response to ''Cult of Obama'' article on Newsweek

[yurbud]

One line in particular in the article really irked me, even more than the stupid right wing ''cult'' meme, that Obama was somehow ''outmaneuvered'' by the GOP.

Obama was not so much "outmaneuvered" by the GOP as he himself and the weak Democratic leadership in the Senate breathed life back into it by continuing some of the GOP's worst policies, constantly pleading for bipartisan support when they could have got things done if they exerted half the procedural hardball the GOP does when they control any branch of government, and refusing to call a spade a spade as far as the epic corruption, incompetence and even war crimes of the Bush administration.

The real problem is that the GOP serves one constituency, the very wealthy, and the Democrats at least try to appear to serve two: the very wealthy and the working and middle class.

In the past when the wealthy were actually investing in businesses in America they hoped would succeed, that made some sort of sense. Today when they are moving jobs overseas, firing workers to manipulate short term profits, buying businesses to cannibalize them, and even cannibalizing whole economic sectors through creating bubbles then shorting it at the peak and bursting it. Worse, when they run out of their own money to play god with, they demand ours with the gun to our head that they will tank our economy (as if they already haven't ) if we don't hand it over. You can't serve both the wealthy and middle class when the wealthy act like we are meat and they are the grinder.

We needed Obama to be an FDR or better, because the more radical the changes that are made now, the longer it would take the sociopathic trust fund babies to undo it, just as try as they might, they can't undo Social Security after 70 years and can only nibble around the edges of Medicare after 40 years. Their successful repeal of Glass-Stiegel and neutralizing effective oversight of Wall Street was their one great undoing of New Deal reforms and their feeding frenzy after that is what brought us to our knees. In that area, Obama needed to START with reinstating Glass-Steagall and then make it a few notches tougher.

Progressives who are disappointed with Obama are not idealists. We simply know how serious our problems are and know that asking for and listening to the advice of those who created the problems will not help.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/19/the-problem-with-the-cult-of-obama.html

[Imajika]

1. Well, at times, wasn't he?

Outmaneuvered I mean? How often did the Republicans claim to want to meet Obama halfway and be "bipartisan"? The answer is a lot. How often did they really act in a bipartisan way? The answer is almost never. Yet the President tried over and over and over to make deals with people who had no interest in reaching compromise. Months and months of wasted time on HCR trying to work things out with a Republican party that was only stalling for time and looking to sink the entire effort.

Yeah, Obama was outmaneuvered all too often.

As far as the cult thing goes. The President is an amazing figure with enormous potential, it is pretty normal that the people around him might be in awe of him to the degree they might be telling him what he wants to hear rather than the cold hard truth. This is not unusual. I wouldn't have used the word "cult", but I don't think Eleanor Clift is using it in a super derogatory way. She is, after all, a big supporter of the President.

[DrDan]

2. "cult" fits

[ProSense]

4. "Bullshit" fits too

The President has supporters like any other President. Claiming that people who support this President are part of a cult is insulting.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. Claiming there is none is denial

[girl gone mad]

20. You may find the label insulting, but those who encounter the behaviour have found it troubling.

Time and again the administration was warned that they were mishandling the economy. Time and again, critics, who have since been proven correct beyond all shadow of a doubt, were simply dismissed as "haters" by the can-do-no-wrong crowd.

[DrDan]

27. clearly fits the definition

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
. . .
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

profanity aside - there are supporters - then there are the more ardent supporters.

[yurbud]

9. I don't even think it fits his inner circle. His treasury secretary doesn't even seem to work for

him since he tried to block the appointment of Elizabeth Warren, and likewise, his defense secretary is largely on autopilot from the previous admin.

If Obama moved in too progressive a direction, most of his cabinet would raise a mighty stink and leak to the press like a sieve, or just quit.

That's not a cult, that's more like co-workers than even subordinates. They all work for the same bosses and they are bankers and hedge fund managers, not us.

[DrDan]

28. very clearly fits the definition

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
. . .
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

[yurbud]

34. it is more like veneration of an idea and Obama is a member not the focus

They believe if they faithfully serve the corporate god, they will be rewarded in the afterlife (life after they leave office). In that next life they will be a highly paid lobbyist, CEO, or do nothing board member. And if they are especially loyal and true, they will be reincarnated into a higher public office, then a higher corporate heaven, and so on until the end of time.

