"The biggest lie that people like me tell people like you during the election season is

[Radical Activist]

'If you vote for me, I’ll solve all your problems.’ The truth is that the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine."
-Howard Dean

Obama repeatedly said the same thing in his own way during his campaign. Why did so many people forget those words? Why do so many people think their only job is to sit back, relax and complain when Obama doesn't do it for them? Why are disappointments met with melodramatic denunciations of Obama instead of calls to put more pressure on the conservative Senate roadblock?

My biggest disappointment since Obama took office is the left's failure to effectively organize.

"It will not be easy. It will require struggle and sacrifice. There will setbacks and we will make mistakes. And that is why we need all the help we can get. So tonight I want to speak directly to all those Americans who have yet to join this movement but still hunger for change - we need you. We need you to stand with us, and work with us, and help us prove that together, ordinary people can still do extraordinary things.

...You see, the challenges we face will not be solved with one meeting in one night. Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for."
-Barack Obama

[jobycom]

1. The second biggest lie is always

"the power is in your hands, not mine." That's how a politician washes his hands of everything.

[Radical Activist]

2. Just when I think DU can't be more cynical...

[jobycom]

38. That's pretty much the same cynical. nt

[Occulus]

79. Although true, I *clearly* recall Obama telling us we would have to push him.

Now that people are pushing him, we get Gibbs et al.

And some, here and elsewhere, are defending against that.

I'd like to point out that those people, the ones saying "What do you want, President Palin?", are very much in the wrong. The "Professional Left" is much, much larger than they would like the rest of us to believe. Gene Lyons at Salon demonstrated this to great effect when he defended Gibbs' comments in this opinion piece and got his ass handed to him with sauce in the comments.

I wonder if they know they're in the minority on this. They certainly aren't behaving as though that's the case, but it quite clearly is.

[Hekate]

3. KnR. Sorry the Unreccing Crew has already been by.

I worked for Dean and Obama both. I liked what they both had to say about the power of change being in the hands of the people.

And I agree with your assessment.

Hekate

[Radical Activist]

55. I'm surprised that any recs are showing up at all.

My recs on anything positive about Obama never shows up.

[ieoeja]

65. For the record, this wasn't anything positive about Obama.

It was negative about the naysayers. Not the same thing.

And while I agree with what you say about them, I'm not in the habit of rec'ing negatives about DUers. Even the ones who suck.

Though this week has certainly challenged that habit.... In fact, I did something I have never done before. I started putting people on ignore. Even in the worst of the primary battles I did not do that.

But this week's ignores are only partially because I am sick and tired of their non-stop debbie-downerisms. It was also an experiment. I am not going to keep track of posters to see if they ever post anything pro-Obama or pro-Democratic. But by putting them on ignore, I could see if they ever post in the pro-threads.

And sure enough, we had Reagan economic advisors admitting they were wrong make DU's front-page for almost a whole day. And there were almost no Ignore posts in that thread. Further, it was clear from replies to most of that handful that they were posting anti-Obama/Democrat stuff even there.

[Cal33]

66. I have not yet UNrecc'ed anyone, and don't intend to.

People are free to have their opinions, whether I agree with them or not.

[Radical Activist]

69. You're right, it wasn't pro-Obama.

I'm arguing for a better organized left.

[secondwind]

4. K&R

[nofurylike]

5. hear, hear! k&r nt

[Luminous Animal]

6. Effectively organized? 70% of the people in this U.S. wanted a public option...

they didn't arrive at that opinion in a vacuum. Where was Obama?

[Radical Activist]

8. Obama was trying to get his bill with the public option through the Senate.

Were you? Personally, I don't get the obsession with that one issue, but if that's you're thing then how many doors did you knock on? How many organizing meetings did you attend? What did you do beyond calling your member of Congress?

[laughingliberal]

29. Yes, I was. The ads running against the Blue Dogs for opposing the PO were hitting home.

We drove support for the PO among the public to heights that astounded people. That is the way to get recalcitrant legislators on board-have so much public demand that they are afraid to vote against it. But we got called 'fucking retarded' for it and Rahm's Message Discipline team shamed our activist groups into shutting up. For someone who was trying to get the PO through the Senate, he sure did drive away everyone trying to help with that.

[Radical Activist]

50. awwwh boohooo

Did the poor babies get their little feelings hurt?
I can't believe people still nurse a petty grudge over Rahm's comment. It's a silly emotional appeal.

If any group gave up their plans only because of one line from Rahm then they're pathetic. They should have told Rahm to go fuck himself and done it anyway. I hope they had a better reason if they didn't follow through with their plans. If not, then they were too weak for politics anyway.

[Zenlitened]

77. False framing. And clumsily done, no less.

[Zenlitened]

76. Yep. And yet there are still people on DU who think the bully pulpit idea...

... is all about communicating to specific legislators in order to get them to change their vote.

We drove support for the PO among the public to heights that astounded people. That is the way to get recalcitrant legislators on board-have so much public demand that they are afraid to vote against it. But we got called 'fucking retarded' for it and Rahm's Message Discipline team shamed our activist groups into shutting up. For someone who was trying to get the PO through the Senate, he sure did drive away everyone trying to help with that.

That was the moment for Pres. Obama to step up to the bully pulpit, and add the final bit of momentum as only the President can.

[gratuitous]

49. No he wasn't

The public option was off the bargaining table before negotiations even began. Four or five bleats from the usual quarters about "government run health care" and "death panels" and the administration turtled.

And yeah, I'm kind of "obsessed" about public health. If people are sick and dying, or afraid to go to the doctor because they legitimately fear being impoverished or creating a "prior condition" record, that leads to a whole chain reaction of bad things. Those range from people going in to work to share their communicable condition with co-workers, or neglecting treatment until a condition that could have been resolved with relatively inexpensive pharmaceuticals turns into a potentially lethal health crisis.

But that probably won't happen to you or anyone you know or love, so I'll be satisfied to own my own obsession.

[Radical Activist]

51. And the conspiracy theory returns.

This conspiracy theory about Obama secretly being against something he introduced into Congress and spent months campaigning for is about as credible as the "death panels." The only named, quoted source is a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist and even he said any deal that was made didn't kill the public option.

If you care so much about public health then I think it's very callous to ignore all the people who will be helped by HCR and dismiss the entire effort just because it didn't include the public option.

[gratuitous]

67. Amazing

Single payer apparently killed itself. Musta fallen on that knife a dozen times or more.

No, I'm not callous toward the people who are helped by the bill that got passed (Speaking of "conspiracy theory returns" - who has said that at all?). It's just that so many more people could have been helped, public health improved substantially, and the cost would have been lower with single payer. So yeah, I'll say that we got less than half a loaf, mostly due to the failure of the Obama administration to provide leadership. The poll numbers were there, the people were behind it, but the terms of the discussion got set on nonsense without a contrary peep from the administration.

And as for all the "fixes" that were promised, I believe we'll see those as soon as I see the "side agreements" to NAFTA materialize that are going to guarantee labor rights and environmental protection. I've seen this lame movie before, and pardon the heck out of me for not celebrating another "it's the best we could do" moment. Because it wasn't the best that could have been done. Not even close.

[Radical Activist]

71. Now it's single payer?

But in your last post you wrote that the "public option was off the bargaining table before negotiations even began." You switched.

That's pretty common around here. Things get confused and morphed together. I wonder how much of it is intentional or if it's simply a matter of forgetting the details of what we're supposed to be angry about.

