Why Obama can't blame the GOP for his inability to pass progressive legislation

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Obama-can-t-blame-the-by-Don-Smith-100823-859.html

Oh, those terrible Republicans. Indeed, indeed. Who can deny it? The Republicans are bad news.

But when I hear President Obama and the Democratic leadership blame the Republicans for the Democrats' inability to pass progressive legislation, I get angry. Nancy Pelosi could have instituted impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney once it became clear that they had misled the nation into war. At the start of his Administration, Obama could have pushed for prosecution of Bush-era crimes related to the war, torture, the politicization of the Justice Department, corruption of federal agencies, election fraud, and other matters.

In short, President Obama and the Democratic leadership's effort to shirk responsibility for effecting progressive change is belied by one salient fact: had Obama and the Democratic leadership prosecuted the Republicans for their numerous serious criminal acts, then the GOP would no longer be in a position to mount an effective resurgence.

The American people would now know the truth about what had happened, and many Republicans would be in prison or would be cowering in shame with their tails between their legs.

Instead, we all know what happened. Obama chose to be look forward, not backwards. Obama chose to be bipartisan, not confrontational. Obama chose to hide the truth from the American people. Obama surrounded himself with advisers from the Bush Administration and from the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Obama cut back room deals with Big Pharma and Big Insurance to eliminate a public option, the re-importation of drugs, and the ability of the government to negotiate drug prices. Obama continued Bush's bailouts of Wall Street, nixed windfall profit tax on bonuses, escalated the war in Afghanistan, and fired progressive advisers at the slightest provocation. Etc, etc, etc. See this petition.



More at the link --

[DrDan]

1. rec

[notadmblnd]

2. I think when all is said and done, the history books written

Obama will come off looking much like Carter, weak. Of course they'll be sympathetic and make excuses such as Republicans said no to everything. However, maintaining the status quo is the name of the game with all these politicians.

I wish he'd prove us wrong but I don't think that will happen.

[NanceGreggs]

3. Also please see ...

... Donnachaidh's many, many OPs about how Obama is the ruination of democracy as we know it. Etc, etc, etc.

[Donnachaidh]

5. Nance deciding to personally call out someone?

Of course, I wasn't the one writing the articles -- but you go right ahead with the smear tactics.

[NanceGreggs]

6. Just stating the obvious ...

... that's all.

[Donnachaidh]

7. by breaking the rules?

Yeah -- That's obvious enough. It's so *you*.

[NanceGreggs]

8. You know where the alert button is ...

... and if you think I've broken the rules, you can use it.

[Donnachaidh]

10. sure do -- and you can do the same

now isn't it time to be writing some spillgut, self-serving piece on how wondrous the Democratic Party is? hmm? :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

77. You aren't representing the zeitgeist anymore Nance

:shrug:

[JNelson6563]

21. Hmmm...I dunno....

When I saw your post title and took a look at the author I must say I've noticed a real pattern there. Some people like to post negtive stuff about the Pres. Exclusively, pparently.

But hey, why skirt it? I've you've got a hate thing for Obama, say so proudly! Surely if you feel that way you must feel justified, run with it! Declare your feelings proudly!

I see the assertion all over DU that those who unrec a thread without explaining themselves are cowards. I should say those who post articles and/or posts supporting one viewpoint consistently are rather cowardly to not own up to holding that viewpoint when called on it.

I mean, WHAT IS UP WITH THAT???

Julie

[MineralMan]

30. No, but you're the one posting them without comment.

Some of your posts have come from right-wing sources. Still no comment. Sorta like walking up and dropping feces in the beverage bowl, it seems to me. I find it offensive, and wish you'd post something in your own words from time to time, instead of searching out anti-Obama posts anywhere you can find them, then posting them without comment here on DU. But, that's just my opinion.

[grantcart]

37. It's nice to have a hobby.

[Touchdown]

42. Offensive!

:(

[Desertrose]

44. Whatever would we do without the thread police.....

pointing out what they think we need to think.

[inna]

65. Nice personal attack there, Nance.

Pathetic.

[girl gone mad]

72. Tacky.

I generally find Donna's posts to be thought-provoking.

Can't remember the last time you posted anything of real substance.

[Egnever]

76. LOL

[CreekDog]

75. I searched and you are wrong Nance -cute that you probably think this is helping Obama

making an untrue statement about another poster is very, very poor form.

[kas125]

78. Ya know, I used to absolutely love the things you wrote. But

lately I've been sorely tempted to push that ignore button which previously had been only used for OMC. Ugh.

[jaxx]

4. Unrec

<-> So, I say: punish Obama, but don't punish the Dems in general.

