I have seen a lot of criticism concerning President Obama...

[rasputin1952]

While I think criticism can certainly be a good thing, often bringing things into perspective; there are times when I have to wonder just why there is such vitriol in some of the threads/posts.

I, like everyone else, do not agree with everything the president has done, or not done. Anyone who would blindly follow someone without questioning them is a fool. But there is a difference between questioning and and just plain seeking out whatever is negative and making it into a firepit of discontent.

What I have seen lately, is what appears to be a game of "grenade toss". No one "wins" in a situation like that, we all know that we leave little more than bad feelings for other members when we just toss a grenade and then hide from the blast.

Not to defend the president, but he has been given a terrible set of situations to reconcile, and some of these could be disastrous to the nation, perhaps the world, if they are not dealt with. We all have our priorities, just as the president does. I, like many, don't see eye to eye on the list he has created, but it is his list, we put him in office to deal with problems the previous administration threw at us. After just under a year, he's made progress in several areas. I applaud him for that.

Is there more to do? Of course there is, and for the next 3 years, we'll see progress. I would like to remind members of DU that we have a president, not a king. The president cannot, except under the most extreme of conditions, "dictate" what this nation will do. He has no power to create law, that is the job of the legislature, and the members of Congress should be the targets of letters, e-mails and phone calls, they are the one's who will produce the laws that will move us ahead. The president can use the bully pulpit, (and I admit he has not done so to a particularly great degree), to get some things into the public arena; but there is an immense difference between railing here on DU, and getting in touch with your Representatives and Senators to affect change. To be sure, conservatives have a great advantage over us in this area.

Constructive criticism is always welcome, venom and vitriol is a whole different matter. I understand the frustration many have, but it would be better to use that frustration to bring forth ways that we can use to change things, as opposed to just bashing the target of the day. It is easy to complain, it is difficult actually act. We should be working toward things that will move this nation forward, not just sitting on a keyboard and inciting little more than flamewars or allowing our emotions to dictate how we fail in action.

Once again, I implore people to act. Just calls to your local legislators to recall some of the reprehensible characters in Congress now can have dramatic results. Take some goomer like Grassley, or Sanford. If the population rose up and demanded a recall from their respective states, the whole nation would take notice. I've been calling Ben Nelson's office, and have been in touch with my leg to get Nelson to get in line, as have many other Nebraskans...he has softened on a lot of his stances lately. Point is, contact works. To be sure, Nelson still ticks me off, especially since I worked my butt off to get him re-elected, but he also is capable of listening and changing when he feels the heat.

So, I ask once again that members here contact their congresscritters...make sure they know how you feel. Let's work to get some positive change, starting with Congress and let's get them to take care of American problems.


ETA: a link: http://www.congress.org/

[NJmaverick]

1. Great post and here are some helpful links

How to contact your congressman

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/contact_congres.htm

How to contact our President

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[rasputin1952]

2. Thank you...

I forgot links to make it easier...:blush:

[Dinger]

26. Yes, Thank You. Those Are Excellent : )

:)

[live love laugh]

135. ..."your congressman"..."our President".......they belong to US.. nt

[defendandprotect]

181. There's a lot of corporate $$$$ blocking that supposition . . . !!!

Most of our elected officials are PRE-OWNED and PRE-BRIBED by corporations --

We've known this was going on for 30-40 years now . . .

We're still waiting for a Plan B to overturn corporatism in America --

We can keep hoping, but for 30-40 years now that hasn't worked . . .

[Cha]

143. Thank you, NJmaverick, for all those priceless links!

[izquierdista]

3. ...if they are not dealt with...

As in keeping Wall Street in charge of the Treasury and the same old, same old Pentagon strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan?

To give you an idea how much of a do-nothing Obama has been, check out how many Executive Orders he has issued so far -- 32 (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html). Then go calculate how many FDR averaged over his 12 years -- 288. Somebody is all talk and no action.

[rasputin1952]

12. The difference is, President Obama is not FDR...

while there are some parallels, this is an different situation, in a different time frame.

Hoover was the victim of what had been set in motion from his predecessors; FDR tried many things, and when some failed, he moved to another aspect. One thing PO can do is get rid of all of the remnants of bush's administration...that would help a lot. bush was a complete disaster, a blueprint for what not to do. PO can learn from that, as well as take some of FDR's legacy and place it into motion. Public works would be an incredible boost.

I, personally, think he should get out of the ME, but he is most likely privy to a lot more info than we have, and I'm sure that had a lot to do with what he's doing in Afghanistan.

The biggest thing right now...shut down the GOP, crush it with truth. They squeal now, but hey brought the nation to the very edge of disaster. People should be reminded that the R's were in charge, completely, and they tried to kill off the nation. Now is the time to act for Americans, people will not forget when they benefit, either directly of indirectly from benefits that come from from rebuilding the infrastructure and the financial section of this nation.

[Pisces]

4. Very well written. It's a thin line between love and hate. I think some feel personally

betrayed, even though they did not listen to Obama. I also think there are a lot of hidden trolls here that want to cause trouble. Unlike the freepers we don't purge dissent so they try and plant ugly seeds
to get us criticizing the President and Congress.

I find it interesting that I am not surprised at all by any of Obama's moves. I told a left leaning Republican who voted for Obama that he was going to be more centrist and conservative than many thought. He does love the law and believes in the system. Many on this board think he should behave like a conquering dictator.

Thank you for you post.

[NJmaverick]

5. Good point, President Obama campaigned as a pragmatists, not a ideologue

It was the opposition that tried to paint him as a far left socialist

[rury]

58. President Obama is a left-of-center pragmatist, period!!

[liberation]

83. Do you know what "pragmatism" means?

It is like claiming someone is a "very devout catholic agnostic."

[rasputin1952]

85. No it isn't....

ETA: a practical approach to problems and affairs

[JAbuchan08]

99. Except it's not actually practical

in fact it's the opposite of practical from the standpoint of realism.

I mean, you could say that it's "impractical" to vote for a "far-left" candidate because they "aren't going to win anyways," but if 51% of the voting populace is not voting for a candidate that they agree with out of this "practical" concern, what they are doing is actually completely impractical.

In other words, if you do something that is counterproductive because it is "achievable" I think that that counts as something less than practical, especially if by defining pragmatism and practicality so narrowly you put an unnecessary ceiling on what *is* achievable.

[HughMoran]

133. That's gobbledygook

Seriously - the idea that a majority would vote 'pragmatically' and somehow defeat a viable 'far-left' candidate is a fabrication in your mind alone - it almost never happens that way in the 'real world'.

[rasputin1952]

134. No one from the "far-left", or "far-right" will win an election

it might be that they lean right or left, but people do not like radicals from either side. Look at the meltdown of the GOP...it is because they have decided to go radical...many have lost faith in their party, and have turned away from the "far-right". The same thing happens every time a "far-left" person runs.

It must appear that the candidate is somewhere near the center.

[HughMoran]

136. The irony, of course, is those laughing at NY23 and then alternately wanting to do the same

It's not possible to point this out without starting a fuss, of course, but it does occur to me from time to time ;)

[defendandprotect]

182. Not until we get IRV voting . . . At the moment Dems only competititon is from the right . . .

which constantly moves the Dem Party to the right --

We need to change that --

[JAbuchan08]

219. Well, then the question is how does one define the center?

over the last 30 years the center has moved. so should we continue to chase it to the right in order to remain "practical" and "pragmatic," lowering our expectations and self-limiting our possibilities? or do we stand on principle and try to move the center towards us?

I sometimes feel that I am alone on this (even on a 'democratic' board!), but I actually believe that the "mode" position of the "far-left" is quite a bit more reasoned and moderate than even the so-called "centrists" and "moderates." Frankly I think the characterization of so many people as "far-left" has more to do with their tone and stridency than it has to do with the extremity of their beliefs.

I actually believe (and again I sometimes feel alone on this) that strong democratic ideals articulated by a strong speaker can actually be quite popular. That's what I *thought* we had with Obama, but he, like you it seems (and I don't mean to give offense) is more concerned with "keeping up centrist appearances"

[tledford]

259. Since 1948, *when has* a legitimate "far-left" candidate run?

Henry Wallace might could be labeled "far-left," but name another one who ran on a ticket other than American Communist Party or Socialist Party?

[tledford]

260. Your theory is full of holes.

Ronnie Raygun was *extreme* right, so much so that *Republicans* pushing Ford for the nomination in 1976 printed bumper stickers that read "Ronald Reagan for Fuehrer!"

[JAbuchan08]

221. The point wasn't that the "far left" has 50% + 1 support

but that if we make up front concessions to a vague idea of what is "practical" and "pragmatic" or where the "center" is we've already put a ceiling on what is achievable without actually first testing where that ceiling is.

[HughMoran]

224. So 28 years of Republican dominance gives no idea of how stupid Americans are?

Candidates haven't lost enough elections on a single issue to gauge which issues can be problematic?

Polls have no basis at all in reality?

I think you underestimate the amount of research that goes into running for political office in a country where one unethical party shows no compunction about lying their asses off to win elections.

On top of all the practical concerns, it takes a certain amount of talent to run for office - there isn't exactly an overflowing pool of qualified people willing to risk their future for a stressful job that has crappy pay & a limited contract length.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Thank you for posting this rational OP. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

7. Very true. Excellent post. Some progressives personally attack Obama more than righters.

Seriously. It's puzzling. I think some may be birthers implanted to cause trouble. Others are just pissed that their guy didn't win, so their aim is to constantly diss the guy who beat their guy, with no concern for the Democratic Party agenda and the citizens. I guess.

I have problems with some of the things the Prez has done, and not done. I don't have problems with some other things. The vitriol coming from some, though, is as if the Prez has done nothing whatsoever that is in keeping with the Democratic Party. It's not an objective, real view. It's just spitting vitriol for the sake of running someone into the ground. We already have this from the Republicans. Why would some on the left also do this, even to a greater degree in some cases? It boggles the mind, is unconstructive, and harms us all.

[NJmaverick]

21. To combat the Republican enemy many had to adopt their tactics

once adopted it's hard to step back and give them up.

