When and where exactly are we supposed to criticize and push?

[jpgray]

I mean that seriously and respectfully. What do you see as the role for criticism? There will always be the argument that our leaders face great obstacles and are privy to more knowledge than we the voters, but if that's true to the point that we cannot even conceive properly of the process, is our role simply to show up and vote?

For my part, everyone telling people to stop criticizing until more is decided seem to have forgotten the health care debate. By the time bills had appeared, deals had been struck with AHIP and PhRMA for: a mandate and no public option on insurance; no negotiation on drug prices via Medicare, and no re-importation. Now Obama received more or less help from these industries in return, but if one cared about what was given away, when was the proper time to voice that opinion?

When is the proper time to criticize the direction of the deficit commission? The co-commissioners received a huge amount of coverage for what some describe as a meaningless nothing document--if their throwaway minor documents have such power to enter the debate, what will be the impact of the actual report? Shouldn't we worry and make ourselves heard -before- that report is released?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. it is too late.

and it is becoming too late for this administration.

They are digging their own graves. Watch them piss on progressives again, probably within the next week.

[ProSense]

2. Is the goal

to have a debate in which everyone is criticizing and making the same arguments?

[Oceansaway]

3. 'dancing w/the one who brung ya'

i guess this administration don't believe that anymore....

[treestar]

4. I could see criticizing its proposals

It's the over the top Obama is caving crap that is stupid. It's a commission. If we don't agree to one of its many proposals, we can say why. It's jumping to blame it all on Obama and assume he will go along with the worst of it that is silly.

the commission made many other recommendations, some of which would be fine with progressives, yet not one of those is mentioned and of course the leap to praising Obama for it not made.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Is there a difference between criticism that says " I don't agree with

the Cat Food Commission's findings" or "I am disappointed that we haven't drawn down troops in Afghanistan" or "Obama is wrong to extend tax cuts for the wealthy"--and criticism that goes like this: "Obama made a deal with Republicans and business interests to be awarded the Presidency in exchange for decimating America"? Some people don't think so. Some people here only show up on certain threads, to lob spitballs--they don't otherwise participate in any other topic of discussion here, have no interest in any good news about the President or Democrats, just lie in wait for an opportunity to lambaste the man. Their personal contempt is always on display. That's not "criticism" to me, that's hatred.

[FSogol]

8. +1. Exactly.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

24. Bingo.

Too many people don't understand the difference between logical and constructive criticism versus batshit-insane rantings.

[benlurkin]

6. Criticise all you want

But don't be upset when you are accused of whining by those you criticize.

[Exilednight]

7. "don't be upset when you are accused of whining by those you criticize. "

I would be more than happy to have this argument with any member of the Obama administration, and if Axelrod, Gibbs or Obama want to show up here on DU and call me a whiner, I am more than fine with that, as long as they are willing to read what I wrote.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. I don't think criticizing and pushing are bad at all

It's just the premature defeatism, over-the-top, hyperbolic, distorted, fact-free screeds that I can't stand much- from people on both sides of the political spectrum. However, people are still free to post whatever they want and call for whatever they feel will solve the problem (provided it's not violent).

In our current political system, when we don't like something, we are free to speak out about it and try to do something (peacefully and within the law) to try to change it, including getting other people to agree with us. Sometimes it works and things change for the better, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes we get what we want. Other times we don't. That's just life.

Debates about policies, proposals, criticism, accountability, etc. are perfectly fine whenever and wherever IMHO. Nobody should ever be told to shut up or be shut out. However, when people put their opinions out there, others are also free to disagree with it and be critical of it-respectfully, of course. That's what this kind of forum is supposed to be for- ideally.

[Exilednight]

10. Define "premature defeatism". I am kind of curious to know what some mean by ...........

this.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Basically, thinking everything is signed, sealed, and delivered....and over

when it isn't.........yet.

:shrug:

[ljm2002]

11. Premature defeatism?

You mean like this:

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," David Axelrod, President Obama's top political adviser, told Huffington Post last night.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. The story's been debunked

So, at least on Obama's end, nothing is over.

[ljm2002]

17. Nothing has been debunked...

...Axelrod is not denying what he said nor is Obama. All they are saying is "Yawn, nothing new here, move along kids."

What has been said is that the President is willing to consider compromising on the tax cuts to the rich. He just won't make the permanent, or so he says.

Therefore he has already caved in to the right wing on this issue, by signaling that he will not FIGHT to kill these deficit-busting tax cuts here and now.

[Clio the Leo]

12. When a Republican is in the White House. Until then...

[de novo]

15. Are you serious?

You are suggesting foregoing any critical thought. Are we supposed to support and defend every WH action,regardless or how atrocious, just because it is a Democratic WH?

[Clio the Leo]

26. You need to neither support or defend anything Obama does....

.... however, the realization that he's as far left of a President (even if it's not very left at all) as you or I will likely see in our lifetimes might help.