I notice the metamorphosis.

It starts out as: "Single payer was taken off the table from the start."
Then we hear that the public option was also "Taken off the table in secret negotiations BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?!?!?!"
And over time that becomes, "Obama took the public option off the table from the start!"

And now we see the impression in people's minds of something that is absolutely false. Obama introduced and pushed for the public option. But the evolution of gripes has people thinking/arguing that he fought against it.

I would guess that less than 1/4 of Congress supports single payer. Most of the public doesn't even know what the word means. And the Senate wasn't going to pass either single payer OR the public option.

But I'm sure that Blanceh Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Joseph Lieberman and other conservatives are very happy that you're focusing all the attention on Obama instead of holding them accountable for killing the public option. I'm sure it suits them just fine.

[polmaven]

41. Then it is up to that 70%

to elect legislators who will VOTE for the public option! The president cannot insert that with and executive order.

[polmaven]

42. dupe!

sorry!

[polmaven]

43. dupe of the dupe!

OOOPS

[DevonRex]

57. And you typed furiously. Big whoop. nt

[LoZoccolo]

7. K&R for epic woodchuck Howard Dean!

:kick:

[Radical Activist]

12. lol

"epic woodchuck" :spray:

[DevonRex]

58. Yep, and he supports Obama now, too. That big old practical, sensible man! nt

[Fumesucker]

9. Right: "Elect me, I'm going to be powerless to get anything done"..

Utter fucking bullshit, politicians want to be elected precisely because it gives them power.

[LoZoccolo]

10. So you are saying that Howard Dean is saying bullshit? n/t

[Fumesucker]

13. Every politician spouts bullshit at least from time to time..

Some do it all the time, some do it just occasionally.

The politicians are the ones who make the laws that govern us, they have the power to change things if they want to, mostly they don't want to.

[LoZoccolo]

16. And if there's no public consensus behind those decisions

they'll quickly get reversed the next term, and that's where the people come in.

[Fumesucker]

20. Eh, I lived a lot of my life under the double nickle..

That was one of the most unpopular laws in the history of the country and it lasted far longer than a single administration.

[laughingliberal]

30. I'd call 60% support for the public option 'consensus.' Or do we need 100% before a Democratic...

idea is allowed to pass?

[LoZoccolo]

31. I'd be very curious about what the question actually was on that poll people bring up.

Keep in mind that due to the Senate, low-population red states have a disproportionate representation.

[laughingliberal]

35. We targeted Ben Nelson in his state and the polling for the PO was high and he was tanking for...

opposing it. The WH pulled the plug on that. In fact, the lowest support in any state for the PO was 48% with most well over 50%. Like I said, do we only get to have a good Democratic policy if we bring them 100% support?

[LoZoccolo]

36. Right but what is the original poll question?

[laughingliberal]

37. "Do you support the inclusion of a public option people could choose as part of the health care...

reform bill?"

[LoZoccolo]

45. I couldn't find that poll published anywhere on the web. n/t

[laughingliberal]

48. There were mulitiple stories about it throughout the debate.

I remember one story, in particular, where one of the polling agencies was slammed after their poll showed a significant drop in support for the PO from one month to the next. It was then discovered they had changed the wording of the question. We showed several time that if you asked about a public option 'people could choose' support was huge. If the wording about 'choice' was left out support was dismal. The reason for this was obvious. What with all the talk about a government takeover of health care, some people came to associate the public option with 'government takeover.' When a poll made clear the consumer would have be able to 'choose' the support, nationally, was always around 60%. As I said, the lowest percentage of support in any state was 48%.

[LoZoccolo]

90. Is the public option an important enough issue to you that you think Gibbs should apologize? n/t

[Fumesucker]

34. I would say that 150% would be a bare minimum.. n/t

[Radical Activist]

14. You don't believe in the FDR line?

"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

Obama is the first President elected from a background of left wing movement activism. Empowering people to make their own change is a core part of his community organizing oriented philosophy.

[Fumesucker]

17. Obama is not "left wing" by any stretch of the imagination..

Despite the screeching of the tea buggers to the contrary, they far beyond delusional.

Of course I never thought Obama was leftist to start with so I'm not particularly disappointed in him, I figured that out when he voted for the FISA bill that contained telco immunity, ever since then nothing he's done has surprised me in the slightest.

[Radical Activist]

21. You dodged the question.

I've noticed a pattern. The people most "disappointed" in Obama are those who never thought he was liberal to begin with and are a little to eager to believe anything that makes them feel they were right all along.

But getting back to my question. Whether or not Obama is liberal isn't the point.

"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

Do you think this is a waste of time? Should we only try this with Presidents who are already doing everything we want? Do you think people's movements have no power to influence Obama at all?

[Fumesucker]

24. I said I wasn't disappointed..

I got pretty much what I expected and Gibbs just made it clear that pressure from the left is beyond just unwanted, it's despised.

FDR said something else: "I welcome their hatred", he wasn't talking about "professional leftists", he was talking about the wealthy and powerful corporatists, let me know when Obama says something remotely similar about the wealthy and powerful.

[Radical Activist]

26. You still dodged the question.

I've seen all your quotes on left blogs before. You're not posting any original arguments. It sounds like you have no faith at all in the power of people to organize or influence politicians in any way, and all you're really interested in is nursing an emotional grudge against Obama.

Why are you here if you think electoral politics is such a waste of time?

[Fumesucker]

27. I already told you, it's a bad habit I haven't managed to give up..

I actually thought Obama might be an agent for positive change, until the FISA/telecom vote and lots of people here on DU defended the vote.

I then realized that it was just going to be more of the same in a new and far more glib package.

Oh, and for the record, none of your arguments is original either.

[DevonRex]

62. I've decided that folks on DU don't actually DO anything.

And that it's time for ME to get in gear for the November elections. How about you, RA? Time for you to get active, too? These folks just complain.

It's up to us to actually accomplish things. Don't we have a forum around here somewhere for activism? I'm thinking that bright and early Monday morning we ought to head on over there and see what needs to be done.

I'm working here in Colorado for Bennet and a few others now that it's down to crunch time. But there may be a few things that DU can do as a whole.

[Radical Activist]

98. I'm hosting a fund raiser for progressive candidates next week.

I can't even afford to donate myself right now but I can organize.
There are many ways to have an impact. You're right. It's up to us to accomplish things.

[laughingliberal]

33. Of course. That's why we ran the campaign that drove support for the PO to 60%.

Then there was the issue of the deep audit of the Fed. Almost unanimous support among the public for it and widespread bipartisan agreement in both the House and the Senate.

I'm not sure what it would take to 'make' the President do anything. If huge public support doesn't 'make' him do it, what will?

[Radical Activist]

53. What would make the Senate support the PO?

Obama already supported it. That isn't the question. And please spare me the "took it off the table from the start" conspiracy. He campaigned for his bill that included the public option.
Your over-focus on Obama misses the target. You're letting the conservative Democratic Senators who actually killed the PO off the hook.

[LooseWilly]

11. Why are complaints about ineffectiveness and inaction on the part of the WH not action?

"Why do so many people think their only job is to sit back, relax and complain when Obama doesn't do it for them?" ... Why are attempts to prod Obama into actually utilizing the power of the White House now being called "inaction"? And, while we're at it... for those of us from states and districts that already have progressive Congress folk- where else is there to apply pressure but the WH?