[MNDemNY]

208. You seem to have adopted the tactic of:

Bowing to what ever the President says, just like the republofucks while Bush was in office. Good move. How's that TV doc????:rofl: :rofl:

[saltpoint]

8. Fist-pounding-the-table agreement. Recommended.

[NJmaverick]

19. Have you ever done that in real life?

I am not busting on you, because I know what you mean. It's just that I have never seen it done (nor have I done it) in real life.

[saltpoint]

22. "...and with every jar that hit the bar / We swore we would remain

And make the MARY ELLEN CARTER rise again!"

(Stan Rogers, "The MARY ELLEN CARTER")

Truth be told, I'm more of a "Hell yes" verbal affirmer than a literal fist-pounding enthusiast, although I carry a healthy respect for the fist-pounders.

[FailureToCommunicate]

145. Stan Rogers lives! Well said, saltpoint.

[saltpoint]

209. Stan does live, and so does T. Paine. Love your sig line.

[Turborama]

124. I haven't done any fist pounding but I have had a couple of headdesk & facepalm moments lately n/t

[JuniperLea]

233. My grandfather was all about it...

Sometimes his agreements were as boisterous as his disagreements:)

[saltpoint]

249. Sounds like somebody I'd love to buy a beer for.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[liberalmuse]

9. Beautifully said!

You hit the nail right on the head - criticism is one thing, vitriol is something entirely different. It's a breath of fresh air to see thoughtful posts like yours. I've come to see those who support President Obama here on DU as somewhat of a anomaly, though I suspect the majority of DU members continue to support him, even when he has to make tough decisions we may not agree with.

It's gotten to the point in the past week where if you don't slam President Obama, you are called a 'warmonger'. Fuck, I was out protesting, calling, writing letters, screaming, crying, losing sleep, and downing anti-depressants because of these horrific wars started by Bush back since 2001. Don't tell me I'm a fucking warmonger because I don't rake Obama over the coals over every Matt Taibbi and Jane Hamsher article that hits the net.

It is possible not to agree with every policy coming out of his Administration without hating and demonizing Our President and erroneously labeling those who don't do the same as 'Kool-Aid drinkers' or 'mindless supporters'. I hate war and wish we'd pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, however, I also believe that President Obama is thoughtful and not a man who makes decisions lightly (like someone else we know), instead, he takes his time and reviews all the information at his disposal before making tough, unpopular, heart-wrenching choices. It's easy to rake him over the coals, but none of us are in his shoes. It's a matter of trust, and patience. So far, there is more information that shows the man is trustworthy than the knee-jerk articles I've seen that seem to be posted here over and over again (and I'm talking about a handful of the same articles from the usual knee-jerk critics).

It's been less than 12 months. It would be wise to give the man a bit more time - time afforded to many of his predecessors. I'm talking a few years, because we will not truly see all the fruits of his labor instantly.

[goclark]

17. Ding, Ding,Ding K and R ~ I saw 1 post here

yesterday that had a decent debate without all the namecalling and slamming of Democrats.

It was the first one in a long time and it was so refreshing to read.

[NJmaverick]

I think "beautifully said" would also apply to your reply

[OneGrassRoot]

10. "venom and vitriol" Yep. K&R n/t

[NJmaverick]

36. "venom and vitriol" is what differentiates welcomed constructive criticism with

destructive criticism that doesn't serve any good purpose

[OneGrassRoot]

59. Absolutely.

:hi:

[Itchinjim]

11. knr

[saltpoint]

13. I demand to be able to rec this twice and insist that the DU software

be altered to render that possible.

[Spazito]

14. Excellent OP!

Recommended.

[JTFrog]

15. K&R

[firedupdem]

16. K&R!!

Nelson is on speed dial! I've called his office and sent emails like crazy! These people standing in the way of progress are my focus.

[ChiciB1]

18. Another Nelson Caller Here Too... But It's The One In Florida!! My Representative Is

Vern Buchanan and he really doesn't like MY CALLS! There are times that I can feel the person who I call is actually NOT going to pass my concerns to him. I live in such a Repuke District & County and Democrats here are so VERY DLC or DINO and I feel like I'm spitting in the wind.

I have been outspoken about what I feel Obama is doing wrong, but I have listened to others who keep saying "give him time," but unfortunately as time goes by it seems to be getting "worse" rather than better. I try not to be vitriolic, but I have anger about issues.

My anger isn't just anger for anger's sake, it's anger because I sincerely feel it's not helping those in need. Escalating any war is very offensive to me when too many people in this country are REALLY, REALLY hurting. And those of us who don't have a reservoir of money find is difficult to donate to so many causes. I do what I can on a local level to help those less fortunate, and I can sleep knowing I done "something," but there are days when I KNOW I'm fighting GIANTS who don't seem to care!

When all usual options and actions don't result in CHANGE, then I do feel there will be an uprising within a shorter time than most might think!

A good post, but one that may not win the day! People ARE angry, and NOT only the Democrats, Liberals OR Progressives. Add to that since I live in a RUBY RED county (Sarasota) I'm hearing Repubs here complaining about the same things Democrats are complaining about! They actually AGREE with my sentiments, and that's why I feel "tension" growing! Where I usually call Repubs, Repukes... the ones I come in contact with are seeing much of what I'm seeing, so I will use Repubs! They aren't the whack jobs that are getting all the attention, and don't like what THEIR party is doing either! THAT says a lot to me, so the people in D.C. might just want to take note... something IS brewing and it may not benefit those in D.C. to keep ignoring the inevitable!

Your post is well balanced, but it's hard to stop the anger... better yet we might want to find a way to "kill them with kindness" and perhaps some better outcome can be achieved.

I only have questions and very few answers!

JMHO! :hi: :think:

[rasputin1952]

32. Honest opinions are the only one's that count...

Keep working in your district, it can change.

At least we no longer have bush to worry about...but the R's in Congress today would rip the country apart, just to make PO look bad. They are nothing more than traitors AFAIC.

[ChiciB1]

94. Not Sure About THIS District Changing, It's Been (R) For All The Time

I've lived here. I came here in 1978, so that's a long time. We did have more Democrats running the last time out, but the outcome didn't change.

Vern Buchanan, when he ran for Representative his first time won by 269 votes. He ran against a person named Christine Jennings (a former R) who was picked by Rahm to run as a Democrat. There were 18,000 under votes that have never been accounted for. Buchanan went on to be seated at a time when he had quite a few lawsuits against him. I don't recall the number, but a lot! Jennings fought back, but in the end after countless months and months of push-back she was out!

Next time out, 2008 same match-up, Buchanan has even MORE lawsuits against him, Rahm abandons Jennings and Buchanan wins with about 63% of the vote!

Bill Nelson ran against my former Representative Katherine (Cruella) Harris and it's a "no other choice" vote but to vote for Nelson! I don't care for Bill Nelson, can't say I ever have, but I don't know who will EVER be able to knock him off!

ONE bright spot...we DID have Bob Graham for some time, but no longer. He may not have been as liberal as me, but I did feel he made informed decisions. I had contacted him on occasion and he DID respond. These days, I can blog... but I'm not sure I believe that THIS COUNTY will ever Go Blue!

Luck of the draw?? Guess so! Can I move? No, not really! My kids and most of my family live close by and I do prefer having those close family ties.

And that's the way it is! One thing I will do is voice my opinion, try to do so in a non-hateful manner, and just WISH! I don't use the word "hope" anymore. Stopped using it way back with Bush, started using it again during the campaign, but am now back to "just wishing!" I try, but I'm VERY WORRIED!

Sorry for the late reply, my grandson just turned one year old and we had his BIG FIRST BIRTHDAY! And he's just one more reason why I worry so much!

[rasputin1952]

98. Family alwas comes first...

Congrat's on the G'son and his 1st B'day...:D

[ChiciB1]

118. Yes, I'm Fortunate In That We Are Very Close & B'Day Was Fun! Made A Small Extra

cake for him to do what he wanted to! It was lots of fun and he sank his two little hands into the cake and made a BIG MESS! He didn't know what it was, but he decided it tasted good and proceeded to squish and squash and do some finger painting on his high chair. The shower after wasn't fun at all! Life's lesson early... gotta take some bad with the good! Nice day though! A bummer having a birthday right at Christmas time though!

Thanks for your comments, you're one of the good ones!
:hug:

[AllyCat]

254. I have also found lots of Republicans/conservatives that AGREE

with me about how things are going right now. I'm really starting to feel that these wedge issues and fighting with the "other side" are just a guise to keep us from realizing they are robbing us blind. If we'd stop fighting and find common ground, we'd be a huge group that might get something accomplished.

[Kind of Blue]

20. Exactly! KnR! n/t

[babylonsister]

23. Recommend heartily-beautifully said! nt

[Tippy]

24. K&R

[Dinger]

25. K & R Rasputin

Thank you.:)

[quiet.american]

27. Thank you. nt

[tandot]

28. Thanks! Great Post. K & R

[rasputin1952]

33. Beautiful kid!!!

:hi:

[tandot]

75. Thanks, Rasputin1952.

He is our early Christmas present. He got his good looks from my husband :)

[rasputin1952]

76. I know you had a LOT to do w/it...

:D

[azmouse]

29. Thank you and well said! rec'd!

:)

[humbled_opinion]

30. You may want to mention

That it is not just Obama, Democrats have large majorities in the House and a small majority in the Senate the frustration here, that many of us share is as much to do about Democrats not being able to fix the nations problems. We dont need, want or desire any Republican input and we still have a hard time getting the work done for the people.

Why?

[boomerbust]

31. Beautifully said.

I put my trust in Obama with my vote, and that trust will continue until 2012 and maybe until 2016.

[hisownpetard]

242. Ditto, and Amen~! n/t

[snot]

34. I agree with your emphasis on action, & HAVE acted --

I've e-mailed, called, written letters participated in protests, organized a protest, and given money to the better Dem pols all over the country, not that I have cash to spare.

But right now I'm trying to think of a good term to use as an equivalent to "road rage," to apply to Dem constituents like me who feel that the "nits" are not the things Obama's done wrong but rather the few, less consequential things he's done right.

I applaud you for encouraging people to ACT. But I am enraged -- at Obama AND the other pseudo-Dem pols.

