And imagine if the Greens or Progressives were likewise as energetic and focused.

It could happen.

Hekate

[dotymed]

46. That is great.

I would love to have already elected (D) Progressives, change from Democrat to Progressive party. It never hurts to work for something you believe in..

[bigtree]

6. kick

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Yes, I know he can't solve everything at once, but...

sending more troops into Afghanistan and providing corporate welfare for the insurance companies are steps in the WRONG DIRECTION. Really big steps. Really wrong direction.

[grantcart]

9. k and r

[Scurrilous]

10. K & R

:thumbsup:

[pattmarty]

11. You're wrong. You just can't/won't believe your lying eyes.

[bigtree]

15. I'm going to rely on my years participating in the political process

. . . and trust my impression that we need to build on what we have now if we want to realize progressive change. The president is just one part of that process. I just don't think his influence is as pernicious as many of his Democratic critics here have described. That doesn't mean that I don't have strong reservations and objections about certain policy decisions or actions. I just have an experienced appreciation for the elevation of our majority and the opportunity it provides to advance our concerns into action or law. Not a guarantee, but an opportunity.

[Cha]

16. No, he's not wrong..he's dead right.

[pattmarty]

19. See what he says in the State of the Union. In the first year he has...........

........done shit. He has 3 more left. Let's hope in this last 3 he actually fights for and accomplishes some of his campaign proposals.

[Cha]

22. Bullshit, President Obama has accomplished

more in one year than any other President.

In spite of what the regressives in denial on the internet spew every chance they get.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144246/has_obama_done_more_than_any_other_president_in_their_first_year/

Professor Watson list of President Obama's Accomplishments..

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/angellight/2009/11/90-accomplishments-of-pres-oba.php

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Right, the Amy Klobuchar approach to "accomplishment"

Claim victories on relatively insignificant issues (even if they're good, they're still not the MAIN issues) and waffle on the important ones, like joblessness (especially outsourcing and other cheap labor issues), corporate control of the government, and the bloodsuckers in the military-industrial complex.

All with the excuse that none of these are "politically feasible."

Except that somehow, all the bad stuff remains "politically feasible."

I don't care what all the usual DLC suspects tell me. I see what's happening all around me. I hear what real people are talking about, even crying about, and due to my various non-work activities, I interact with a broad range of social classes.

I dare all the DLCers to go out into the coffee shops and diners in America's non-Beltway inner cities, suburbs, and rural areas and ask people what their biggest problems are and what they think of the Obama administration. Don't argue. Just listen, because even if the ideology is wrong, the anger and frustration and sorrow are REAL. You'll hear that neither party cares for ordinary people.

I lived through the Reagan recession as an adult. This feels worse.

If the Democrats don't start rocking the corporate boat and making some bold moves that knock down the fat cats, they're through.

I DOUBLE DARE you to go out and talk to real people. Perhaps, in their ignorance, they believe what Fox News tells them, that Obama is "too far left" or "a Marxist" (as if!), but you will hear such stories of pain and frustration that you will be ashamed of your unquestioning support for a very disappointing president.

[Cha]

31. More bullshit from another regressive in denial..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Wow, I am so swayed by your cogent and logical arguments

:sarcasm:

[Cha]

33. More regressive denial.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Yawn

Gee, who should I believe, a known DLC apologist on a message board or what I see and hear in real life?

Hmm, such a difficult decision...

[Cha]

35. Yeah, you are so fucking boring.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. You should talk!

I know who I am, and I know who the suffering people I meet are.

I have a pretty good idea who you (and several of your buddies on this thread) are, but the mods warn me if I say it, so I'm done here.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Mithreal]

44. Cha, Lydia's argument was well stated and deserves a substantive response

To just name call in response works against your argument.

[pattmarty]

39. You put it in a lot nicer version than I ever could. I tend to be blunt.

[pattmarty]

36. Okaaaaaaaaaaay. My opinion it's Bill Clinton part deux so far...............

..........AND Bill Clinton was no liberal/progressive. You may want to look back in history to LBJ or FDR. They both were true liberals in their domestic agendas. Maybe you will continue to deceive yourself and wait for the revolution. For what it's worth I voted for him AND change also.

[Mithreal]

43. This President Obama accomplished more than any other President is getting stale

From your first link, If health care reform is completed by mid-January, Weisberg argues, the president will deliver a State of the Union address in a couple of months "having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency."

That is not a given and the first year is over, no health care bill.

The list in your second link is more substantive. However I can't help but think if other Presidents had people working so hard to prove they did more in the first year, their list of accomplishments would be easily as large.

Just look at the first 5. I will leave it to others to see the weakness in the argument and I don't think it is just a matter of perspective.

1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women

4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB


I have seen other articles that depended upon a triangulating argument of sorts. I won't look for examples unless you really want an explanation.

I have an idea. I think reasonable people can question President Obama's list of accomplishments. Might I suggest what I think is a more productive way to deal with this.

My idea is that like the Top10 Conservative Idiots List and other related lists, we should make a weekly progress report on the President's and Democrats's accomplishments. Only positives would be unwelcome, for it to be honest it must tell the good, the bad, and the middle. The reason I suggest this is because it defuses people who are frustrated and didn't see what was done that was positive. It also would be a naked truth to anyone who was looking to objectively judge progress?

What do you think?

[greenbird]

13. K&R

Well said.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. well said,

glad to rec. this.