I don't think Chuck Grassley gives a flying fuck what a voter in CA thinks. So... we apply the pressure to Obama... and leave the constituents of Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, etc. to take care of that Congressional pressure. ... In the meantime, we'll pressure Obama to exert the pressure that comes with being the leader of the party, to use that leverage to get concessions from the conservative members of the caucus. If Obama can't do that... then he has no business being the leader of the party. Period.

[LoZoccolo]

15. People are actually starting to defend complaining as action.

:facepalm:

[Fumesucker]

18. Now explain how pom pom waving is "action".. n/t

[laughingliberal]

61. +1000 nt

[jobycom]

39. Only worship is action?

[LoZoccolo]

47. I don't call that action; I don't claim it to be. n/t

[DevonRex]

64. Sitting here and typing in ANY form isn't action at all. Don't you get it? DU doesn't DO squat.

[DevonRex]

59. But they sit here and type all day, man! That's gotta count for something, right?

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

60. P.S. They even cuss and stuff!

double :rofl:

[Forkboy]

81. How do you know what people do?

Do you have a special machine that allows you to see what DUers do when they aren't on DU?

Seriously, ragging on DUers for being on DU as you're on DU is the height of comedy. :shrug:

[DevonRex]

89. But I do have a special machine.

Actually, it's a cat. She tells me everything.

My post is actually as much a whack at myself as much as anybody else. It's time for all of us to get in gear for November, no matter how we fall on specific candidates or the issues. The time for cussing and getting all pissed off about the crisis of the week is a luxury we can't afford for much longer, although I understand the latest one did hit some nerves.

You see, I've been afraid to even mention that I'm going to campaign for Michael Bennet now that he won the Dem primary in Colorado over Romanoff. He was backed by OFA and Obama since he's the encumbant and apparently that meant he's evil or something and some folks have vowed not to vote for him. Unfortunately, the Republican candidate, Buck, is a teabagger. So, of course we have to GOTV to beat Buck.

So, I'm mad at myself for being hesitant to talk about this important race, knowing what I'll face when I do. And I'm pissed off that instead of working to elect Democrats we're just biting each other's heads off. And then I just went and did what I'm pissed off about. So I'm sorry for that.

*sigh*

[Raineyb]

111. Not to mention hypocrisy. But I suppose posting is okay so long as THEY do it. n/t

[Radical Activist]

19. That's a fundamentally authoritarian, disempowering viewpoint.

It assumes that:
1) The President has more power than the public to pressure Congress.
2) The Executive Branch should be able to ignore the balance of power and order around Congress.

I can't accept those views. I believe in the power of the people first and in the power of big brother last.

There are many things you can do to organize and apply pressure on other members of Congress. Such as, getting people in other districts to pressure their Congressman. Get involved in a grass roots issue group with a national strategy. Get involved in the campaigns of more liberal challengers. I just wonder if Blanche Lincoln might have been defeated if the left had put more effort into that primary instead of focusing solely on Obama. Real organizing happens when people are interacting with each other, not by sending a message in a bottle to the White House that a summer intern might spend 30 seconds reading.

Besides all that, a persons impact is greater when they get local anyway. It's much easier to influence a state legislator than a President.

[Fumesucker]

22. If you don't have a ton of cash to contribute to politicians you aren't influencing them anyway..

That's the problem with our system in a nutshell, money talks and bullshit walks.

There's really only two things politicians give a damn about you, how much money you have to contribute to them and your vote, they are actually far more interested in the money than your vote because with enough money they can always buy votes.

It's not true in every single case but certainly so in enough to make changing the system extremely unlikely.

[Radical Activist]

23. I know from experience that isn't true.

There are many ways to influence a politician. Money is only one of them. It sounds like you know very little about the other ways power is exercised.

If you believe electoral politics is such a waste of time then why are you on this board? Are you campaigning for everyone to give up?

[Fumesucker]

25. I'm here because I live in red state hell..

There is literally no one I know in real life that isn't a screaming teabagger, I came here in the darkest days of the Bushie junta to try and get a little ease for my mind, to know that I wasn't completely mad.

Now I'm just here because it's a bad habit that I haven't managed to give up.

[Radical Activist]

28. In this same thread

there's someone complaining that they have nothing to do because all their members of Congress are progressives who will support good things anyway. Maybe you two should switch places. :)

[Fumesucker]

32. And maybe those of you who live in such progressive utopias..

Should have a little sympathy for those of us who have no one rational to converse with, to the point that we are forced onto the intertubez in order to find conversation that isn't liberally sprinkled with Faux Nooz talking points.

Up until just recently, Nathan Deal was my congressman..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Deal

[TransitJohn]

40. Same here!

:hi:

[LooseWilly]

56. Nice knee-jerk application of the word "authoritarian"... to marginalize and disempower my words.

:applause:

Propagandists would be proud. ;)

As to your points of disputation:

"1) The President has more power than the public to pressure Congress."— Are you kidding? First of all, I am not the public. I am an individual— and if you think that I have more power to pressure Congress than the president, then maybe you should be drug-tested. Second, to be "the public" I would need to become "we"... but as long as voices such as yours are constantly clamoring for obedience to the president and the party, and clamoring for critics to stop with the criticism, YOU are undercutting whatever use this site might have in applying pressure to the national party.

You may "believe in the power of people first, and big brother last" but, aside from the power of the people to topple the government ("big brother"), the only power of the people is to affect the judgements and actions of the government- or "big brother" himself.

Your platitudes only serve to empower "big brother" to go on ignoring the voices of complaint/dissent. Congratulations on showing how you would employ the "power of your personhood" toward continuing compliance.

"2) The Executive Branch should be able to ignore the balance of power and order around Congress."— Nice strawman... but I am speaking of pressuring the Executive to, in his role as the head of the party, pressure members of his own party into pushing for as much of the policy- policies which the Executive, while still only a candidate, pledged support for - as possible.

And please beggar off from the magic wand meme bullshit... strawmanning me by saying this is a claim to want Canadian Health Care (which would be nice, but would require a truly effective political party to enact, meaning it's a pipe-dream) and the elimination of the Pentagon... or any other such-like Gibbsian happily disregardable policy....

All we're asking for is a good-faith effort to enact policies promised during the campaign. Beginning negotiations as if compromise solutions like a public option are themselves negotiable is a failure to show good-faith that the party, and its leader, truly mean to enact policies that they themselves have touted.

I will not stop criticizing violations of the implicit expectation of good-faith efforts by the party to enact policy. In other words, no, I will not shut up when the Democratic Party tries to bullshit me into believing I'm not being sold out. And I will not shut up when you try to bullshit me into believing that I'm not criticizing correctly.

You might re-consider your "power to the party" message, too. Or, do you really believe your opinions are "more equal" than mine, or other dissenters?

[Radical Activist]

68. Your arguments are rooted in an authoritarian mindset.

There's nothing knee-jerk about it. It's simply how I view your perspective.

You wrote: "First of all, I am not the public. I am an individual— and if you think that I have more power to pressure Congress than the president, then maybe you should be drug-tested."

Do you ever notice what Presidents do when they want to pressure Congress? They call on the public. What does that say about who has the most power? I called your perspective disempowering and this statement reinforces it. The idea that the best way for you to pressure Congress is only vicariously through the President as intermediary is fundamentally anti-democratic and authoritarian. I can't accept that view.

You wrote: Second, to be "the public" I would need to become "we"... but as long as voices such as yours are constantly clamoring for obedience to the president and the party, and clamoring for critics to stop with the criticism, YOU are undercutting whatever use this site might have in applying pressure to the national party."