How? Condemn Obama widely, pass resolutions critical of Obama in Democratic organizations, write letters-to-the-editor saying why Obama is doing poorly.<


No thanks. Undermining the President isn't going to get us anywhere.

[xchrom]

9. Recommend

[DailyGrind51]

11. !00% correct! He received nothing for his "looking forward"!

Legislation still got bogged down and passed only with major modifications. Republicans did not demonstrate one iota of gratitude.

[seabeyond]

12. i don't like it either. we knew this well before he was elected too.

he made it clear he would not go after that stuff prior to his election

no surprise

[zipplewrath]

16. Not exactly

We heard the whole "prefer to look forwards not backwards" schitck, but he also modified it with something about "specific cases of violations". But the bottom line is since taking office, he's basically avoiding doing ANYTHING and in fact when over to the CIA to tell them that he "had their backs".

[seabeyond]

22. i dont know, i heard what he was saying. and knew both our candidates

would not go after so that was not an equation in my vote. it sickened me, angered me adn still pisses me off, but it is what it is.

i think it is such a HUGE mistake that will effect us continually, not having drawn the line in criminality

[zipplewrath]

27. Forever

We will not be able to ever stop a future president from torturing ever again. They demonstrated exactly how to commit an act of conspriacy to commit torture and be successful. Without prosecution, no court will ever be willing to consider it ever again. And this from a "constitutional law professor". Who'da thunk it.

[seabeyond]

29. nsa, tsa, lying to start war, outing cia agent for agenda.... i agree with you. nt

[seabeyond]

31. went to in laws for christmas right after election. many repugs. BIL dem, saying obama not going

after bush. saying

why.... (in texas slang).... should they go after past

WHY.... shouldnt we look to future

WHY>>>>>

after the third WHY, i said, cause "he broke the law". there were three lawyers standing there.

it got quiet

them MIL chewed my ass off and i was told we were NOT having this discussion

oh ya, right. only coddling the repugs allowed.

[bkozumplik]

82. um no, no he didnt. apr 19 2009. well into his term

Get your facts straight.


After he was elected he had his lackey Rahm come out and state his position, because it played better for him coming from an underling.


just pathetic. that was certainly a taste of what we had coming though.

[RC]

13. There is something everyone needs to understand.

We do not run our government. Our Government does not even run our government.

To do what you suggest, would result in a rash of small plane crashes, Toyota style accidents, some heart attacks, "suicides" and a few out-right high profile assignations.

[bkozumplik]

83. who cares

yes some assassinations, but then justice would be done. And then we hunt down the people who did the assassinations and bring them to justice (kill them).
Its well worth it.

Or we could just say its too hard and let justice slide. Who cares I guess, right?

[HughBeaumont]

88. I've said this many times.

The crimes of the BFEE ARE going to be gotten away with. That's the way old money works. You stand up to old money and old corporations, you usually take a bullet. Or a plane crash. Just ask the Kennedys. These fuckers are all just plain evil. Politics and justice has NEVER worked in favor of our side. I don't like it any more than you do, but there it is.

[liberal N proud]

14. So the right can continue to be the party of NO while their media

writes propaganda how it is all Obama's fault.

And the left buys this bullshit

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Pelosi took if off the table.

I don't see the constitutional path for Obama to resurrect prosecution. The failure was long ago (Pelosi, et al), and is one issue I won't lay at Obama's feet.

Also, I'm not certain that the outcome of such prosecution would be as rosy as envisioned in the OP.

[TheKentuckian]

70. Why not? It's not a double jeopardy issue or any such thing

Failing to impeach does not preclude criminal prosecution nor does a guilty vote for impeachment mean criminal culpability. The issues are distinct.

[Poboy]

17. 'Obama chose to hide the truth from the American people.' nt

[melm00se]

18. The Democrats

hold a decisive majority in both Houses and in the Senate only have to sway 1 Republican to move forward any legislation as they see fit yet they don't.

the WHY is the 800 pound gorilla in the corner that everyone seems to be afraid to confront.

[LiberalAndProud]

20. It would be decisive if not for the likes of the Nelson twins, Lieberman, etc.

I am more symphathetic with Obama, because I have not been able to move Ben on anything.

The man REFUSED to fillibuster Bush on a single piece of legislation ... a president from his own party, however, is a different story.

I guess your senator is easier to get along with than mine.

[Hansel]

33. That 800 pound gorilla is a lock stepped Republican party

who has members afraid to step out of line and whose only goal is to regain power. Them and a handful of members of the Democratic caucus, one of whom campaigned against this president in the last election with a senile old man.