[MadMaddie]

13. Yawn

Was it a "cult" when Americans were so damned scared that they followed Junior into his "revenge" wars with Iraq and Afghanastan? "You are either with us or against us"? It's funny how so many Americans have short memories.....and an unwillingness to understand historical context. The Republicans have been working on the destroying the middle class for 30 years and then Democratic supporters can't figure out that it will take longer than 2 years to get out of the mess that was created.

Why is it considered a "cult" to support our Democratically elected President? Yep, we criticize him but it doesn't mean we quit because things aren't working out perfectly.

[11 Bravo]

31. I read that same talking point at freeperville. Any minute I expect to hear ...

a call for his birth certificate.

[yurbud]

7. If Harry Reid had used a tenth of the procedural tricks available to him, he could have neutered

the Party of No, like using reconciliation, recess appointments, etc. While reconciliation bills seem to have some sort of sunset requirement, they could have set a trap by the GOP by making the reforms so popular they wouldn't dare roll it back.

Instead, the Democrats chose the direct route that even the most casual observer of politics could have told them would be a loser.

They were outmaneuvered the way the Washington Generals are outmaneuvered by the Harlem Globetrotters. Once is a mistake. Making the same mistake over and over and over again and continuing to do so is not stupidity or incompetence, but political theater along the lines of professional wrestling or the old Hannity and Colmes show: the outcome is scripted in advance and both sides are paid by the same guy.

[TheWraith]

14. Please don't talk about things that you don't understand.

"like using reconciliation, recess appointments, etc. While reconciliation bills seem to have some sort of sunset requirement,"

It's not "some kind." It's ten years, period. Moreover, you CANNOT use reconciliation for bills which are not about the federal budget. Period. And Harry Reid cannot make recess appointments. The President can, and has, but Reid has nothing to do with it.

[yurbud]

21. Harry Reid said he would keep the Senate in session over the break so recess appointments couldn't

happen.

Of course Harry Reid can't MAKE recess appointments, but through inaction he could allow them to happen or with slight effort, he can block them.

Also, how many bills DON'T have something to do with the budget? Designating an official restroom attendant month or a national gum? That's about it.

Thanks for adding the exact length of the sunset, which I didn't have readily available.

I suspect the attitude in your reply is what's going on in the White House and at least the Senate: instead of looking for every angle to get things done, they are coloring well, well within the lines which earns them no points with the GOP or the American people. They don't have to break the rules like Bush did, but they should play right up to the line.

[Lasher]

30. The Byrd Rule is what imposes the 10 year limit.

It's a rule that allows Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports significantly to increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" as set forth in the Budget Act.

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

The 'cult' issue is mostly a distracting exercise in semantics, IMO. But the Newsweek response is excellent. Thanks for sharing, nice OP.

Lasher

[dsc]

15. reconsiliation is limited

and it was used for health care in case you forgot. Recess appointments are a Presidential power and have nothing whatsoever to do with Harry Reid. He did keep the Senate in pro forma session one time for a couple of days which was an error but did get some appointees votes who otherwise wouldn't have had them, other than that, Reid didn't block any recess appointees at all.

[Lasher]

32. Recess appointments have had a great deal to do with Harry Reid.

Bush repeatedly exploited the Recess Clause to install particularly objectionable individuals, after they had been considered and rejected by the Senate. The President can make these appointments only if the Senate is in recess for more than three consecutive days. At Reid's direction, pro forma sessions were conducted throughout the last two years of the GWB presidency, starting with the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. This effectively blocked all recess appointments from that point until Obama assumed the Presidency.

[craigmatic]

25. There isn't an Obama cult and it's often been reported that Obama doesn't trust people who

gush at how great he is.

[Phx_Dem]

29. Clearly not since he got nearly all of his big agenda items passed.

And far more than any other president in the same period of time.