:hi:

[cheapdate]

17. Right on bigtree. n/t

[Techn0Girl]

20. I know EXACTLY what Obama Now Stands for - I don't question it at all ...

Obama campaigned on the public option - after he gained office he gave away sweetheart deals to the Pharmacy Industry and Private Insurance.

Obama campaigned on getting rid of Gitmo and closing down secret CIA sites. After he gained office he decided to keep them in operation.

Obama campaigned on getting rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell. After he gained office he decided not to deal with it .

Obama campaigned on turning around the economy , on creating jobs on creating green energy jobs. One year in Office and joblessness is higher than ever.

Obama campaigned on financial reform. One year in office and he have given trillions to Bankers who now have awarded themselves A FULL 1% of our ENTIRE GROSS DOMESTIC PROFIT IN YEARLY BONUSES this year (140 Billion).

I don't question what Obama stands for at all . I don't think anyone should

[pattmarty]

45. Bingo!!

[saracat]

21. I have never expected any President to solve everything overnight but

I do expect any president, including the current one to "try". There has been a lot of rhetoric and very little demonstrated effort. He has sacrificed all his political capital for faux bipartisanship at the expense of major goals. Everyday more capitulation is announced and some act as though this is expected and we ought to accept that this is the best we can do. I do not.

Early on Sen. Schumer stated that the democratic coalition was strong and the President could pass whatever health care plan he wanted. I actually believe that was true. I don't think he wanted a real HCR. He certainly didn't care much about a PO.I remember how excited I was when he announced he supported repeal of the health insurance anti-trust exemptions only to see that provision vanish into oblivion. Even John Stewart has pointed out how the Bush did way more to accomplish his goals with fewer votes in Congress.And that is a real disgrace.

We blame everything on Rahm, or the Blue Dogs but all this is don e with WH support. The President courted Rahm and appointed him. The President is not a puppet.The President did not stand up to the Blue Dogs in any manner.There is a real lack of leadership. The fact that the populace can't determine what the President stands for is deliberate. It is a messaging technique honed by Rahm and officially called "strategic ambiguity". It is a deliberate effort to appeal to all voters by standing for nothing.

The President has now got to step up to the plate and offer us more than "just word". The president has got to assume a position based on democratic values and demonstrate real leadership.He needs to get things done in a manner that actually accomplishes something and not just sign legislation to sign it.The president needs to give us a the genuine reason to hope that he promised in his campaign.

[mopinko]

23. right on

some people here, tho, ugh.

[JVS]

24. Yeah! "Questioning" is the oldest political ploy in the book!!!!!

Fuck questions!

[Mithreal]

30. Agreed, this started out kind of rough, created a particular frame of mind.

"rigid ideologies which only serve to divide."

Like ideology that puts the needs of Average Americans first or is pro-union or pro-peace.

There is some good stuff in this op though.

[TheKentuckian]

25. Trust me questioning where he stands is a lot more positive than where I assume he is

My questioning is the last vestiges of my benefit of the doubt. Personally, I'm seeing a global corporatist ready, willing, and able to continue the last generation of Reaganisim and I'm asking that my premise be proven utterly false and stuffed back in my face because...

All I see in change that I can no longer suspend disbelief for.

[Old Time Pagan]

26. What about the people he has chosen to advise him?

People like Geithner, Bernanke, and Summers who seem primarily concerned with how much loot Wall Street can stash away while being totally oblivious to the plight of Main Street.

As a small family farmer who worked for and contributed to the Obama campaign I am absolutely devastated and disheartened by his appointments in the area of agriculture. From the very top, appointing Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack is in bed with Monsanto and is a strong proponent of more GMO crops and agribusiness as usual. Obama has appointed former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety. Add in Islam Siddiqui, a pesticide industry lobbyist, appointed to the position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the list of Obama agriculture appointees is less than stellar.

That's my major problem with Obama, the people he's selecting for key appointments don't seem to be consistent with the campaign motto "change we can believe in."

Feel free to give me a reason to not be unhappy about this. I want to believe the man is who he claimed to be, his appointments make that difficult to believe.

[asjr]

27. How well stated and right on the money. We

can expect Republicans to "question" Obama. That is their meaning in life. We can question also, but at the same time I have much faith in him. After all, he is President.

[pinto]

28. Agree, the crux is the relationship of the Presidency and the Congress -

as well as entrenched Bush Administration appointees in the federal system.

Many of the reforms we advocate are, of necessity, a function of Congress, not Presidential fiat.

While President Obama may not be the progressive populist many thought, or hoped he would be, Congress most certainly is not. The Senate has always been maddeningly slow and deliberative in comparison to the House. The 110th is not so different than many earlier Congresses.

And the hold over neocon staffers in a bunch of federal departments are just that - neocons and obstructionists. Second that for most of the Republican representatives in Congress.

We're hearing renewed rumblings recently from the White House. Much of it with an eye on the mid-term elections and much, in my opinion, with an ear to Democratic (our) criticisms of both the Administration's first year - especially the lack of traditional "bully pulpit" access to the media - and the Congressional Democratic caucus' lack of cohesion around a clear, demonstrative, Democratic agenda. I hope the rumblings are echoed in the Congress and the public's perception.

We *are* at a crossroads, of sorts. One that has been in our sights since Reagan's Presidency.

What is the role of the federal government? Republican extremists literally want to dismantle it, piece by piece. We need to counter that, clearly. What makes for an effective federal government? Republican extremists propose that less is more. We need to counter that with a clear agenda that makes the case for a federal response, a federal role.

Thanks for your post.

[Hekate]

41. Thank you for that, bigtree. Very thoughtful. nt