[Peacetrain]

35. As Red Green would say.."We are all in this together"..Thank you for your words of calm...

Everyone seems to be on high alert on posts or ops they have identified as not one of us...

[tabatha]

37. Excellent. Thanks.

Wish some people outside of DU could read this, too.

[WeDidIt]

38. Awesome post, I would add one thing

Primaries are coming up.

If you disagree with an elected Democrat who may be acting less progressive than his/her district, now is the time to get active and correct that situation. A case in point, Arlen Specter is definitely vulnerable in the Democratic primary in PA and PA could definitely seat a more progressive Senator.

Strategic targeting of specific Congresspersons and Senators is the key to a more progressive Democratic Caucus. The worst thing you can do is sit out the election.

[Waiting For Everyman]

39. Obama is "blowing it" imo, but he still has the chance to

do some things right. And I hope he does. He's got to get very serious about really kicking some political butt and calling in the favors he's done for the coporatists (and their lackeys) so far. He needs to really use that to put them in their place and become very effective at protecting the little guy from now on, or he's going to implode.

But I don't "hate" him at all, on the contrary. I don't regret that he was elected, and I don't think it's too late for him to make good on his obligations to "we the people".

I'd feel a lot better if he surrounded himself with some better advisors, who really do know how to undo this mess we were all left with.

I hope he starts a major about-face right now. I do think he can do it. He can do more than HE thinks he can, is my guess. Every president has a "learning curve" to some degree. The time to get serious and deliver with actual progress for everyday people though, is now. If he holds back and just frets about re-electing a bunch of DLC Dems in 2010, he's cooked. (And so are millions of us.)

This isn't some game, this is life. And too many of us are going under every minute... from the abusive laws POLITICIANS have saddled us with. He's a politician too, isn't he? This is his chance, this is his Congress, and he has to find a way to make it work, and FIX OUR LAWS which are so badly corrupted. We gave him the vote and his mandate. Now it's up to him. We can only do so much, and most of us are kinda busy surviving right now.

How many of those who voted for him a year ago no longer have a home address, a phone, or internet anymore? The numbers increase by the day. That's who he needs to fight for - THEM... and to make sure that no MORE of us "fish" slide over the dam.

[mkultra]

42. you need to reread the OP

its addressed to you.

[Waiting For Everyman]

45. Thanks, I did read it (a second time, at your suggestion),

but I don't think so. And there was no "venom".

[rpannier]

160. You need to research the Reagan presidency and Bush jr

They certainly got what they wanted, even when they didn't have majorities in both Houses

[rasputin1952]

164. Which is precisely why we need to keep pressure on Congress...

FWIW...bush was seen as a complete dud, and his presidency would have been a single term w/nothing accomplished if it were not for 9-11. bush also had both Houses, a compliant USSC for a long time during his disastrous years as president.


And they didn't get everything they wanted.

[defendandprotect]

183. Obama has to give leadership to Congress . . . like MEDICARE FOR ALL . . .

[rasputin1952]

190. The reality of politics is that everything is done incrementally...

except during an extreme crisis, such as an attack and a resulting war.

One of the great horrors placed upon the citizenry was the "Patriot Act"...which was hustled through during a time of intense fear and concern. It stands as a monument to how things should not be pushed through quickly and in one fell swoop.

[defendandprotect]

206. Amazing how fast the Patriot Act got put thru . . . !!! Indeed, it was written before 9/11....

And that kinda confirms, doesn't it, how much damage can be done behind war --

especially corporate-military and its wars of aggression --

We need to rid ourselves of the oppression of the "National Security" state --

Medicare exists -- it stands -- it's ready to go --

There should be no pretense that we are re-inventing the wheel --

USA is simply trying to do what just about every other nation has done BEFORE us --

Plans are all set out -- systems are already running in wise fashion --

All we have to do is follow what they've done --

What is blocking MEDICARE FOR ALL is simple: corporate money --

And the politicians who have been pre-bribed with that money.

[tledford]

261. "The reality of politics is that everything is done incrementally..."

The reality of US politics is that everything that benefits 98% of the American people is done incrementally, or even more likely, not at all. If it benefits the other 2%, multinational corporations or thieves whose net worth is deemed sufficient (oh, say $10MM or more), then it is done instantaneously.

[defendandprotect]

184. I'm sure everyone here does keep pressure on White House & Congress ... ask --

I certainly do -- almost every day --

The 2000 election was stolen -- as well as 2004 --

And, if they had "gotten everything they wanted" -- we'd all now be slaves.

Everything would be gone --

including democracy --

[mkultra]

216. that is because conservatives walk in lock step

even if they have a slim minority, if they vote as a block they only need a few defectors.

[rasputin1952]

47. Thank you for your honest opinion...

while I agree on some points, all things considered, PO has done a good job and more will come...:hi:

[Waiting For Everyman]

55. I think more will come, too.

:hi:

[bongobobtherealone]

61. I too

would feel better if he had different advisors. Gates, Summers, Geithner, etc can not be part of a solution to problems they helped create. While Obama is not a "King", W was a did exactly what he wanted. That in itself paves the way to understanding the bigger picture. Bush did what ever he wanted (or actually what others wanted him to do) bc he was a puppet of the MIC, the financial industry, big oil, etc.
I have a lot of friends that now say PO is just a slick, Chicago style pol who lied his way in to office. OTOH, I feel he didn't realize who REALLY runs tings around the USA and the world in general. I have a feeling that shortly after taking office, he was reminded of the fates of others before him who wanted change like JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. Makes one kind of sick~

[Enthusiast]

163. +1

Few new presidents have had the luxury of an overwhelming majority in both the house and senate.

Allowing Bush appointments to hang around, not taking action on Bush Administration corruption and inaction on many other issues has aroused the suspicion of millions of Obama supporters. And rightly so.

He won't even shine us a ray of that now rare HOPE.

When I see STRONG new guidelines for the financial services industry maybe I'll soften my take a little.

But where is real health care reform? Write and call my senators and representatives? Most of us have calluses from calling and writing. President Obama has been whimpy at best in his public enthusiasm for real change in health care. Many of us feel this is due to insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry influence. I EXPECT my president to be free of these influences.

Until then I will evaluate things as best I can and give no special understanding or consideration to President Obama. Bad times require big bold actions (that favor working America), we aren't seeing these bold actions.

[mkultra]

40. Awsome, "constructive" criticism is what works

not contempt and blind disdain.

[Jane Austin]

41. Great post

Thank you!

[mkultra]

43. will the admins ever address the venom and vitriol in a more tangible way?

just curious if there is any plan to return the board to one in which democrats are generally supported and less the target of blind contempt?

[rasputin1952]

46. For the answer to that, you'll have to ask Admin...

I can tell you that we encourage discussion, and most members are more than willing to discuss things w/o the vindictive slant...:hi:

[mkultra]

51. what about the mods then?

i understand that there is considerable variety in opinion not just among those on this board but also amongst democrats as well. What im referring to is something i believe is written in the rules which doesn't really seem to have been enforced. Specifically, those who blast others as wanting ponies or being cheerleaders as well as those who blast Obama as bought and paid for, equal to bush, or just a liar.

I recognize that these are just opinions but at some point, they seem to cross into contempt. I think that the mods are being intentionally flexible but im curious if there is any plan to draw the string back in as things seem to be getting out of hand.


with all due respect. :thumbsup:

[rasputin1952]

52. I can tell you this about Mods...

we follow guidelines, we take every alert seriously and we do not act unilaterally.

We work for you guys and gals, as well as Admin and DU. The best I can say is, Alert is your friend.

[hisownpetard]

243. Please let me know if this happens, and I will return to what used to be

a place for civil discussion and debate.

I hardly recognize the place anymore!

[mkultra]

246. its like the political wild west

anything goes. maybe some of the trolls have managed to become mods or something.

[hisownpetard]

255. It's the mean-spiritedness that turns me off, not dissenting opinions.

It really is a very different place now.

[mkultra]

268. well thats true

i can understand discussion. but contempt and destructive criticism are whats dragging this place under.

[billh58]

44. K&R

Thanks once again for a much-needed voice of mature reason on DU.

[emulatorloo]

48. Nice post.. And you are right CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN

Congress is really standing in the way of a lot of progress.

[NJmaverick]

54. Voter pressure can be nearly as effective as corporate dollars

[Blue_Tires]

194. you forgot to add: "...RIGHT FUCKING NOW"

[Fire1]

49. K&R. This sentiment has been posted numerous times by

other DUers. Hopefully, it will mean something coming from you. Thankyou.

[NanceGreggs]

50. Excellent post!

:kick: & REC'D!!!

[rasputin1952]

53. That's quite the compliment from you...

usually, it is I who Rec's your posts...:hug:

[ClassWarrior]

56. Calling on friendly state legislators to recall hostile national ones. Great idea.

:thumbsup:

NGU.

[Undercurrent]

57. Adding my K&R to this

excellent OP!

Big thumbs up! :thumbsup:



:kick:

[bertman]

60. If you're down on the bottom rung watching friends and family lose their homes and

livelihoods while President Obama smiles his big warm smile and tells us how hard he's GOING TO WORK to TRY to get the Banksters to loan the money that he loaned them, it seems to me that vitriol is not misplaced. It's called venting, Rasputin.

Or, if you've seen friends and comrades die in a needless war, others come home missing limbs, others unable to cope and live normal lives or enjoy the simple pleasures they are supposedly fighting for, vitriol may be the only honest response to what is perceived as the SAME OLD IMPERIALIST BULLSHIT.

If you're a business owner who sees his dream and the dreams of his employees falling apart before his eyes while watching employees of bailed-out Wall Street firms and banks taking home seven-digit "bonuses" for their stellar performance, a vitriolic post might be the last attempt to express the rage BEFORE it takes physical form.

If your autistic child is being denied access to social services because of state budgets that have been cut to the bone while our military gets the additional BILLIONS of dollars it needs in order to keep two wars and 200 bases going around the world, expressing one's despair and agonizing disappointment through a vitriolic post may be one way of retaining one's sanity.

I personally have not yet become vitriolic; however, the pattern of the Obama administration thus far does not leave me much hope that I will be able to maintain my composure for much longer.

[tbyg52]

62. Amen.

Thank you for this response to a (actually, *another*) "shut up" post.