[JHB]

52. So what's the plan to deal wiith that gorilla? n/t

[Little Star]

19. k&r

[yowzayowzayowza]

23. Watta steaming pile of wannabe. Unrec.

As if prosecuting Repukes is gunna change Liebermanz vote. :eyes:

[bkozumplik]

84. its about doing the right thing

not doing the right thing only when you count the votes and they come out ok.

You do the right thing, even if you are going to lose. Thats how we should roll.

[yowzayowzayowza]

87. You'd have a point if the art of politics were played out on a virtuous canvas. n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

24. The President made the mistake of thinking he was dealing with honorable people --

that the olive branch, once extended, would be graciously accepted and a new era of "post-partisanship" would begin.

So much for that.

[spanone]

25. he can blame the do nothing congress where he can't pass conservative legislation

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Where else is "blame the victim" considered acceptable?

[MineralMan]

28. So here's something else that author said, a little further down

in his blog article:

"Condemn Obama widely, pass resolutions critical of Obama in Democratic organizations, write letters-to-the-editor saying why Obama is doing poorly."

Is that what you want people to do? How does that help any progressive cause? It sure seems like the philosophy you're following here on DU. It's tiresome, in my opinion.

Unrecommended for unrelenting Obama-bashing.

[Bobbie Jo]

32. Unrec.

What? No World Net Daily, today?

[Hansel]

34. What an asinine article.

The premise that Nancy Pelosi launching us into investigations of the previous administration on war crime would somehow make it easier to pass progressive legislation is insane. Whether one agrees or disagrees that it should have been done, the action in and of itself would have had an even more paralyzing impact on getting legislation passed than already exists.

The Republicans and the media would have spun the investigations as a witch hunts and most of the American people would have ho-hummed and exclaimed that we were fighting terrorists so what is the problem? I guess I missed the lasting and disgusted outrage over Abu ghraib. The author surely knows that the American people are buying into the narrative that Muslims building a community center blocks away from the site of the World Trade Centers is like slapping the 911 victims in the face, even though they had nothing to do with the attacks.

There is a base naivety in this article that is simply unbelievable.

Exactly why those of us on the left fail to, in some cases, recognize and, in most cases, attack Republicans viciously for their un-statesmen-like and un-American strategy to block every bit of legislation is a mystery.

This country is is a horrible state of affairs and the American people are suffering because the Republicans are filibustering and blocking almost everything and voting no on what they can't block. Not because they really believe what the Democrats are doing is bad for the country, but because they believe it will be good and lead to Democratic victories at the polls.

Instead of some of the most vocal on the left blasting Republicans for their profound unprofessional and immature nature and the disastrous consequences for the country of their behavior, they are buying into the meme that it is Obama's fault because he didn't give them all of the ponies they wanted.

[Kweli4Real]

41. Thank You ...

You have stated the source of my frustration with many folks on this site. We tend to drop highly simplistic "cures" and take offense when our solution is called for what it is, highly unrealistic. We blame President Obama when we don't get exactly what we want, ignoring the fact that our elected officials are the ones with the power and responsibility to propose and enact what we want.

But what is most frustrating is we act as if republicans and conservative democrats are willing to work for a progressive agenda, if only President Obama will stomp his feet and wag his finger ... They haven't and they won't.

But I guess it would make many of us "feel better" if he did, regardless of the actual outcome.

[LostInAnomie]

46. Indeed

The article is a load of "prosecution panacea" shit.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. Precisely. the idiot who wrote that article, along with the other idiots who slavishly...

hang on to such thinking, doesn't want to remember how fractured and debilitated the country was during the last two impeachment attempts.

And, true, the Party of No has absolutely no interest in the deficit, employment, or anything else except for getting back into power. Anything to make Obama and Congressional Democrats look bad is the general order. Damn the country-- the worse things get, the more they can blame on us.

And useless idiots like the writer of that ignorant article are falling for it.

[ThinkerFeeler]

62. Yes, we should attack Republicans viciously

Yes, we should attack Republicans viciously, as you suggest. But Obama has gone out of his way to aid and protect Republicans. His "bipartisanship" thing has been a disaster. In my article I accused Obama of failing to do PRECISELY what you suggest.

It's hard to defend the claim that Obama has been trying to enact progressive legislation. He doesn't even seem to be trying. He's surrounded himself with Bush-era advisers and has gone out of his way to stab progressives in the back.

Listen, I don't want to aid the Republicans, and my article was MOSTLY an effort to convince hardcore leftists to quit their vain efforts to form a third party. They should infiltrate the Dems and push it leftwards. Unfortunately, progressives are between a rock and a hard place. And I can't help but feel Obama bears a lot of the blame for the mess we're in.