[impik]

3. Oh well, one more professional left whining about the conservative Obama

Heard that all before.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[impik]

18. I may do just that, since you asked so nicely

At least find new whining material about Obama. This is really boring.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[yurbud]

8. the rich get the meat and get a nice bone to soak in our soup

and we get to pay for the meat the rich eat.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

10. I'm confused.

The parts you have in the text box are not clips from the article. I agree with them, but are they yours, or someone else's?

The article you linked to? I can't find a line saying he was outmaneuvered by the GOP. I find an article comparing Obama unfavorably to Clinton, and suggesting that he ought to be pandering to "Reagan Democrats" and "swing" voters, as if he weren't already.


What am I missing?

[yurbud]

11. the box is my response. ''Outmaneuvered'' is on the second page of the article or

hit ''view as single page'' then search for it.

[LWolf]

17. Okay, thanks.

Makes sense now! :hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Don't see much with which I disagree.

This administration was out-maneuvered, out-messaged, and then out-voted by many in the midterms.

Obama did NOT do the FDR thing, as he might have, and then he might have had a first 100 days like that of FDR.
His reaching across the aisle, time after time, resulted only his drawing back a bloody stump.
The repukes never had any intention of cooperating with Obama, or any other Dem, and never will. They want him out in 2012, and
are pretty up front about it.

Hoping for bipartisanship is a waste of time, effort and whatever goodwill is left among those that put Obama in office.



http://college.cengage.com/polisci/resources/first_100_days/articles/critical.html

<snip>

FDR's First 100 Days was indeed a model of presidential accomplishment. Between March and June 1933 Roosevelt successfully urged Congress to enact a series of laws creating a host of new federal programs. These included the Agricultural Adjustment Act, designed to help the nation's farmers; the National Industrial Recovery Act, which aided industrial workers; the Securities Act, a first step in regulating the stock markets; the Banking Act, which included, for the first time, federal bank deposit insurance; and much more. Some of these measures were temporary, but others (with various amendments and modifications) remain the law of the land even today.

But Roosevelt's legislative onslaught was possible only because he took office in the midst of the worst economic depression in the nation's history. The numbers themselves are staggering, though perhaps difficult to comprehend from our great distance. Fifteen million Americans were unemployed. The Gross National Product (GNP)-a measure of the nation's total economic activity-had fallen by more than half since 1929. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had risen to a height of 386.10 on September 3, 1929, fell to 41.22 on July 8, 1932-a drop of nearly ninety percent.

<snip>

[yurbud]

22. Would anyone who has paid even passing attention to politics for the last twenty years...

have expected bipartisanship to work. The only time it has in recent history is when it favors the financial elite like trade deals and anything to do with war and national security after 9/11, which also happened to favor the GOP.

So in DC, bipartisanship always means doing the conservative thing regardless of which party is in power.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. Yep. That is the way it has been. Even 9/11 played right into their hands.

The PNAC's Project for a New American Century requested exactly that kind of cataclysmic disaster in order to implement its plans. They mentioned specifically "a Pearl Harbor-like" occurrence...

Is it any wonder that that fully 1/3 of America believes it was an inside job?

LINKTV had an incredible show about this subject tonight...Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, and many,many other people who were involved in, and/or criticized NAFTA, CAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagel, etc. They were all giving dire warnings about sacrificing rights for security. Chalmers Johnson quoted Benjamin Franklin:Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither

It was an amazing show. They may show it again since it is fundraising week.

[yurbud]

24. if the Democrats were a real opposition party, that Franklin quote would have been a campaign theme

from 2002 onward. It might have cost them votes at first, but once people saw the truth of it, the GOP would have been finished.

[BrklynLiberal]

26. When it comes to messaging and framing the debate, the repukes are playing chess, and the

Dems are still playing checkers...

One would have thought that by now the Dems would have learned something..but nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[yurbud]

33. when it comes to messaging, most Dems aren't playing at all.

They're like Ben Stein in FERRIS BUELLET'S DAY OFF.


''If we close the donut hole in Medicare D, would it raise or lower health care costs for seniors? Anyone? Anyone? It would .... It woould... That's right, LOWER the health care costs. And are those benefits taxable? Anyone? Anyone?'' And so it goes.

Even when they grab the right position on the right issue, they can drain it of all life and refuse to use it as a club to beat the GOP as if that's a virtue.