[NJmaverick]

67. Actually in the interest of accuracy and fairness the only ones that such a comment would have been

directed at are those that are engaging in "venom and vitriol"

[rasputin1952]

63. Then I return to the question...

what have people done to try to turn this around other than post on DU?

The problem is not with the president, it is with Congress. I do not agree w/all the president has done, but Congress is the focal point. No president can wave a wand and cure ills. Prod your congresscritters, that is where the bulk of the problem lies.

[bertman]

70. We have differing views on this Rasputin1952. I think President Obama is equally at fault.

Congress certainly bears its share of the blame, but the President was not forced by Congress to hire Summers and Geithner, nor to accept their advice. Nor was he forced by Congress to become a quiet mouse of an advocate for a robust public option for healthcare when he could have energized ALL of us if he had used his bully pulpit. Congress did not make the decision about 30,000 more troops being sent to Afghanistan either.

I, for one, have been burning up the cyberwaves with emails to my Senators and Congressman and the President. I'm supporting the activist groups that I think will help elect REAL Dems, not ConservaDems. I've demonstrated for healthcare and for taking action to mitigate climate change. If I had more money and more time I would do more. Right now, I'm doing the best I can with what I have.

And you?

P.S. When were you with the 101st?

[rasputin1952]

71. I wasn't w/the 101st...

I just like eagles.

I was w/the 4th, 5th, 9th Divisions at various times and in different situations.

[bertman]

105. And that is a GREAT eagle you have there. Spent a bunch of time with the 9th myself. Many years

ago.

[Enthusiast]

166. Agree, President Obama equally at fault.

Excellent post, bertman.

I have also been burning up the cyberwaves trying to move us along in health care reform. Instead of seeing an improvement, the outcome appears to be worse by the day. This is not the leadership we should expect in a president. And it's the same on a host of issues. I want nothing more than to see President Obama succeed.

[bertman]

215. The vast majority of us on DU want President Obama to succeed. It's just our level of

frustration with the way his administration is moving (or not moving) on the major issues.

Thanks, Enthusiast.

[Enthusiast]

217. That's it, bertman.

We just want that glimmer of hope.

[QC]

65. +1

[inna]

106. +1

great post, thank you for that!

[uponit7771]

115. All these problems came up the SECOND Obama was elected?!? You're kidding right?

[defendandprotect]

186. No . . . .Pelosi in 2006: "Dems were elected to end the war" . . . !!!

Remember that, by any chance?

We elected Obama to correct these problems -- not to elope with the corporate

people who created the problems -- !!!

Wiretapping --

Patriot Act --

Trade Agreements --

MEDICARE FOR ALL --

Depoliticizing the Justice Department -- as far as I know Bush's people are still there!

Bailing out capitalism again wasn't on the list --

These monopolies should be ended -- overturned --

[defendandprotect]

185. 38 million Americans on food stamps . . . !!!!

Sometimes these I LOVE Obama posts are just unbelievable in their attitude and

outlook on what's really going on --

40 million without health care coverage . . . ??? I think that's the figure.

And trade agreements continuing to take jobs from Americans --

[cleverusername]

64. Passive aggressive are we?

"Not to defend the president, but..."

The classic passive-aggressive statement. You lost my attention right there.

[rasputin1952]

68. And your negativety lost my attention...

you didn't even try.

[cleverusername]

129. Listening if you'd care to address the issue raised in my post

If you'd care to address your passive-aggressive tone and the insinuation that those who criticize Obama are hateful traitors, I'm listening.

[rasputin1952]

130. You will have to explain why I should...

by your own admission, I lost you, long before the end of the OP.

From what I see, all you want to do is find ways to fit the "blame" on someone, if not PO, then me. Why should I give you an opportunity?

Your post in reply to my OP speaks for itself.

[cleverusername]

148. Wrong approach

You don't win friends and influence people with that kind of attitude. If you wrote something of substance, I would consider it. Your approach precludes serious debate. I need more facts and less drama.

[rasputin1952]

165. Then why was I called "passive-aggressive"?

You don't know me, you have no comprehension of who I am; yet you made a judgment call in your subject line. You came out of the gate w/o facts, and used drama to create an "argument".

Now you are obliged to tell me why I should waste my effort to "win you over" or "influence" you. One does not make friends or influence people by categorizing them as having a psychological condition; then coming forth to require answers.

[pinkhouses]

66. skinner

Thanks, kind of tired of seeing us eat our own.

[DWilliamsamh]

69. K&R for resonable discourse. (N/T)

[Number23]

72. Happy to kick and rec. Thanks for posting.

[katandmoon]

73. Until Obama's DOJ addresses Bush admin. war crimes, Obama is as guilty of them as Bush

[rasputin1952]

74. You are free to think that...

but if that is all you base your thoughts on this administration on, it is sad indeed.

I would like to see that as well...but I am more pragmatic than that.

[katandmoon]

104. I'm not so pragmatic that I don't expect the president of the USA to UPHOLD THE LAW

By letting the Bush administration completely off the hook, Obama's DOJ - and it IS Obama's - is NOT doing that. That makes them complicit.

[phleshdef]

79. You are taking a lot of dishonest liberties with the definition of the word "guilt" there.

[katandmoon]

103. But you can't deny that Obama won't address the previous administration's war crimes.

[phleshdef]

107. I never expected him to. Congress should have done it when it had the chance.

If it were going to be done at all. I never wanted to see Obama go on a witch hunt against the previous administration. It would waste time, would take years to go anywhere and would stand in the way of progress in any other given area. I know that point has probably been repeated time and time again and I know you will find some way to disagree with it. That doesn't change the fact that most people would see the pursuit of prosecutions against the previous administration by this administration as a petty revenge card.

[katandmoon]

121. I give up -- you will obviously defend Obama no matter how he trashes the constitution.

[phleshdef]

123. The constitution doesn't require him to prosecute the Bush administration.

You sound like a tea bagger on left leaning crack.

[Toasterlad]

140. "I Promise to Preserve, Defend, and Uphold the Constitution...

...unless it's politcally inexpedient."

[phleshdef]

147. Preserving, defending and upholding doesn't require prosecutions for past violators thereof.

That vowel applies to Obama's actions and the kinds of things HIS administration allows.

[Toasterlad]

149. Your Intrepretation Is Not Shared By the Majority Of Americans.

Most of us feel Obama is obligated to prosecute war criminals.

[rasputin1952]

171. Would you say the same thing about Ford pardoning Nixon?

I thought Nixon should have been the subject of criminal investigation...but in 20/20 hindsight, I see where Ford was coming from, even if I didn't agree w/it.

The Clinton impeachment ground the nation to a halt...the same thing would happen. perhaps for several years, if the level of pursuit you desire were in the cards. As it is, there are several investigations going on now. Let's see what develops w/o making this a serious barrier to everything else...:hi:

[defendandprotect]

175. Obama hasn't "pardoned" anyone in the prior administration as far as I know . . .

The American public was ready and waiting for a criminal investigation of Nixon --

that's why the Ford pardon -- evidently set BEFORE Ford was "appointed" -- was so shocking!!

The Clinton impeachment came quickly after the Republicans had SHUT DOWN government -- !!!

Clinton was a popular president -- the public didn't want an impeachment --

but in typical right wing fashion it went ahead anyway.

And it was based on entrapment --

This is all FEAR-BASED reasoning --

but let me assure you that, as with the JFK assassination, not properly arresting these

dangerous activities only leads to more violence, more mayhem in American politics -- and

more fasicsm in America.



PS: It would also be wise to think about the fact that Jerry Ford was our first "appointed"

VP who became an "appointed" president ---

Completely unelected.

I also point out that Jerry Ford was one of the right wing Congressman who received financial

support from the CIA -- and the CIA collected right wing money from any source they could,

including the KKK.

Strom Thurmond was another who received this CIA money --

And Pat Buchanan ...

Evidently more -- but those are the only names I have at the moment.

[rasputin1952]

178. No, he hasn't, and I don't suspect he will...

My point is, that going after Nixon would have beaten the country intot he ground. i would have enjoyed seeing him tried, but i also know that the nation most likely would not have survived such a thing.

It's a "what if" situation, and leaves a lot to speculation.

[defendandprotect]

187. Again, that's fear-based reasoning . . . what happened was corporatism/fasicm ...

and criminal administrations have been allowed to flourish --

We are not as fragile as some think --

Didn't the founders advise that we have a revolution every 20 years!?

We are fragile from the top down ...

There is no "speculation" --- it is clear that we have corporatism which is fascism --

And what we need is some serious work and planning to overturn it --

[rasputin1952]

189. There is no mention of the Founders advocating revolution...

every 20 years. That was in a letter from the Federalist Papers from Jefferson to Adams, and it is often taken out of context.

[defendandprotect]

205. It was the thinking of the founders . . .

Did everything that they thought actually get into the Constitution ... ???

How about their suggestions that we SUSPEND administrations where we think that

the President and the VP are conspiring -- ???

Remind you of any recent administration?

[rasputin1952]

241. There is a lot of discussion about what the Founders were thinking...

once again, unless there is some form of documentation showing me how some of the Founders thought, I leave it to speculation.

Have you read the Federalist Papers? Much of what you speak of comes from there, but, this is a debate between essentially 2 people, of the Founders, not all of them.

[defendandprotect]

244. It wasn't "speculation" that they compromised with slavery . . . leading to the Civil War --

Like the Bible and other writings of the patriarchy, lots of bad stuff gets left

in and lots of good stuff gets removed ---

Mainly, this government exists as long as the public supports it --

"the will of the people."

[rasputin1952]

252. That is one aspect, a sorry one to be sure, that the Constitutional

Committee took into consideration. Because of that compromise, and one further down the road in the Kansas-Nebraska Act...we fought a war to end the practice, and keep the states intact to preserve the Union.

To be sure, not all of the Founders thought slavery was acceptable, many fought hard against it; but, as witht he time, state forces prevailed, and there were slightly more from slave holding states, that free states.

The greatest wisdom the Founders showed, was that the Constitution could be amended to right wrongs and flex with the times. There was also a provision to cease the importation of slaves, Article I, Section 9, first paragraph: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

History shows us this was not enforced, much to the chagrin of the nation and particularly to the 600,000 killed during the Civil War...which also cost us a president in the first assassination in such a position.