That and the understanding that you and I are a LOT farther left politically speaking than the bulk of the country ... because of that sad reality, legislation is not likely to be as progressive as we'd like it to be.

So criticize all you like, but know that your criticism may only serve to embolden the right and disappoint yourself.

He's a President, not a king.

[babylonsister]

25. lol! nt

[harun]

16. Keep critisizing, you'll be among friends (myself included)

[truedelphi]

18. Hey,when someone screws me over, and I am wise enough to understand that that is what is happening,

you can forget about me "criticizing."

The people in this Administration don't care about me. They have been done with me for a long time, and I am DONE with them.

They haven't cared about me from Day One, when they appointed Rahm, Geithner, and let Bernanke stay in power, gave the money to Wall Street, pretended they couldn't help and assist any in drafting legislation like the Health Care 'Reform' bill, and then when it passed without any public option, they were all, "This is so historic, and it came from us at the White House."

They can take their "historic" and put it up their _____!

[JoePhilly]

19. Do it all the time. Endlessly

Never acknowledge progress when it occurs.

No matter what happens, find the flaws and focus first and foremost on those.

Do what ever you can to discourage Democratic voters because in the end, no candidate they support ever really delivers.

And when a democratic candidate compromises in anyway, avoid voting in the next election ... send them a message that we will not tolerate minimal tactical progress.

After all, the GOP takes the same stand, which is how they got Roe V. Wade overturned so fast.

There is only two types of change ... NOW, or NEVER. And if we don;t get what we want NOW, then we NEVER will. So let's stay home, or vote for the GOP. Or vote for Nadar when next he crawls from his ground hog hole.

We should always fight us first. Then stop the GOP's advances, if we get around to that.

[impik]

20. "progressives" threw this president under the bus after less than 100 days

It really doesn't matter now.

[JoePhilly]

21. Sad but true.

All of the issues that brought the left together under Bush, fragmented the left within days after Obama took office.

No matter which issue he targeted, some segment of the left was pissed that "their issue" was not the current focus. When Obama switched focus, a new group would jump up and scream foul.

Again sadly, the left can't get together on the big things.

And worse, the administration is likely to learn that the left can't be counted on to cheer progress, unless the progress is total and complete. Anything less is capitulation ... and "the same as the GOP". Which discourages the democratic voters, and leads to losses like we just saw.

Congress is not filled with heros who will run left when the election seemed to pull to the right.

We Dems demonstrated that we can not be counted on ... ask Russ Feingold.

[truedelphi]

22. And would that have anything at all to do with the fact that

Obama's appointments were a bit nasty to the entire idea of progressive, old style Democratic party principles? Those of us schooled in the actions and words of FDR, and LBJ saw how this new President operated and it was scary.

In the first 100 days of his being in office, he started making appointments, and we progressives understood the implications of those appointments. Rahm, Geithenr, Mike Taylor, Velsick, et al.

If ever a crew of people were about handing this country over to Big Corporations and to further their agenda, this was it.

Contrast that with FDR stating that organized banking was a more vile corruption than what society faced from the Mafia.

Then look at Obama, and if you liked FDR, you have to cringe -- Obama moved Geithner, the friend of the Big Financial People, into an office just down the hall from the Oval Office.

LBJ managed to get a Civil Rights Bill passed, while facing opposition from 23 Democrats that were violently opposing it. Still managed to get it done, despite far more onerous threats of filibuster than Obama's Dem majority Congress ever faced over HC 'Reform.'

LBJ had a victory with the Civil Rights Bill because he was not the master of capitulation, but of negotiation.

And how are Obama's policies working out for you?

There are over thirty eight states whose deficits are unacceptable.

Teachers, fire fighters, social workers, project managers are all being pink slipped. Due to the states and their deficits.

The money that Obama and his weasel friends took out of the system and handed to their cronies on Wall Street has not made it back to Main Street.

On the plus side, if enough people wake up, we could have a progressive and true friend to the People run for office. A Grayson/Feingold ticket would be music to our ears.

[glitch]

23. Feingold/Grayson.

Grayson can be the pitbull while Feingold is the statesman.

[truedelphi]

28. I am liking it.

Hi there, glitch.

:hug:

And did you know the new meme replacing the old Sour Grapes meme about "They didn't get a pony" is that those of us talking about Feingold and Grayson are GOP trolls attempting to do a Psych ops on
our fellow Du'ers?!!

[glitch]

29. Oh good lord. Haven't seen it but then I have a very well-fed ignore list. Back atcha hi :) nt

:hug:

[truedelphi]

30. I am sorta liking the idea of having all this

Psych Ops power over the other people here.

Wait til tomorrow when those I don't like here will wake up with a pony head in their bed! (of course, being a member of PETA, it will be a stuffed animal Pony Head, but still!)

[Ignis]

27. How dare we, after such a progressive inauguration?