I didn't think I wrote anything about obedience or not criticizing the President. I double checked, and no, I didn't. I agree that the public need to become "we." That happens through organizing. What I argued for is more and better organized dissent. Making an occasional phone call to the White House and blog post doesn't create an organized "we."

Demanding that "I WON'T BE SILENCED?!?!?!" is not a substitute for actual organizing. No one is being silenced. Come down from the cross and do something productive.

[LooseWilly]

91. You, sir, apparently have no idea what "authoritarian" means.

Or, are you saying that the US political system is "authoritarian"?

I am talking about a cacophony of voices within the party pressuring the president to then turn and use the power vested in him by the political party system of our two-party representative pseudo-democracy.

In an "authoritarian" system voices within the party would not be a significant pressure.
Authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a leader or leaders, typically unelected, who possess exclusive, unaccountable, and arbitrary power.

Thus, the presumption that a cacophony of voices could be relevant, and the potential for a loss of votes come the next election being an issue if enough voices then no-show at the polls... pre-supposes a non-authoritarian system in the mindset of anyone who would think such an approach were rational. Hence, not only is my suggestion not "authoritarian", but your assertion that you believe it is indicative of an "authoritarian mindset" simply demonstrates that you don't know what the word "authoritarian" means.

I'm not claiming to be on any crosses (nice strawman though... particularly effective with X-tians, I would imagine)... I am simply using yet another venue to try to get word out to all those who are confused by the double-talking spinners of party-obedience that they aren't really crazy... that the party isn't living up to the pledges of the primary, and no one who suspects that such is the case is crazy to think so.

Judging by the policies the administration fights most for (actions, not words)... it seems pretty obvious that the Obama administration has returned to the Dick Morris school of political triangulation:

A longtime friend and advisor to Bill Clinton during his time as Governor of Arkansas, Morris became a political adviser to the White House after Clinton was elected president in 1992. Morris encouraged Clinton to pursue third way policies of triangulation that combined traditional Republican and Democratic proposals, rhetoric, and issues to achieve maximum political gain and popularity. He worked as a Republican strategist before joining the Clinton administration, where he helped Clinton recover from the 1994 midterm elections by convincing the President to adopt Republican policies.<1>

The president consulted Morris in secret beginning in 1994.<2> Clinton's communications director George Stephanopoulos has said that "Over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president".<3> Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. ...

I just want to take advantage of this venue to re-assure others who might think they're losing their minds that there is indeed a precedent for Democratic White Houses pushing for "Republican" policies, and I want people to not think they must be crazy when they see this administration behaving according to precedent... and I want to encourage others to take whatever actions they can to pressure their local representatives, just as I have done with my local representative, to resist the administration when they decide that it is politically expedient to push "Republican" policy.

I do so hope that that satisfies your call for "productivity"... ohh, wait, no... your dismissive, self-righteous tone actually makes me not much give a shit what you think...

[Radical Activist]

96. I'm glad you're not advocating a dictator but you're still pushing an authoritarian mindset.

It's odd that you accuse me of straw-man arguments considering your heavy use of them in response to me.
If we assume that a person's level of authoritarian ideology can be measured on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being total dictatorship) it's obvious that you're not a 10. But that doesn't make you anti-authoritarian.

The argument in your first thread is that change happens through the President "utilizing the power of the White House." In other words, you're disregarding the power of people's movements that I'm advocating for and suggesting that we focus on having an authoritarian figure use more power on our behalf.

Do you realize that this is how populist dictators come to power? The people hand over their power in the belief that an autocratic leader will force the rest of government/business to carry out their wishes for them.

You wrote "I am speaking of pressuring the Executive to, in his role as the head of the party, pressure members of his own party." That's exactly what every populist dictator has promised to do before abolishing/ignoring the legislative body of their country. Since there's a mountain of evidence that Obama is already pressuring Congress (using the bully pulpit, media appearances, personal calls, etc) them I must conclude that you're wanting the Executive to exercise some greater level of power to overrule Congress that isn't part of our Constitutional framework.

Your authoritarian attitude sounds somewhere between 5-8 on that sliding scale. I'm a 2 or 3. Thankfully Obama doesn't appear to share your viewpoint. He has frequently called for change through popular movements.

You shouldn't accuse me of making a straw-man argument when you're previous comment is still here in this thread. This is what you wrote, playing the martyr:
"I will not stop criticizing violations of the implicit expectation of good-faith efforts by the party to enact policy. In other words, no, I will not shut up when the Democratic Party tries to bullshit me into believing I'm not being sold out."
But no one is telling you to shut up. That's your own straw-man argument. I'm arguing that complaining about one person isn't enough to make change. These comments about not being silenced have become a cliche of people who want to defend their right to criticize without having to defend the validity of their criticism.

[LooseWilly]

109. Nice- use a strawman argument to prove that you are not using a strawman argument.

Very elegant indeed. :applause:

It's odd that you accuse me of straw-man arguments considering your heavy use of them in response to me.
If we assume that a person's level of authoritarian ideology can be measured on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being total dictatorship) it's obvious that you're not a 10. But that doesn't make you anti-authoritarian.

What the hell does "If we assume that a person's level of authoritarian ideology can be measured on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being total dictatorship)" even mean? Why should I accommodate you by making an assumption that you don't even bother to explain? — Why don't we instead assume that a person's understanding of the use of a word, such as "authoritarian", can be measured as a function of their willingness/ability to define by some means what that word means, on a scale from 1-10 (with 10 being indicative of a clueless asshat making noises that have virtually no connection to any commonly understood meaning of the word in question)? —"it's obvious that you're not a 10. But that doesn't make you" someone who is using the word correctly.

The argument in your first thread is that change happens through the President "utilizing the power of the White House." In other words, you're disregarding the power of people's movements that I'm advocating for and suggesting that we focus on having an authoritarian figure use more power on our behalf.

You are putting those bolded words into my mouth, but they are not what I said. What I said is: "I am speaking of pressuring the Executive to, in his role as the head of the party, pressure members of his own party into pushing for as much of the policy- ..."

By putting words into my mouth, and then arguing with the planted words, you are making a "strawman argument".

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Further, your assertion of my "authoritarianism" is based upon the wording of the strawman that you made up and then pretended had something to do with what I said: "The argument in your first thread is that change happens through ..."; hence your assertion that I have an "authoritarian mindset" is wholly proved to be not only incorrect, but disingenuous as well. In fact, if anything, the fact that you keep twisting what I say into authoritarian strawmen suggests to me that it is you who has the "authoritarian mindset". (When your only tool is a hammer...)

As to what I actually said— I was trying to explain the possible use of complaint here on a public forum. I never said it was the only way to bring about change. Unlike you, I have also not said that it is a pre-determinedly sure-fail method. I am putting pressure to bear in every venue in which it seems like there is some possibility of it being felt. If you would like to argue coherently and sans-strawmen as to why freely expressing my opinion in a venue in which I can share it with others, or the use of a president's power as the head of a US political party is a form of authoritarianism, I would be very interested (and probably amused) to see that argument in action.

... In other words, you're disregarding the power of people's movements that I'm advocating for and suggesting that we focus on having an authoritarian figure use more power on our behalf.

Do you realize that this is how populist dictators come to power? The people hand over their power in the belief that an autocratic leader will force the rest of government/business to carry out their wishes for them.