You're right: the GOP are much worse and deserve widespread condemnation. That's why I'm so upset with Obama.

Don

[ThinkerFeeler]

63. A couple more things

OF COURSE the GOP are horrible. Who in their right mind can deny it? That's why Obama's bipartisanship has been so disastrous and why he should have held them accountable.

Many people claim that Obama couldn't prosecute Bush-era crimes because he or his family or his advisers would get killed. That's a tempting explanation. But I would think the honorable thing to do, in that case, would be to tell like it is to the American people.

Please read the END of my article to see my message targeted towards third-party progressives. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Obama-can-t-blame-the-by-Don-Smith-100823-859.html

As for impeachment not working, it worked pretty damn well for the GOP during Clinton's years. It worked well enough to deny the White House to Gore and to make the Dems look like immoral slobs.

The Republicans don't hold their punches. They'll lie, cheat, steal, etc. Why should the Dems be kind to the GOP? Pelosi and Obama DIDN'T EVEN TRY. Given the magnitude of the crimes perpetuated by the Bush gang, it's hard to see how there couldn't have been convictions and a fallout -- or, at the very least, a great airing out and education for the American people.

BTW, what ponies has Obama given progressives? Very few. It's not clear to me that he isn't running towards the opposite team's goal post.

[inna]

66. " it is Obama's fault because he didn't give them all of the ponies they wanted"

[LAGC]

67. It sure is amazing how often "ponies" and "magic wands" are brought up, isn't it?

Pathetic.

[lonestarnot]

35. Asshats abound.

[MilesColtrane]

36. Bovine Excrement

[Scurrilous]

38. unrecc

:thumbsdown:

[Greyhound]

39. I think trying is a prerequisite to failing. K&R.

[Desertrose]

43. Good points...K&R

[jannyk]

45. k&r

[OhioChick]

47. K&R n/t

[Vehl]

49. the problem with Obama is that he thinks he can reason with right wing nuts! .nt

[Barack2theFuture]

50. K&R

Judge them by their actions (or their choice of inaction).

Not their names.

Not their photo spreads.

Certainly not their words.

[BootinUp]

51. Maybe I should've recced it, I am getting some good laughs

reading the replies. :rofl:

[fascisthunter]

53. rec

[Mimosa]

54. Dare not criticise the failures?

Another topic started out with a link to this excellent article about the 'Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left':

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00043/uq-wire-the-gatekeepers-of-the-so-called-left.htm

Donna and many of us are frustrated by the top down agenda.

Why should we shut up and step into line? We worked and contributed to getting the President elected. Now he's appointed people who want to cut social security. He did not get a progressive health care plan passed.

[bvar22]

55. K&R

"A Public Mandate Unused,
Is a Mandate wasted."---bvar22

Lieberman, Bauccus, Nelson....pffft!
Obama and The Democratic Party could have CRUSHED them anytime they wanted to.
The operative phrase is "wanted to".

Can you IMAGINE Lieberman standing up and blocking LBJ from passing Medicare?
:rofl:

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[LiberalAndProud]

64. Crushed them how?

This is belicose nonsense. Really.

[scheming daemons]

56. What failure? Obama's passed more progressive legislation than any President in 80 years

..

[dflprincess]

57. Eighty years ago Herbert Hoover was president

you're maintaining Obama has passed more progressive legislation than FDR (or LBJ for that matter)?

What color is the sky in your world?

[scheming daemons]

58. Ok.. 75 years..... SINCE the New Deal

[dflprincess]

59. Lyndon Johnson had a far more progressive agenda than Obama

has ever imagined - even while playing 3D chess.

BTW - what is considered New Deal legislation was passed into 1938. Quite a bit of of it continued to benefit all of us until the real push to dismantle it began with Reagan in the 80s. A push that continues to this day with the complicity of "new" Democrats.

[scheming daemons]

60. Lyndon Johnson would be considered "DLC" by today's progressives

Pro war? check...

Pro business? check...

Generally conservative? check...


Yes... he passed Kennedy's Civil Rights and Medicare legislation... but not because he wanted to. Because the one noble thing he did while President was to try to honor Kennedy's legislative agenda.

[dflprincess]

61. Johnson passed Medicare in the belief it was the first step to a national heathcare plan for all

of us.

Johnson was a great admirer of FDR and wanted to follow in his footsteps. It is a great tragedy that he let us get bogged down in spending too much money on an unnecessary war. It's also a tragedy the other presidents haven't learned from his mistake.