It is indeed, one of the great paradoxes of history, that a nation that looked so headily toward freedom and equality, left several aspects of the population out of the sphere; blacks, women and Amer-Indians being the most prominent of them.

[defendandprotect]

257. Agree that Lincoln was also a victim of that compromise with slavery . . .

History shows us this was not enforced, much to the chagrin of the nation and particularly to the 600,000 killed during the Civil War...which also cost us a president in the first assassination in such a position.

It is indeed, one of the great paradoxes of history, that a nation that looked so headily toward freedom and equality, left several aspects of the population out of the sphere; blacks, women and Amer-Indians being the most prominent of them.

The Founders, of course, knew what they were doing -- especially in regard to women --
Patriarchy feared them as they always have -- especially giving them any opportunities to
count -- to vote, to be educated, and especially to continue to bar them from power of any kind.

In the case of African Americans enslaved here and Native Americans -- they not only didn't count
as citizens -- when they couldn't be enslaved they were killed. And, generally, the Native
American was the victim of brutal, evil, cruel, vicious genocide.

Keep in mind also that one of the greatest tools of patriarchy was then and still is now
organized patriarchal religion. And it has not been below them ever to use religion to
undermine and co-opt other nations and peoples --

and they just fairly recently create the Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in order to bait
the Russians in in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type experience -- See notes below.

Further, they also created VIOLENT Islamic religion/teachings -- See notes below.

The right wing religous movement in America is as fake as the Repug "teabaggers"/FreedomWorks.
The GOP gave start up funds for the Christian Coalition --
Scaife financed Dobson's organization and other wealthy Republicans financed Bauer's organization.

And Bush provided Churches taxpayer money for their "faith based" organizations --
coincidentally, when they needed it most to pay their lawsuits for sexual abuse of children
by their priests. In fact, there was an investigation announced about a month or so ago into
the Catholic Church and suspicion that they used this money to pay those lawsuits!


--------------

Here's the info requoted from my Journal --

FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

[phleshdef]

229. I would advise you not to try and pull the "founders" card, lest you want to discuss slavery.

[defendandprotect]

173. Exactly . . . !!!

[phleshdef]

228. Even if you were correct about the majority (which I suspect that you are likely wrong)...

...the current popular opinion doesn't effect the law. There is no constitutional law that sais one administration is required to prosecute another for past constitutional discretions. Its not UP to popular opinion. Its up to what the law actually sais.

[Toasterlad]

239. The Job of the President Is to Enforce the Law

Bush, Cheney, et al BROKE THE LAW. Obama is legally required to go after them.

[historian]

174. you are right

The defense of Obama is uncomfortably reminiscent of Bush defenders who refuse to acknowledge any wrongs.

[defendandprotect]

176. Agree -- evidently, as long as something happened in the past, we should ignore it!!!

I thought we had a Justice Department which did just that --

investigating PAST crimes!!!

Thought that's what hearings and Congressional investigations were all about --!!!

:) :evilgrin:

[jeanpalmer]

167. It's called upholding the law

Conducting a criminal investigation where there is reason to believe a crime has been cmmitted is not a witch hunt. The viability of our society depends on the rule of law. When we let highly visible criminals break the law with impunity, we undermine our society and encourage more criminal behavior. That's particularly true of the high profile crimes committed by Bush/Cheney, and also those committed by Wall Street. Barack Obama took an oath to uphold the law. Letting war criminals go free is not upholding the law. If a person doesn't have the stomach to go after the criminals, he shouldn't be president imo.

I thought at a minimum he would look into issues like torture and Iraq and spying and report back to the people whether any crimes were committed. In the case of torture, he knew crimes had been committed. To avoid any witchhunt claims, he could have appointed reputable special prosecutors to look into those issues. But instead, he let them all slide. That's not upholding the law.

[akbacchus_BC]

77. Great Post. K@R

[Roland99]

78. Obama putting Wall St. Execs in charge of the country's economic policy was Bush's fault?

puh-leeze

[rasputin1952]

82. I said I did not agree w/all of his decisions...

and I stated in another post that getting rid of all traces of bush is paramount. You are reading something into this that is simply not there. By doing this, you are actually proving my point.

[defendandprotect]

188. Come on . ..

there's a great pretense to politeness here --

while the OP is suggesting that we are all premature in our criticism of Obama --

and that the criticism is over the top --

if not "hateful" . . .

One of the places to immediately start getting rid of traces of Bush would be in

the Justice Department where his people have not been replaced --

The enemy is capitalism/corporatism -- let's hear discussions about how to beat that --

it adds up to American fascism.

Start talking about how we're going to contain our corporate-military --

and how we're going to get corporate/elite $$$ out of our elections so that we no

longer have elected representatives in every office who are PRE-BRIBED AND PRE-OWNED!!!

What is Plan B -- ???

[rasputin1952]

192. So start your discussion...

No one is holding you back.

Start a thread, if it gets responses, more power to you. If not, then there are other things on people's minds; or, some who would discuss it rationally would be bullied and barked down.

[defendandprotect]

204. I suggested you begin to address more serious issues rather than a thread like this ...

What's your plan for getting corporate money out of our politics?

You think Congress isn't moving because they're just lazy .... or

having a bad hair day --

They're not moving because they have corporate bricks tied to their ankles --

they're weighed down with corporate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

The suggestion that there is in any way generally here on the part of liberals/progressives

a "game of grendade tossing" is in itself "BULLYING" --

[rasputin1952]

210. My plan for getting corporate money out of politics has...

nothing to do with this thread.

You can try to hijack it to your advantage, but start your own thread about corporate money in politics.

This thread was an attempt to keep dialog open, without bullying or going overboard with the criticism. It is fine to criticize the policies and the president...but it can be done without going into the gutter.

[defendandprotect]

212. Suggesting "a game of grenade tossing" by those criticizing Obama . . .

was "an attempt to keep dialog open" . . . ???

"without bullying or going overboard with criticism" . . .

"without going into the gutter" . . .

I think there's quite a difference between the thread you think you wrote and the

actual thread -- !!!

[mkultra]

220. your wasting your breath

these types are nothing but shit talk and super sensitive about being called on it. they are blind to any perspective but their own.

[me b zola]

80. K&R

:thumbsup:

[Politicub]

81. I applaud President Obama often

and vocally support him on DU when he does something that I agree with or support. I fully trust him as my President, and understand that I won't agree with him (or the Democratic party) on everything.

But I also hold his feet to the fire, and am critical of his policies sometimes when I don't agree with something coming out of the administration. Do you forget that he asked us to do that?

Admittedly, there are disruptors here that endlessly complain. But those people are in the minority. I like that I can join a thread and debate. I've changed my POV because of exchanges about some topics on DU and I've learned a lot along the way.

[rasputin1952]

84. And that is an honest assessment...

:pals:

[Politicub]

89. Thank you :-)

At the end of the day we're all in this giant mess together.

:fistbump:

[rasputin1952]

96. Yes...and together...

we can clean it up...:pals:

[Prism]

86. Different tone, same refrain

I think "magic wand" has simply materialized as the new "pony" of discourse. I think use of that phrase betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the criticism directed towards the President. Rather than digging for the roots of the frustration being expressed, the magic wand fallacy is a form of rhetorical dismissal, a way of characterizing the other side in simplistic and insincere terms.

I'm honestly not sure how many times or in how many different ways it needs to be said. It has never been "We want results right now."

Never ever. That is not what you are seeing expressed in the criticism. And I feel like I need to say this again.

It is not about the President's ability to produce results right now.

It is about direction. Who the President appoints to carry out policy gives us an understanding about the direction his administration is heading. On economic policy, we're seeing what should've been expected with A Geithner and Summers. On LGBT rights, the administration's handling and response has thrown many worrisome signals about the direction and priority of civil rights by this President. The way the DOJ carries out administration policy and how they defend the continued erosion of civil liberties signals an intentional direction. The escalation in Afghanistan commits us for years to come and locks our foreign policy in a very specific, bloody, bankrupting direction.

The President cannot undo all that Bush and forty years of failed domestic policy have done. But he can put down seeds that will flourish in the future. He can begin nudging the direction of the country, even if he can make no left-hand turns.

He does not do this on far too many issues. He is a status quo, dispositionally conservative, bipartisan politician. At this time, with these problems, with our future, the President simply must do better.

Remember on health care, single-payer was the ideal, the position of the purist. The public option was the compromise. Now, when we ask where it has gone, we're once again called unbending, expecting too much, not being realistic. Now, HCR is heading in a terrible, mandated, corporate gift-giving direction that will take years, if not decades, to untangle. This administration and Congress have chosen to punt.

How much lower should our expectations be? On any of these issues? I know results will not be forthcoming for many years, but now you seem to be asking us to patiently tolerate little change, or worse, changes that are saddled onto an overburdened people while prettied up in rhetoric and spin.

We are, as a people, past this sort of thing. We could afford it in the 90s, when times seemed good, when peace reigned and prosperity seemed unimaginably fabulous. We just survived one of the worst administrations in our history, and we should again suffer the insincerity of those politicians, the way slick rhetoric and feel-good sloganeering had us going along with NAFTA, DOMA, welfare reform, the vanishing of Glass-Steagall, and countless other directional policies that have proved over time to be just as disastrous as the "purists" back then predicted they would be?

No! No more! No more blinders, no more silence, no more patience, no more going along to get along. We did that with the last Democratic President. I don't know about you, but I found DOMA fairly devastating to my family. No more giving in or status quo-ing our lives, our futures, and our families to these politicians who have always and forever put themselves above our interests.

I appreciate the tone, Rasputin, I do. But your words are the same, and your words are for silence.

Silence = Death.

No.

[rasputin1952]

88. You misread the OP...

I never call for silence, that is your interpretation; just as you must not read many posts...for a lot of them are calling for immediate change.

[Prism]

91. I didn't

These kinds of OPs are routine at this point. I've seen your OP dozens of times, and always with the same little phrases, context, and odd appeals for civility that only ever go in one direction.