Again, this speaks handily to the strawman you provided, but it really has nothing to do with anything that I actually wrote. In fact, if anything, I consider a large enough plurality of voices on a message board that almost certainly monitored to some degree or other as being similar to a "protest march"... in that they both similarly express to those who have been elected to represent the people that some of the people are less than pleased... and in the fact that both can be dismissed in a number of ways by those self-same representatives.

Ohh, and while I'm on the subject, what "people's movements" are you advocating? All I hear here is "the party is good, don't distract the party"... what am I missing?

You wrote "I am speaking of pressuring the Executive to, in his role as the head of the party, pressure members of his own party." That's exactly what every populist dictator has promised to do before abolishing/ignoring the legislative body of their country.

Ok, at least you're actually responding to what I wrote now. I don't see even a single example to support your assertion though. Are we talking about the "populist dictator" FDR? Lyndon Johnson? Or, are you saying Hitler came to power through the pressure of the Germans on the street pressuring him to exert his power as the leader of the Nazi Party to push more progressive legislation through the Reichstag?... 'cause that's not how I remember any of those "populist dictators" coming to power. How about a little evidentiary support?

... Since there's a mountain of evidence that Obama is already pressuring Congress (using the bully pulpit, media appearances, personal calls, etc) them I must conclude that you're wanting the Executive to exercise some greater level of power to overrule Congress that isn't part of our Constitutional framework.

Uhh, what "mountain of evidence" are you referring to? Did you have any intention of sharing a link?, a quote? ... something? The only "pressuring" I've seen/ am seeing from Obama is his pressuring of the House to accept HCR without a public option (there was the push by the Progressive Caucus to fight for the public option, followed by White House (Obama) pressure to vote for a health care bill that didn't include a public option), and the current push to keep the Congress from passing a repeal of DADT, apparently not wanting it repealed before the elections (secretary of defense, working for the president, urged the House not to pass repeal, succeeded in making the repeal contingent on approval by president, himself, and Mullen, the joint chief of staff... all three of whom supposedly support repeal, but have decided that the military should only make this change if the democratic military votes approval, or something). If there's any "mountain of evidence" then I suspect it is evidence of the White House pushing Congress, especially the House, further rightward. To somehow try to jump from non-existent (or, more properly, counter-proving evidence) to the proposition that I want the president to move toward dictator is non-sensical at best, and another disingenuous strawman at worst (though, if you think about it... Bush was able to commit war crimes and get away with it because there wasn't enough Congressional support for an impeachment... and Obama has an even greater majority in Congress than Bush ever had... so, let's face it: Obama could nuke the Taliban positions in Waziristan if he really wanted to... and there's nothing anyone in the world could fucking do about it... and that's allowed under our representative democracy. If I wanted Obama to go authoritarian, I'd be pushing for a lot more than a fucking public option and a repeal of DADT... that shit's small potatoes).

Your authoritarian attitude sounds somewhere between 5-8 on that sliding scale. I'm a 2 or 3. Thankfully Obama doesn't appear to share your viewpoint. He has frequently called for change through popular movements.

Again— what is with the imaginary sliding scale of authoritarianism? And, why are you not at least giving some sort of qualifying details (if there aren't any quantifying details, and I suspect that there aren't any of those) as to why I scored where I scored? Or, for that matter, why you scored so spectacularly anti-authoritarian (hmm, is the opposite of authoritarian "anarchistic"?... because if it is, I think your scoring skills, as demonstrated by the score you gave to me, really really need some working on). And how do you even justify saying that Obama "doesn't appear to share" the strawman viewpoint you have tried so hard to issue to me?... Could you provide evidentiary support at least for your assertion that Obama doesn't agree with your strawman viewpoint? Obama has called on people and popular movements to hold him accountable:

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/flashback_obama_white_house_re.html)

Back when anonymous White House sources leaked that they view bloggers as part of a "left fringe," senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer cleaned things up by emailing me a statement asserting that the White House sees the online left as invaluable, because it keeps the focus on what really matters:

"That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we've held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth."

What's more, the President himself has repeatedly said he wants criticism to continue during his presidency. Glenn Greenwald unearths this from September of 2008:

As president, I will lead a new era of accountability in education. But see, I don't just want to hold our teachers accountable; I want to hold our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable .

Obama himself asks to be held accountable, which sounds remarkably similar to your strawman: "... that change happens through the President "utilizing the power of the White House." In other words, {you're-Obama is} disregarding the power of people's movements ..." ... Why, "Radical Activist", I do believe you've just accused Obama of having an "authoritarian mindset", and rated him as a 5-8 on the "Radical Activist Authoritarian Number Line". That's not very nice...

You shouldn't accuse me of making a straw-man argument when you're previous comment is still here in this thread. This is what you wrote, playing the martyr:
"I will not stop criticizing violations of the implicit expectation of good-faith efforts by the party to enact policy. In other words, no, I will not shut up when the Democratic Party tries to bullshit me into believing I'm not being sold out."
But no one is telling you to shut up. That's your own straw-man argument. I'm arguing that complaining about one person isn't enough to make change. These comments about not being silenced have become a cliche of people who want to defend their right to criticize without having to defend the validity of their criticism.

Really? No one was telling me to "shut up"... Do you even remember what you wrote in post 19? Here's a nice little snippet:

There are many things you can do to organize and apply pressure on other members of Congress. Such as, getting people in other districts to pressure their Congressman. Get involved in a grass roots issue group with a national strategy. Get involved in the campaigns of more liberal challengers. I just wonder if Blanche Lincoln might have been defeated if the left had put more effort into that primary instead of focusing solely on Obama. Real organizing happens when people are interacting with each other, not by sending a message in a bottle to the White House that a summer intern might spend 30 seconds reading.

Hmm... you do a fine job of condescendingly listing the "Radical Activist" approved means of expressing disapproval (none of which involve speaking/writing on a message board I notice... so why are you here?), and then you drop that last sentence in... "not by sending a message in a bottle to the White House"... which is essentially saying that talking/writing isn't "real organizing", and the implication is that, since it isn't "real" it isn't valid... and by saying something one is doing isn't valid, and instead saying that one should do other things... you were, in fact, telling me to stop speaking/writing... and that is the same as telling me to shut up.

So, though you've had some luck with arguing with strawmen... your attempt to try to use one of my points to accuse me of strawman argumentation has now failed.

Ohh, and finally, that last sentence of yours: "These comments about not being silenced have become a cliche of people who want to defend their right to criticize without having to defend the validity of their criticism."

:rofl:

I think I have now shown that, also, to be yet another strawman of your own construction. Would you care to defend the validity of your condescension/strawmen (err- I mean criticisms)?

[Radical Activist]

110. How many times can someone use the word "strawman" in one post?

You may have set a record.
It's not a strawman when I'm quoting you. If you're unwilling to defend your own assertions then responding to you is a waste of time. It would be a bigger waste of time to provide you with links of things which are common knowledge but you claim to be unaware of.

You may not realize the implications of your attitude that we need to plaintively ask the President to pressure Congress on our behalf instead of exercising that power directly ourselves, but I see how it puts the people in the position of begging to an authority figure.

You made a completely new assertion that I will respond to. Let me quote you so I don't get another "straw-man" accusation.
"If there's any "mountain of evidence" then I suspect it is evidence of the White House pushing Congress, especially the House, further rightward."