In additon to the 1964 Civil Rights Act his adminstration also pushed for and got

1965 Voting Rights Act
1965 Immigration and Nationality Services Act (abolishing quotas based on country of origin)
1968 Civil Rights Act banning housing discrimination & extending constitutional protections to Native Americans on reservations.

The War of on Poverty which included:
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
Job Corps
VISTA
Medicaid
Model Cities Program (urban redevelopment)
Upward Bound
Legal Aid
Food Stamps
Head Start
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, (the first time significant federal money went to public education)
The Higher Education Act of 1965 increased federal money given to universities
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 federal aid to local school districtsto address the needs of children with limited English-speaking skills

From your "most progressive president since 1935" we've gotten mandated insurance premiums, attacks on public education, teachers and other unions, a refusal to follow through on civil rights for Gays and the Cat Food Commission.

Yes, Johnson was considered a war monger - but he was a long way from the DLC. His domestic agenda probably would have classed him as a "professional liberal" today. Though the funny thing is, Johnson wasn't considered left wing in his day at all - this is what mainstream Democrats used to believe in.

[AtomicKitten]

68. The GOP in lockstep + ConservaDems are to blame. nt

[ThinkerFeeler]

69. Comments from the author of the OpEdNews article

The most powerful criticisms of my article are (1) I should attack the GOP, not Obama, since the GOP are far worse; and (2) Why am I so sure that prosecutions of the Republicans would have succeeded and weakened the GOP?

Here are my replies:

OF COURSE the GOP are horrible. Who in their right mind can deny it? That's why Obama's bipartisanship has been so disastrous and why he should have tried to hold them accountable. He's gone out of his way to defend and protect them and has also gone out of his way to piss off progressives.

As for impeachment not working, it worked pretty damn well for the GOP during Clinton's years. It worked well enough to deny the White House to Gore and to make the Dems look like immoral slobs.

The Republicans don't hold their punches. They do all that's in their power to destroy Democrats and progressives: lie, cheat, steal, you name it. They've repeatedly kicked ass. Why should the Dems treat them with kid gloves? It's stupid. Pelosi and Obama DIDN'T EVEN TRY. Given the magnitude of the crimes perpetuated by the Bush gang, it's hard to see how there couldn't have been convictions and a fallout. Or at least the American public would have gotten a good education about what happened.

BTW, what ponies has Obama given progressives? Very few. It's not clear to me that he isn't running towards the opposite team's goal post on many issues.

Listen, I don't want to aid the Republicans, and my article was MOSTLY an effort to convince hardcore leftists to quit their vain efforts to form a third party. (Read the end!) They should infiltrate the Dems and push it leftwards. Unfortunately, progressives are between a rock and a hard place. And I can't help but feel Obama bears a lot of the blame for the mess we're in. He could have done so much better, and he needs to be held accountable too.

[inna]

71. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

It's in transition right now BTW, things have been... strange around here lately.

[LAGC]

73. Great post, and welcome to DU!

I, too, think progressives need to further infiltrate the Democratic Party, not give up on it! We've come a long ways, but we still have a ways to go...

[Steely_Dan]

79. ThinkerFeeler...

Welcome to DU. I enjoyed your article very much. I hope to see more in the future.

-P

[bkozumplik]

85. recced.

dont let the ra ra unrecs get you down. Some people just really need a strong leader because they cant stand the thought of dealing with the world themselves.

[hfojvt]

86. impeachment worked well for Republicans?

1997 - Republicans begin impeachment proceedings against Clinton, the House was split 228 - 206
1998 - Democrats pick up 5 seats in the House now it's 223 - 211.
2000 - Democrats pick up another seat, now 221 - 212

2006 - before the election Nancy Pelosi takes impeachment off the table, House was split 232 - 202
2006 - after the election the house is now split 202 - 233, Nancy becomes speaker, and impeachment does not happen
2008 - Democrats win big again, now the House is 178 - 257

It seems pretty clear that NOT impeaching worked better for Democrats than impeaching did for Republicans, and that was with the media in their corner. Since Obama did not campaign on impeachment, although a few people here seemed to want him to, the public did not really give him a mandate for impeachment.

[Control-Z]

74. Unrec n/t

[Catherina]

80. Recommended n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

81. Silly, trials would not persuade current GOPers in Congress to vote for

Employee Free Choice Act. It would just give the MSM more to talk about (instead of the economy).

The GOP enacted show trials and how much legislation did it get them?

Trials are intended the weaken the executive branch---and right now no one (no Democrat that is) wants to weaken Obama. I am sure if the GOP takes over they will start trials.