I read the same posts you do. I see calls for directional change, changes in policy, changes in approach, changes in strategy, and changes in how much the Democratic Party should throw away before even taking their seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing about that has a "magic wand" quality to it. Only those who would characterize these criticism as somehow unreasonable or outside the mainstream would think so. When demands for directional change from the status quo are considered and labeled unrealistic, you've allowed yourself to become the defender of it.

[rasputin1952]

92. You are free to believe that...

I don't.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Prism]

97. Ah, the pony

Your post makes my points. The pony is bad enough, but it is the underlying accusation of insincerity that reveals the true depths of your bad faith.

As if DOMA were just a convenient excuse to vent against a politician. Certainly my life, my family, our security, and our future has nothing to do with my attitude towards it. It is merely a vehicle to express disdain for a politician.

The subtext underlying your point? DOMA is really not that big a deal. How can it be when you trivialize someone's reaction towards it?

[spoony]

108. Very well put!

Could be its own OP. And, btw, I'm seeing a great deal of "magic wand" talk in the last few days.

[QC]

110. Yes, the magic wand is definitely making a comeback lately,

after having been beaten into the ground last summer.

Fortunately, the chess cliché seems to have finally been sent to its rest.

[Enthusiast]

168. Now that is one fine post!

The reason I didn't come up with a post like that is because I am incapable of it.

Prism you perfectly expressed what so many of us feel. Thank you.

We are not unreasonable! The alternative is silence.

[defendandprotect]

196. Right . . . "You can't be neutral on a moving train" ... it's the direction that counts -- !!

The direction we need to go in is back to the "New Deal" re-regulating capitalism --

and replacing all the rules and restrictions on finance/banks.

The direction we should not be going in is corporate --

whether bailing out "too big's" or just generally aiding and abetting capitalism --

That includes DLC-corporate thinking and influences on the Democratic Party.

We need a Plan B to deal with PRE-BRIBED and PRE-OWNED elected officials who are knee

deep in corporate money and acting on behalf of corporations.

Imagine -- Baucus put in charge of our health care reform!!!

:eyes:

[TheBigotBasher]

87. Very well said.

Some people seem to forget January 19th 2009 has passed. The Republicans have not and they will play on every bit of fear and anger they can. The solution to a weak Democratic Congress is not to have more Republicans, but better Democratic members.

[BumRushDaShow]

90. K&R

There are 3 branches of government and all 3 are accountable! Not just the Executive! :kick:

[Politicub]

93. Exactly -- he can't change or fix everything

Adding one more thing... your point about him not being a king is hugely important. I don't think a lot of people get that. He can sign bills in to law, but he must get an actual bill from the congress in front of him first. Most of my frustration tends to be with select problem senators and reps rather than the President. The DINOs and Blue Dogs drive me nuts.

As an example, I believe that in the case of health care reform, President Obama does want a true public option but he can't control what congress (hopefully) sends to him for signature. But he is doing what he can by meeting with the congress and rallying support.

Of course, being in the LGBT community, I would love to see him use the bully pulpit more often for civil rights. But compared to former administrations, he does do that. I don't like how the justice department prioritizes defense of DOMA in the states where it is being challenged, and will continue criticize the admin for not vocally speaking out about that.

But I am hopeful that LGBT equality will be higher up on the agenda after we get past so many other things that are on the table with health care, Afghanistan, etc. Not to mention the need to deal with this turd of an economy that was there to greet the President upon his swearing in.

:kick:

[rasputin1952]

100. I think the GLBT issues will be resolved...

but it's going to take time...unfortunately.

Just 5 years ago, the situation was drastically different. I don't like to see the losses in some areas, but the #'s are getting closer each time an issue comes up. This is a good thing.

I look at the whole thing as a Human Rights issue. people understand that easier than a GLBT or even a Civil Rights issue. The youth are coming together over Human Rights, and it will be the youth that carries the day...:)

Even as a straight guy, I see progress, and I'm out there fighting as well. The best thing that can be done is to break down the "argument" that the GLBT community has an "agenda"...other than basic Human Rights afforded everyone else.

[mkultra]

101. at least you stuck around and returned fire

i think they soft-balled you because your a mod though. Many of us agree. I personally get tired of what i consider the ridiculous chorus of twisted fact complaint. I apply fact to these incongruities and in return i get labeled a cheerleader. Like you, i don't like everything he has done but i accept the fact that government works as a fluid system.


Congress has been the target of my anger as Obama has remained willing on most of the important issues.

[rasputin1952]

102. Keep the pressure on your congresscritters..

:D

[NYC_SKP]

111. It doesn't take much to be called a cheerleader.

It's pretty tiresome, isn't it?

[spoony]

112. Or a "hater"

Yes, those are tiresome.

[NYC_SKP]

116. You are right!

Excellent point, I'll concede that.

[nosferaustin]

109. well said...

I've been thinking the same thing of late. Between the extreme anger and the incessant bickering about unrec's, DU has been hard to be around sometimes lately.


Just constantly remind yourself how disastrous the alternative would have been.

[mzmolly]

113. K and R.

Just had a similar conversation at home. ;)

[BREMPRO]

114. Excellent post! Thanks for atriculating what many here are feeling.

putting the limits of Obama's power and the situation he's inhereitid in perpective. I'm weary of the cynical grenade tossers who are doing little to help us accomplish progressive goals.

[d3m0l1sh3r]

117. finally, a voice of reason!

I could not agree with you more! I, too, do more action than flamewars, but even so, I do not see why here at DU, it seems everything Obama does is criticized. What could he do at this point that you people will possibly like anymore?
Thanks for the post, mate, and keep it up on spreading the word.

[AllyCat]

119. While I see your points, I don't feel he is changing or planning to change the way

these things have been handled. So far, some of our biggest crises he's handled almost exactly like his horrid predecessor: war (send more troops), corporations (make sure they get more money with no regulation), and unitary executive theory (he's decided he likes the way GWB had it all set up). He's not doing anything differently to change the course of mess Bush* left us in.

I call my senators and rep weekly about a host of issues, usually health care, but war, spending bills, and whatever is getting my goat. I write letters to the editor. I talk to people sitting on the fence to get them to understand what is at stake. But I don't like the things Obama has done so far. I'm feeling very alienated and unless something really big happens to change my mind soon, I will NOT vote for him again in '12.

[rasputin1952]

120. Will you sit out the election...

or vote the alternative?

Either way, it results in an extra vote for the R candidate...:(

[AllyCat]

155. I'll vote in local elections and a third party. I would never vote for a 'con

At least not knowingly. Right now, I see little difference between what Obama is doing and what the 'cons have done before him. Either way, we get an "R" candidate. I hope he does something soon to change my mind, but so far, the big things like environmental protection, bringing peace, and health care are going the WRONG way.

[defendandprotect]

197. May I ask you what brought you out to vote for Obama .... just plain hope, or something else???

[AllyCat]

222. It was partially hope. Mostly that was all we had. I knew he was a corporate man

but I also knew McCain and he was TERRIBLE. While I believe Obama is better in some ways than McCain, I guess I was hoping he would be better than what he has shown to be so far. We got as advertised I suppose, but really hoped the mandate from the voters would suggest we actually wanted change, not more of the same. I worked for him, I donated to his campaign, I voted for him. I was hoping I would not be disappointed. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. I won't make that mistake again. Officially, I am done voting for the lesser of two evils.

[defendandprotect]

245. Right . . . "lesser of two evils" -- we've been talking about that for . . .

decades but there seems to be no Plan B -- ???

Whatever liberals and progressives do, they have to do it together -- as a voting BLOC --

not individual stragglers wandering off.

We also need IRV voting -- obviously --

As long as the only threat to the Democratic Party comes from a near-fascist right wing Republican

Party, then the Democratic Party will continue to move to the right to compete with them, IMO.

:)

PS: Hope you don't stop voting -- not having a vote never helped anyone --

Native Americans, African Americans, Women --

[AllyCat]

253. I always vote, just will likely go back to voting third party for many seats

I agree that IRV would be a great change to the system as well as public campaign financing. The Dems have, for the most part, become unlike what I want to see. I don't see the point in voting for them if I disagree with about 90% of what they do. I'm glad the progressive caucus is holding out some hope. I will likely vote for my Rep (D) again if and when she runs.

I'd love to see progressives form a bloc, but you are right, no one is really setting anything up. And we are vilified on DU so this is hardly the place to get anything together.

[defendandprotect]

256. Btw, I completely agree with you re Lieberman -- he's more powerful seems than Obama --!!!

What a sad, sad joke!!

I am intrigued with what a liberal/progressive bloc woud look like --

I think the numbers would be enormous --

And, it's us vs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --

Right now they're saying only 20% of American identify as Republicans!!

[austin78704]

122. My disappointment in Obama

is based mostly on his lack of actual LEADING. His statement about choosing the public option route instead of the single payer route because "people aren't ready" gave it away that he wasn't going to be leading. It is his job to make the people ready--not to compromise away anything that might be uncomfortable for 50%+ of the voters.

As sad as it may be, it's pretty normal human behavior to retreat to the familiar rather than look for a way out when things begin to fall apart. That's where a real leader would step in, pull people away from their habits, kicking and screaming if necessary, and set them on the right path.

If Obama were a leader, he would have pushed the single payer plan because it is the best solution--regardless of how uncomfortable it may make everyone up-front.

If Obama were a leader, he would have prosecuted Bush and Cheney for war crimes and made public all of our collective dirty laundry--regardless of how much personal and political risk it exposed him to.

If Obama were a leader he would have thrown out all of the wallstreeters in Washington due to their stunning corruption an incompetence WRT finances--regardless of what the owned news outlets would say about it.

If Obama were a leader he would have put together a speech to shred Lieberman, the Republican party, and all of the insane policies they represent--regardless of congressional votes.

If Obama were a leader he would have ended these failed wars--regardless of how many people would label him a coward.

Obama might come out of it scarred up, but the country as a whole would be better for it. Instead, what we've gotten is a whole lot of non-leadership, nothing to show for it, and Obama is still getting beat up just as badly. The people that already hated him still hate him, and the people that supported him no longer respect him.

FDR was a leader. He took on the most powerful of the problems up-front, took his lumps, and got some goddamned results.

[rasputin1952]

125. FDR did not have 2 wars going when he came to the

presidency. Many of his actions actually failed, what set him apart was that he kept trying new things until something worked.