First, I find it a little funny that you're trying to prove Obama doesn't bother pressuring Congress by linking a MSNBC story about him canceling a foreign trip in order personally pressure Congress. Nice.
If it were true that Obama is pushing Congress right then he would be introducing legislation to the right of what can pass Congress. Correct? You may remember that Clinton would split the difference between Congressional Democrats and Republicans by introducing something down the middle of what each caucus wanted. By contrast, everything Obama has introduced is to the left of what will pass the Senate Democratic caucus.

Since you love examples of things that should be obvious:
Obama introduced cap-and-trade, personally called members of the House to get it passed there, and now the Senate refuses to vote on it.
Congress watered down Obama's financial regulation proposal.
Obama introduced HCR with the public option before conservative Senate Democrats took it out.
Congress reduced the size of Obama's proposed stimulus package.

On every major issue Obama is pushing for things to the left of what will pass both houses of Congress. So, for you to believe that Obama is pushing Congress right I must conclude that you:
1) Are predisposed to believe any drivel a blogger writes as long as it attacks Obama.
2) Are on drugs.

[LooseWilly]

112. If my labeling your strawmen set a record, it is because your post used a record number of strawmen.

Make non-strawman arguments, and I won't have to respond by identifying your arguments thusly.

The onus is upon you. :)

It is indeed, "not a strawman" when you are quoting me... but when you use the quote for a mis-interpretation of what I said (by paraphrasing incorrectly), and then proceed to argue with the mis-interpretation of the fallacious paraphrasing... then - yes, you are making a strawman argument.

... If you're unwilling to defend your own assertions then responding to you is a waste of time. It would be a bigger waste of time to provide you with links of things which are common knowledge but you claim to be unaware of.

Uhhm, unwilling to defend my asertions? Really? Did you not read my post? "waste of time to provide you with links of things which are common knowledge..." —if these are things which are such common knowledge, then it shouldn't be hard to find links. I provided links. Your unwillingness to do likewise indicates that you are taking liberties with facts, and are unwilling to defend your own assertions. Your continuing projection on the subject of not supporting assertions, as well as the subject of "authoritarianism", is becoming truly telling and I'm beginning to suspect that it also explains your repetitive use of strawmen.

You may not realize the implications of your attitude that we need to plaintively ask the President to pressure Congress on our behalf instead of exercising that power directly ourselves, but I see how it puts the people in the position of begging to an authority figure.

Once again, I never said "need to". It is you who keeps insisting on twisting what I say to include that detail, which is convenient - since that addition is the basis for your whole disingenuous assertion. If you had read the definition of "strawman" that I provided in my last post, you might understand that by misrepresenting what I've written with that addition, you are engaging in a "strawman argument".

I don't know how often I will have to repeat this point before you finally seem to understand it...

First, I find it a little funny that you're trying to prove Obama doesn't bother pressuring Congress by linking a MSNBC story about him canceling a foreign trip in order personally pressure Congress. Nice.

I wasn't saying that Obama doesn't pressure Congress... I was saying I want to see him pressure Congress to pass policy legislation as progressive as that which he spoke of during the campaign... my link showed Obama doing the opposite— pressuring Congress to vote for health care reform without a public option. Pressuring Congress, specifically the House, to "move rightward" on policy, instead of trying to push the Senate to "move leftward". When Obama does things like this, it pisses off people who thought he would at least show some resolve to enact policy that he himself (and his team) devised.

If it were true that Obama is pushing Congress right then he would be introducing legislation to the right of what can pass Congress. Correct? You may remember that Clinton would split the difference between Congressional Democrats and Republicans by introducing something down the middle of what each caucus wanted. By contrast, everything Obama has introduced is to the left of what will pass the Senate Democratic caucus.

Since you love examples of things that should be obvious:
Obama introduced cap-and-trade, personally called members of the House to get it passed there, and now the Senate refuses to vote on it.
Congress watered down Obama's financial regulation proposal.
Obama introduced HCR with the public option before conservative Senate Democrats took it out.
Congress reduced the size of Obama's proposed stimulus package.

Uhh, maybe you don't understand the meaning of supporting your assertions? Show me some specifics to support these assertions. "... everything Obama has introduced is to the left of what will pass the Senate Democratic caucus." I am not aware of Obama actually introducing anything... I know that he speaks of rather progressive policy, but when the specifics are finally distilled from the rhetoric it always seems to have taken Obama's relatively-compromise position and compromised that, and often compromised it again. HCR that compromised away the public option, and then compromised in a mandate- comes to mind.

Why don't you provide some specifics? And, while you're at it, provide some evidence that Obama and the White House have actually done something to keep the core ideas of the policy intact. You've asserted: "Obama introduced cap-and-trade, personally called members of the House to get it passed there, and now the Senate refuses to vote on it.", now back that assertion up. See if you can make me feel like I wasn't an idiot for voting for Obama...

On every major issue Obama is pushing for things to the left of what will pass both houses of Congress. So, for you to believe that Obama is pushing Congress right I must conclude that you:
1) Are predisposed to believe any drivel a blogger writes as long as it attacks Obama.
2) Are on drugs.

So... once again, assertion without any evidentiary support whatsoever. The projection is really getting tiresome, as well as repetitive. I do thank you, though, for mixing in a little Gibbs-ian ad hominem drug-user assertion. It's kind of telling, really... as no one who is, in reality, a "Radical Activist" would ever consider drug use to be indicative of someone's cognitive functions... that's a view more common for bourgeois activists, or bourgeois authoritarians...

Is there something you'd like to tell us?

[Radical Activist]

113. blah blah blah Do you listen to right-wing talk radio?

Because you've adopted their tactics very well. Avoid responding and divert the conversation to tangents. Accuse me of using strawman arguments when you're using them. Accuse me of projection when you're projecting.

You questioned my claim that Obama pressures Congress by asking for evidence. Now you claim "I wasn't saying that Obama doesn't pressure Congress." Then why did you demand evidence from me to prove that he was?
You started this thread arguing that we should "prod Obama into actually utilizing the power of the White House." Now you claim it's a strawman when I respond to your argument because I used the phrase "need to." So now you think we don't need to pressure Obama? You're out of your fucking mind.

[LooseWilly]

114. No, I don't listen to right-wing talk radio— but nice of you to set yourself up as an expert on it

Very interesting, in fact.

Speaking of interesting, I like this analysis you offer: "Avoid responding and divert the conversation to tangents." Do you not see the irony in your sudden reference to right-wing talk radio even as you accuse me of avoiding responding and diverting the conversation?

Do you remember when I said this:

Uhh, maybe you don't understand the meaning of supporting your assertions? Show me some specifics to support these assertions. "... everything Obama has introduced is to the left of what will pass the Senate Democratic caucus." I am not aware of Obama actually introducing anything... I know that he speaks of rather progressive policy, but when the specifics are finally distilled from the rhetoric it always seems to have taken Obama's relatively-compromise position and compromised that, and often compromised it again. HCR that compromised away the public option, and then compromised in a mandate- comes to mind.

Why don't you provide some specifics? And, while you're at it, provide some evidence that Obama and the White House have actually done something to keep the core ideas of the policy intact. You've asserted: "Obama introduced cap-and-trade, personally called members of the House to get it passed there, and now the Senate refuses to vote on it.", now back that assertion up. See if you can make me feel like I wasn't an idiot for voting for Obama...

I see you have declined to respond- or, to quote your accusation "Avoid responding...", and instead you bring up the subject of right-wing talk radio, for some reason seeming to think that the allusion would bring clarity (?) to your point (another example of projection?)... or, to again quote your accusation: " and divert the conversation to tangents."

You then go on with: "Accuse me of using strawman arguments when you're using them. Accuse me of projection when you're projecting."

I have responded to your every accusation and every assertion and I have shown your responses to be either strawmen arguments, or unsupported assertions. For you now to be accusing me of being the one using strawman arguments and projecting... looks like a textbook case of projection.

Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.

Perhaps, if you would actually respond to the points I have made, instead of trying to re-define them to better suit your tastes before answering your version of them, I wouldn't have to point out the strawmen and the projection?

You now say: "You questioned my claim that Obama pressures Congress by asking for evidence." - You alluded to a "there's a mountain of evidence that Obama is already pressuring Congress (using the bully pulpit, media appearances, personal calls, etc)" (post #91).

I responded by writing: "Uhh, what "mountain of evidence" are you referring to? Did you have any intention of sharing a link?, a quote? ... something?"(post #109).

In case you aren't paying attention- that was a response to your point. When someone responds to your point, then it becomes disingenuous to later accuse that person of not responding to your point.

I would also point out that you still have not responded, not by presenting a "mountain of evidence", not even with a "pebble of evidence". Nothing. You have avoided responding. Instead you have turned to the evidence that I provided, which I pointed out proved that Obama was pressuring Congress, specifically the House, rightward.

You proceed with your assertions: "Now you claim "I wasn't saying that Obama doesn't pressure Congress." Then why did you demand evidence from me to prove that he was?"

Actually, what I said was: "I am speaking of pressuring the Executive to, in his role as the head of the party, pressure members of his own party into pushing for as much of the policy- policies which the Executive, while still only a candidate, pledged support for - as possible." (post #56). — you'll notice the portion that I have bolded?... the portion of what I said indicates I was saying that Obama doesn't pressure Congress toward the leftward policies he campaigned on... words that change the meaning of what I said... words that, in your omission thereof, you ceased responding to what I said and turned instead to responding to a strawman you had casually constructed. Do you see those words?

You'll also notice that those words were supported with the link that I included, as part of my response to your (still unsupported) assertion that there is "mountains of evidence".

And, you ask: "Then why did you demand evidence from me to prove that he was?"— The answer is simple: because I would be interested to see evidence that might prove me wrong... because that would mean that Obama would be less of a personal disappointment as president than he is currently. I invite you to prove me wrong. It would be a sort of relief. But, I'll not be holding my breath... as you have yet to provide any evidence of anything whatsoever.

I doubt you're even bothering to actually read these posts, and I'm starting to wonder if you are capable of understanding them... but in the interest of thoroughness, let's continue. You add this:

You started this thread arguing that we should "prod Obama into actually utilizing the power of the White House." Now you claim it's a strawman when I respond to your argument because I used the phrase "need to." So now you think we don't need to pressure Obama?

Ok, in the interest of being thorough I will start with a definition of "need".

need    Show IPA
–noun
1.
a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation: There is no need for you to go there.
2.
a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary: to fulfill the needs of the assignment.
3.
urgent want, as of something requisite: He has no need of your charity.
4.
necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case: There is no need to worry.
5.
a situation or time of difficulty; exigency: to help a friend in need; to be a friend in need.
6.
a condition marked by the lack of something requisite: the need for leadership.
7.
destitution; extreme poverty: The family's need is acute.

When you add the word "need" to what I said, the implications of definition 1- specifically the "requirement" portion of the definition, allows you to then suggest that I am saying that it is only through Obama's intervention that the campaign trail policies can be passed... and you are then neatly able to peg the term "authoritarian" onto what you are pretending that I am saying because that "only" indicates an argument of absolute reliance upon an authority figure.

I, however, never said "need". As I posted earlier in this thread:

Actually, what I said was: "I am speaking of pressuring the Executive to, in his role as the head of the party, pressure members of his own party into pushing for as much of the policy- policies which the Executive, while still only a candidate, pledged support for - as possible." (Still post #56)

By adding the "need" before responding, you are in truth responding to something other than what I said. I have not said that there is "need" to pressure Obama. I am saying that pressuring Obama is one avenue by which results can potentially be achieved... or one part of a "multi-pronged" set of activities that might result in action. What I am most vehemently saying is that I do not believe that pressuring Obama can hurt the prospects of action. I do not accept your notion that pressuring Obama is an authoritarian impulse, and I do not subscribe to your strawman that pressuring Obama reveals any "need" (except maybe in the definition 6 sense above: "the need for leadership", but that is not a "need" in the "dependence on" sense of the word, but rather a "need" in the "lack of" or "hunger for" sense of the word).

And, as for being out of my fucking mind... I would submit to you that, rather than being out of my fucking mind, I am actually out of your fucking mind... in that I refuse to play along with the strawmen arguments you keep metaphorically trying to jam into my gob, and I consistently side-step the labels you keep trying to project upon me.

Ohh, and one more thing. What fucking "mountain of evidence" are you talking about? Can you really not even find a mountain? And, given your continuing pattern of looseness with facts (what else is a strawman but a tampering with the "facts" of a discussion to suit one's tastes or purposes?)... I'll expect links so I can evaluate the evidence for myself. ;)

[Radical Activist]

97. Bill Clinton isn't President anymore.

Your comments about Clinton make me wonder if you're only reliving the past. Obama just spent 1 1/2 years reversing many of the Republican policies Clinton enacted. That includes Obama re-regulating the banking, credit card, and mortgage industry.

The last time I checked, regulating industry, cap-and-trade, major health care reform, getting out of Iraq, and student financial aid were not top Republican agenda items. Is that really what you believe?

Maybe you're projecting Clinton onto Obama? But, we're living in a new reality. You can't get back at Clinton by attacking Obama. I think you're stuck in a rut that makes it difficult for you to evaluate what's really happening. We don't have a triangulator President anymore. We have a President pushing Congress left who keeps asking for our help.

[Vinca]

44. This is what has me upset with Obama. It may or may not be true,

depending on how transparent he's actually being. It does not appear he fights for things. I mean really fight. LBJ twist-your-arms-till-they-snap-off fight. He seems more concerned with stepping on toes and having his latest invitation to "watch the game" turned down. If he had fought like hell for the public option, for example, and lost, it would be easy to say, "He did a good job, he really tried." But he didn't. DADT? He can't change the law, but he can sign a "stop loss" order so gays won't be discharged until Congress takes up the law again. He hasn't. I assume it's because John McCain said "Boo." Worst of all, I'm beginning to question his motives for the Afghanistan surge. Is it the 50 remaining Al Qaeda or 2012? From the outside looking in, he appears to care more about Republicans and political gamery than people who put him in office.

[Radical Activist]

52. I read the popular narrative online about

Obama not fighting. Then I see Obama campaigning publicly for his priorities, I see his speeches to Congress, and I read about members of Congress saying they were called by Obama to get their votes. I'd rather believe my own eyes and ears.

But then, my personal ideology is that the people have more power to push Congress than the President does, so I'm not expecting him to do it for me.

[Vinca]

72. Obama gives great speeches with lofty goals that never entirely

seem to materialize. It's as if he's willing to settle for less just to check the box "done." Health insurance reform (fka health care reform) is a prime example. As for the people having power, that's laughable. Unless you've got a fortune to buy yourself some lobbyists. you're a gnat. Pesky, but in the end easily squashed. Which is why we're still at the mercy of the credit card companies.