If bush cheney were prosecuted, (something I'm not against btw), one thing is for sure, the country would grind to a halt, nothing would get done. Clinton's impeachment showed us that everything stops, and that was fellatio. It wooed take years to resolve, and most likely cheney would be long dead before charges were actually brought against him. There are some investigations going on now, where they will lead is in the future.

All of this is beside the point though, FDR was 60+ years ago, today, things are different. Fighting the Germans, Japanese and Italians was cut and dried...the wars we are in now, even thought hey were incredibly ill advised, require time to extract from, with no discernible enemy.

The comparisons don't hold.

[austin78704]

138. Leadership is getting the job done despite the obstacles.

Yeah, I'm aware of the differences between then and now and I'm aware that there are reasons against doing anything and everything that needs to be done. However, "It's difficult" is no excuse for inaction.

Further, a failure to punish clearly criminal behavior at the top just because of a stupid stunt pulled in the past sets a very dangerous ball into motion. Stopping that precedent is worth the cost.

[defendandprotect]

199. FDR had an understand that capitalism had to be regulated and he did it --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

If we could leave Vietnam almost overnight, we certainly could have left these wars

anytime in the last two years --

Pelosi in 2006: "Democrats were elected to end the war" -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

198. Upwards of 70% of the public want a government plan --

and that includes Catholics which kinda proves that the Catholic Bishops are

lobbying in their own self-interests rather than to support what Catholics, themselves,

want --

And Catholics also want Contraception -- and abortion -- in any government plan!!!

Agree with you on Obama's failure to lead --

while I hope not, I think it's corporate money holding him back.

Liberals/progressives are expendable -- corporate money isn't -- ????

I hope not -- !!!

[Turborama]

126. Thanks Ras for a valiant attempt at encouraging civil discourse on here

I have a lot of things I want to say about current events but have been put off by the incessant bullying and intimidation that's been going on here lately. It hardly seems worth the time it takes to compose the detailed OP I've been doing a lot of research on as it'll probably either be totally ignored or flamed to death. The intention of the OP I'm working on is to start a discussion that we can all learn from, including myself, but the potential of that happening on any post that goes against the grain seems more distant every time I look around DU these days.

:kick: & R

[OneGrassRoot]

128. I'm sure your OP is one I would look forward to....

as I, too, want to learn more about several key issues.

:hi:

[rasputin1952]

131. Post it! There will be those who will find fault...

but as you can see from the basic tone of this thread, people want to talk about the issues. They should just shut down the negative posts and continue on with the discussion.

Every day, I learn new things on DU. I've had my views challenged, and have changed my mind on several issues. Rational discourse works wonders...:D

[Cha]

141. I'll be looking forward to it, Turbo.

[DissedByBush]

127. Some things were completely in his power to rectify

And he didn't.

[rasputin1952]

132. Yet...

maybe not at all...but the man cannot do everything in less than a year. Time will tell where he goes w/issues.

[DissedByBush]

153. I'm thinking stuff he could have unilaterally done, and already had the chance

Like the five-day wait with public viewing before signing bills, or recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

For the first all he had to do was put the pen down for five days and have the house geeks post the SCHIP bill to the White House web site. There was no hurry, the provisions of the bill didn't even come into effect until a few months later.

For the second all he had to do was at least say the word "genocide" when making a public speech about the Armenian Genocide, but he carefully avoided the use of that word during a speech on that very subject.

I can almost understand the second one. He really would have pissed off the Turks had he done that. But that begs the question, does he really have the balls to implement change that we thought he had during the campaign?

[Divine Discontent]

137. I'll Rec, bc of your last 2 paragraphs that are very good! thank you for them.

[Toasterlad]

139. Funny How When Bush Was President, He Got All the Blame.

But now that Obama is President, CONGRESS gets all the blame.

The President can't make law. But he can pressure Congress, he can demonstrate leadership, he can assert the force of his office. This is where Obama fails miserably.

[Cha]

142. Thanks, Rasputin, for the call to action!

This is what is invaluble to actually getting done all the things we want to accomplish.

[mopinko]

144. and you're a mod- talking like that! well. i'll be a .....

hi ras. good job.

the vitriol is pretty bad around here most days. without this community, without community period, we are lost. we cannot move anything forward by gouging each other's eyes out.
we need each other.

[Hardrada]

146. Grassley is rather a lost cause, always has been.

He id something good lately however, some small thing, but I think it was by accident.

[colsohlibgal]

150. Not Change We Can Believe In

An early sign of where Obama was headed was when right out of the chute he hired people who actually contributed mightily to the financial crisis to fix the crisis - when many better choices were available. He's continuing our perpetual war policy. He has not lobbied hard or even lobbied at all for a robust public option. The laughable thing is the wing nuts calling him a socialist - if only, he's basically right of center just like Bubba governed.

The bottom line is he's coming off as republican lite and it is terribly disappointing to many of us. We're headed (all but the super rich) to Hell in a hand basket and republican lite isn't going to change that destiny.

[LooseWilly]

151. Reading through this OP, while sitting in a liberal congressional district, what I hear is:

"Your voice and opinions are already factored in. Now please be quiet."

I read the OP, and I hear a call to refrain from criticizing the President. I hear this and that about 3 more years, about a big mess, and about the difference between vitriol/venting vs. criticism. But mostly, I find this paragraph catching my attention:

Is there more to do? Of course there is, and for the next 3 years, we'll see progress. I would like to remind members of DU that we have a president, not a king. The president cannot, except under the most extreme of conditions, "dictate" what this nation will do. He has no power to create law, that is the job of the legislature, and the members of Congress should be the targets of letters, e-mails and phone calls, they are the one's who will produce the laws that will move us ahead. The president can use the bully pulpit, (and I admit he has not done so to a particularly great degree), to get some things into the public arena; but there is an immense difference between railing here on DU, and getting in touch with your Representatives and Senators to affect change. To be sure, conservatives have a great advantage over us in this area.

In this paragraph I get the sense that I'm being dictated to what thoughts/behaviors are acceptable... and I am hearing specifically: "the members of Congress should be the targets of letters, e-mails and phone calls, they are the one's who will produce the laws that will move us ahead". The implication being that criticisms (as well as vitriol) are only legitimately to be leveled at National Politicians at the Local Level.

The problem I have with the tone of this is that, sitting here in the SF Bay Area, where we have "handled" our local politicians already, it sounds conspicuously like we are being told that we're not supposed to carry on and bring the pressure to the Presidency. It sounds like y'all from the local districts that can't seem to bring enough pressure to bear on your Congresspersons and Senators to get them to at least tow the "progressive" line like DiFi does, are telling those of us who have taken part in applying that pressure, how the pressure is supposed to be applied.

So I'd now like to ask... why shouldn't we criticize Obama? When his administration's DoJ does something like file a completely unnecessary (even according to its own logic of "we must defend the law of the land") brief in defense of John Yoo and his memos re-classifying what the world acknowledges as torture, what the US has prosecuted as torture, and not-torture... why shouldn't they be criticized? I recognize that, as you appear to be in Nebraska, you and other Nebraskans might be busy with Nelson, and your 3 Congresspersons... but why can't a Californian take a minute to say "this DoJ brief is BS"? And likewise the DOMA defense briefs, to the extent that they went way above and beyond the "necessary" expectation of putting on a defense?

Please, your OP is well spoken... explain in wonkish terms how putting pressure on the President when the Administration fails to behave in a "progressive" fashion, explain how that could be anything other than helpful when dealing with the Nelsons of the Congress.

Surely you're not advocating for the "make nice with the opposition" strategy? If nothing else, I'd think that this first year of the Obama administration has demonstrated that the experiment in "making nice" with the Right has proven to be a failure. (Not that it wasn't worth a try... but, are you really going to advocate continuing the experiment for another 3 years? Really?)

[rasputin1952]

161. You read what you wanted to into the OP...

There is no call for silence, there is no dictate, there is no call for the cessation of criticism. It is a question of how one criticizes, and whetehr that criticism is is valid, or just bashing for the sake of bashing.

Everyone has things they want done; to be honest, some of those things won't get done. For those things, and others that have been done, I believe criticism is warranted. But is that criticism based on facts and logic, is it posted to produce discussion...or is it posted to create a firestorm, and in many ways, to shut down discussion from others?

I've seen many a good discussion hijacked and dragged into the gutter by people that would rather find blame, spend hours on DU complaining...and not actually acting for the betterment of the situations they decry. if you don't see that, you may need to adjust your view.

[defendandprotect]

200. What's this then . . .??? Who's playing the game of "grenade toss" . . .????

"Constructive criticism is always welcome, venom and vitriol is a whole different matter. I understand the frustration many have, but it would be better to use that frustration to bring forth ways that we can use to change things, as opposed to just bashing the target of the day. It is easy to complain, it is difficult actually act. We should be working toward things that will move this nation forward, not just sitting on a keyboard and inciting little more than flamewars . . or allowing our emotions to dictate how we fail in action. "

Certainly these are accusations that do not apply to the average poster here -- even if offering
criticism of Obama policies -- and I doubt it would apply to any but a few here.

One of the primary benefits of the internet is that citizens get to see and hear how others
feel about issues. That should not be overlooked.
Otoh, I certainly have done my political work and I think many others here have, as well!!!
I think your presumptions are just that -- presumption.

It's what we see over and again from people here who hate criticism of the administration --
and it certainly is a suggestion that it should stop.

[rasputin1952]

201. There is no call to cease criticism of the president...

but I can tell you that "venom and vitriol" do nothing but alienate those you would wish to become allies.

It is a form of bullying, and if you can't see that, you need to adjust your POV.

[defendandprotect]

203. That sounds like rather hateful accusations to me . . .

Rather the OP itself sounds like "bullying" --

maybe you should re-read it???

[rasputin1952]

211. You are doing nothing more than baiting...

that is your option, as it is mine to just leave you to your self-destructive negativism.

[LooseWilly]

218. Two problems I have here.

Pedantic points perhaps, but then again, the gist of your dismissal of defendandprotect's points seems to rely on a presumed underlying truth that I, and many others here, don't necessarily accept as truth or a presumption.