[Radical Activist]

74. I can't imagine any mindset more unhealthy for progressives

than to think people are powerless and can't do anything without money. Yes, money matters. But money can be overpowered by a well organized movement. I've seen it happen over and over again. If you don't believe that then I guess I can understand why complaining online about Obama seems like the only thing left to do.

[Vinca]

83. The last movement by the people that amounted to anything

substantial was the ending of the Vietnam war. People activated and mobilized for health care and look at what happened: big insurance won the day. I admire your optimism, but when you watch what has happened to organizations such as labor unions over the years, it's clear people - alone or united - have little power in this country anymore.

[Radical Activist]

86. You're stuck in the past.

I sometimes argue with Greens and Marxists that convincing people the Democratic Party will never accomplish anything is more likely to make people give up and do nothing. Cynicism kills movements. You make me think I'm right about that.

Women have more rights today than they did 30 years ago. We didn't get cap-and-trade through the Senate yet but a great deal of progress is happening on climate change through the stimulus bill and at the state/local level. The modern peace movement ended the Iraq War faster than it ended Vietnam. The disability rights movement has made tremendous progress. I see public interest groups go up against special interest groups all the time and occasionally we win.

[sandnsea]

85. No kidding. He sets high goals that may be unattainable?

The HORROR!

Did you not want free preventive care visits? Free immunizations? Coverage for kids up to age 26? Or no pre-existing conditions? Or new appeals panels when insurance rejects your claim? Or billions for free health care clinics?

I could go on and on and on about all of the good that is in that health care bill.

How come you can only see that it doesn't have Medicare at 55?

[Vinca]

93. Because I am in chronic pain and worried I won't be able

to maintain my mobility until 2014. (No . . . I don't qualify for anything.) It makes a person a tad pissed off at the big insurance welfare bill we ended up with.

[Jade Fox]

46. Thank you, RA.......nt

[Jim Sagle]

54. DLC flapdoodle!

[Recursion]

63. Keep in mind a lot of DUers here think W made the conservative base happy

And that the things he did were the things they wanted him to do. Since they labor under that misconception, they are angry that Obama isn't making them happy and doing the things they want him to do.

[EFerrari]

70. Who are these amnesiacs you're talking about?

Are they the same people that get trashed when they do organize feedback for this president? The people who get called tree baggers here?

Those people?

Holy strawman, Batman.

[Radical Activist]

73. "organize feedback"

Does this refer to the daily posts about how Obama is destroying social security, reproductive freedom, public schools, health care, and Christmas?

The trouble is that 99% of those posts and articles don't offer any suggestion about how to productively organize on any issue. That isn't organizing. That's entertainment for people who like to be kept in a constant state of outrage.
I wonder how many of those who post or comment on these threads even bother calling the White House to express their anger. Even if they do, being caller 500,000 of the day at the White House comment line doesn't get us closer to any progressive goal.

[EFerrari]

75. Do you think there is no life apart from DU or the White House comment line?

Aim low.

[Radical Activist]

78. Do the "outrage of the day" posts reference that other life

where people engage in actual organizing? I see it only very rarely either at DU or from professional pundits. If the point is to focus on issues and push things left then there would be some suggestion for action (beyond rhetorically reaffirming someone's opinion of the evil Obama menace).

[Cha]

80. Thank you, Radical

Activist.

[Scurrilous]

82. K & R

:thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

84. Organizing your back yard IS NOT effectively organizing

THAT is the biggest problem the left has.

Change Minds, Change Votes. I don't mean the minds in states that are already blue.

[Radical Activist]

88. No kidding.

The DC, NYC, and California based progressive groups need to get out to the places they derisively call "flyover country" and into smaller towns. I only join national progressive organizations if they have an actual meeting in my town that involves local leadership and organization. So far that's only two.

[treestar]

87. Rec'd.

So true that it is the Senate that should be pushed and the Senators who vote against cloture who should be pilloried. The way our system works, it is the current Senate that causes things to be watered down.

[depakid]

92. The Obama administration's problem is that in many cases it doesn't even try

and then when someone does organize and put pressure on for one of its stated (but not actual) goals- like the public option, they're called "fucking retarded."

Fact is that as often or not the Obama administration has been an impediment to responsible and effective public policy (when it hasn't been proposing dysfunctional Republican policies like offshore drilling on their own.

[Radical Activist]

101. If it were true that Obama didn't even try

then no health care reform bill would have passed the Senate at all. There would be no re-regulation of the banking, mortgage, and credit card industries. The stimulus bill would not have been focused on clean energy and reducing our dependence of fossil fuels. The consumer agency over the banking industry would have been taken out of finance industry reform.

He would not have given two speeches to Congress advocating a plan with the public option. A bill with the public option would not have passed the House. He wouldn't have personally made phone calls and been involved in negotiations to get the bill passed.

In other words, this pundit/blogger talking point has no relationship to what Obama is doing in office.

[blindpig]

94. True enough, though not the way you mean...

[Radical Activist]

103. How do you know?

I have a problem with many communists because I'm anti-authoritarian and most communist parties aren't. But, I would love to see something like the Greece protests happen here. More whining about Obama being the great satan isn't going to make that happen. Convincing people that we have a President who might actually respond to mass protests could help convince people that it's worth their time.

[PA Democrat]

95. That might be true if many of the politicians on both sides of the aisle

hadn't sold their souls out to corporate interests. How else can you explain the sellout of the public option, the sellout on drug price negotiations? It is getting more and more difficult to our representatives to represent us.

[Radical Activist]

105. I'll quote my avatar.

"It becomes a contest of power: those who have money and those who have people. We have nothing but people." - SAUL ALINSKY

That's why organizing together is important. Being passive consumers of political news and occasionally calling an elected official isn't enough when we're up against wealthy special interests. But it can be done.

[PA Democrat]

106. I am no "passive consumer", I've worked more than my share of campaigns over the years.

And I'll continue to do so, although I will be much more selective about the politicians to whom I donate my time and money. I'm no youngster. I've seen a dramatic increase in my lifetime in the corporate influence in politics.

[Radical Activist]

108. I've also become more selective

about who I'll help. You have to be.

[Edweird]

99. Meh, more 'blame the victim' garbage. Good luck with that.

[madokie]

100. Thats why you'll never see me bash President Obama

I heard him loud and clear in fact I had it already figured out long before he hit the scene. We are the change we are looking for and until the people realize that, we'll be controlled by big bidness and special interest. Its as simple as that.

[Radical Activist]

102. Obama expects criticism.

I think that's fine. But then there are people who will attack Obama no matter what he does, fairly or unfairly, and never acknowledge any accomplishment. I don't see the point. I don't think it helps accomplish any progressive goal.
Spreading cynicism only helps conservatives. Conservatives want people to give up and believe they have no power to make change.

[madokie]

107. Very true

[LatteLibertine]

104. Yes

we are definitely responsible for gathering public support and pointing it in the right direction. Politicians aren't going to move on perceived low to no support on an issue. Of course sometimes it doesn't matter, as someone else pointed out, in the case of the public option. The harsh reality is many of the Washington crowd is not going to take "risky" positions that may alienate their easy money if they perceive their isn't a high demand for it. We need to be vocal, engaged and yes donate. Money talks as well.

President Obama and the Democrats have achieved some progressive ends that may be built upon. As lame as some parts of HCR may be, it has made working towards universal health care much easier. The door is open, a first step has been taken, and a frame work that could be used is being put in place. If you have an issue that is near and dear to your heart, stay on it and gather all the support you can for it. You need to keep constructive pressure applied.