Firstly. Why is your OP not bullying, but those of other posters are?

And secondly (because I don't even need to wait to hear the "vitriol and vindictiveness" answer pronounced before knowing that it will be the response): Would you care to define this "vitriol and vindictiveness"? Would you care to define the "facts" which are acceptable to refer to (or the way in which it is "acceptable" to refer to them) in order for criticism to be "constructive", rather than "vindictive" (or "baiting")?

As long as the judgements to be made on this subject remain "squishy", there will be a sense of arbitrariness of the enforcement/judgements... and in the meantime, your own assertions that some criticisms are "not being made for valid reasons", combined with the innuendo that "we know what's valid", couched in the diction associated with the "centrists"/"pragmatists"/"realists" (using such phrases as "Obama's not a dictator", or "he's only been in office for 10 months", etc.)... is in itself a bullying argument of justification of those perspectives and arguments. Which belies the conciliatory words and tone that you are taking around the edges of this kernel of bullying judgementalism.

[mkultra]

223. you cleary have more than just two problems

[LooseWilly]

230. Is this an example of the "contstructive criticism" that is acceptable per the OP?

Or... are you expressing "vitriol and vindictiveness"?

I might take offense... but the truth of the matter is that I do have much more than just two problems.

As far as the post, I merely felt that two points merited expression at the time. Would you care to address them?... or are you just here with a basket of rhetorical "hand grenades"?

[Starry Messenger]

234. "Cleary" some people are exempt. n/t

[mkultra]

238. Clearly.

i totally agree with you.

[mkultra]

237. i woudl call that counter-vitriol.

you like?

[tledford]

264. Evidently some DUers are irony-deficient.

I've been reading this thread with astonishment, watching bullies pitch a fit about *others* allegedly slinging "vitriol" for doing outrageous things like *asking questions* and *expressing dissatisfaction.*

It's a scream, but depressing, too.

Edited for punctuation/emphasis.

[tledford]

263. "Firstly. Why is your OP not bullying, but those of other posters are?"

Because s/he is not criticizing the Obama Administration, but they are. QED. :-)

[grahamhgreen]

152. Please let's get Obama to invesrigate Bush era crimes! Something we can look forward to!

[johnaries]

154. THANK YOU! K&R for a call to action.

[Hekate]

156. KnR Rasputin for a really good OP. nt

[ProgressOnTheMove]

157. Especially in states where there is most resistance some Senators are with us and just need ...

encouragement.

[mogster]

158. K&R n/t

[rpannier]

159. Sorry. I've seen and heard this argument by many Dems for 30+ years

How they are not a king
They have to work with a difficult Congress, etc

Yet when Reagan got elected he got most everything he wanted even when there were Democratic majorities in both Houses
Bush Jr same thing

If the President isn't willing to use the power of the Presidency to get things done then he's essentially a weak President

[rasputin1952]

162. And a lot of what Reagan got through was disatrous...

I'd rather a president who thinks and analyzes before action than an aging buffoon of an actor that was upstaged by a chimp during his career in Hollywood.

[Enthusiast]

169. He didn't suggest President Obama

push disastrous legislation.

Who would advocate for Reagan? Oh, yeah, it was candidate Obama. That was mysterious.

[rpannier]

170. I never said Obamas ideas were disastrous

I was referring to their willingness to use their office to get things done

[defendandprotect]

179. The $$ buying our elected officials is for silence by Dems and action by Repugs . . .

We can keep hoping -- I surely am --

but nowhere do I see the response that is necessary to any of our problems --

In fact, I was just hearing last night that the "Jobs" program is planned to be

worked thru corporations -- ie, "trickle down" jobs -- !!!

Every time I turn on C-span, I see Repugs on the floor putting thru tons of amendments

to block legislation --

Remember when Conyers had to hold a hearing in the basement?

Remember when Dems were pretty much barred from offering any amendments?

This is all nonsense!!

51 makes a majority -- and we have 60 -- let's go!!

[mkultra]

225. republicans walk in lockstep

this is the only reason they move their agendas so quickly. Democrats have much more trouble working together.

[historian]

172. two things that are disastrous

Obama refuses to allow further investigation and possible indictment of Bush and his thugs and is obviously unaware of history, which is a surprise to me since i judged him to be a bit more informed than the average uneducated American. By not going after bush who is, according to the nuremburg laws, to which we are signatories, he has signaled that there are those who are above the law. Afghanistan cannot be won. History has proved that time and again. Communism collapsed because the afghan war drove russia into bankruptcy, as it is doing now to us. Besides we are not fighting a standing army; we are fighting countless tribes and factions whose hatred of each other goes back centuries. the same with Iraq. Until the mid 30's (cant remember exact yr sorry) Iraq did not exist. the west stepped in and simply drew unworkable and irrational borders based on nothing but greed for oil. Kuwait was created out of nowhere, and now we have Shiites vs Sunnis vs Kurd vs a small Syrian faction of Muslims etc. So who are we attacking? No one knows. Worse of all, the money we are flinging to the pentagon is insanely stupid. Fancy weapons etc.. will do nothing against a tribal member who is ready to defend his own and is willing if not anxious to die for the cause. We cannot win and no one seems to grasp that. So why doesnt simply stand up and say "this is hopeless we are leaving. We apologize for the past administration and its criminal acts. Let us change our views towards each other and work together for a peaceful and prosperous world." Utopian? Perhaps but aggression has never led to any lasting peace.
Obama promised change and i dont see any real attempt at that. Send bush to jail and then i will have confidence in him once more.

[defendandprotect]

177. Bankrupting the Treasury is TREASON and a direct route to overturning democracy . . .!!!

:)

[jeanpalmer]

180. Venom and vitriol do have a place

Anger also. They are important emotions that can have a constructive effect. If someone is doing something wrong, merely expressing disagreement on the issue but support overall may not get the person to change. During the Vietnam War, people had to take to the streets and riot to get the government to change a bad policy. There definitely was some vitriol there, and it served a very good purpose. I doubt the policy would have changed if the anger and vitriol hadn't come out.

In the case of Afghanistan, Obama is not going to stop the war by people saying pretty please or by their calling congress people. The way Obama sees it now, the Democrats may be upset with him but will not withhold support from him in 2012 over Afghanistan -- because he has a D behind his name and at worst he will be viewed as the lesser of two evils. Plus there are some people whose vote he knows he can rely on no matter what he does. The only way to get him to change is by Democrats showing their outrage and threatening to withhold support from him in 2012 if he doesn't stop these wars. If a large enough number of Democrats were to do this, he perhaps would feel the pressure and understand the possibility of loss in 2012 and decide to stop the wars. He won't stop them any other way. So again, anger and threats and vitriol have the potential to bring about a good result.

People who suck up to him, make excuses for him, and overall carry his water are not holding his feet to the fire, or bringing about change. So they're taking the wrong approach.

[rasputin1952]

191. It was not solely people going intop the streets and "rioting"...

it was a combination of forces drawn together by a war weary nation that sought resolution. Nixon, after calling for "peace with honor", dragged the war on for another 7 years. Vietnam did not end until 1975...long after the major protests of the 60's early 70's.

[defendandprotect]

202. No . .. that just caused Nixon to keep troops, fully armed, in White House basement . . .

he was preparing at one point to put them on the White House lawn, evidently!!!

What keeps the wars going is the corporate-military --- corporatism -- i.e., fascism.


Sending fake telegrams to himself advocating for the war -- thousands if not tens of

thousands of them --

fake telephone calls supporting the war --

Murdering college students also worked well -- parents were frightened --


Corporatism is our problem . . . corporate $$$ being given to candidates and elected officials

to PRE-BRIBE them and PRE-OWN them --

[OneGrassRoot]

193. Thank you for this....

I see your point, but I wonder if there isn't a way to do it with more respect? Maybe there isn't...I don't know. But watching the proverbial "venom and vitriol" here at DU, I don't see results or progress made toward anything meaningful. Just more anger, venom and vitriol.

People have a right to be pissed. MANY people are pissed about MANY things and AT many people.

How can this be used in a more constructive manner as you suggest, here at DU, especially when people have so many different perceptions of things for a variety of reasons -- logical reasons, good reasons? We all perceive things differently based on many factors. Some people are able to nearly EVERYTHING clearly in black and white, and others -- like myself -- not so much. Life is pretty much gray to me. LOL

Which is why this "governing" thing and being a responsible citizen is so very, very hard.

Do you, or anyone else, have any more constructive ideas to implement here at DU instead of people expending so much time and energy just being pissed at one another rather than using that energy to DO something? I know many people ARE doing things, but the battles here turn many off from the whole process, IMHO.


Edited for clarity

[NJmaverick]

207. The place Venom and Vitrol don't have a place is on a Democratic Message board

the streets are a good place. If you want to contact officials and direct it at them you are welcome to (although it will mostly over power and defeat your message). As a general rule actions made in anger rarely are optimal.

[saltpoint]

213. Insight and judgment have a greater place.

The attacks on the President are different in tone and content than constructive observation or critical analysis. Obama has not profaned the temple in the way that the blue dogs have, but he is the target of far nastier and more persistent criticism, a good deal of it debasing.

Bridge burners who find they need to cross the raging stream again rue the day they they torched their only way back.

[Cha]

232. I love your rebuttal.

Just wanted to let you know, saltpoint.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

248. Hey Cha. Howdy-do and happy December.

Good to see you on the boards as always.

:hi:

[jeanpalmer]

250. Obama is getting the criticism he deserves

He has backtracked on major promises he made in his campaign. It now appears those promises were just flippant comments. And it doesn't seem to bother him that he misled people. Has he indicated to you in any way that it bothers him? You can't lie to people like that and not expect to get criticism. People are going to get upset about it.

Have you ever dealt with someone who blatantly misled you? Were you "constructive" with him?

[saltpoint]

251. Not buying your basic premise.

If you wish to vote for a third party candidate you can.

Quite a damn few of the rest of us will be supporting President Obama's re-election.

Good luck with the Cynthia McKinney gang.

[rasputin1952]

258. The president should be criticized...

but not demonized. There is a big difference between the two.

Some of the "criticism" that compares him to bush is beyond insulting, it goes to the very core and shows me that some individuals will go to any lengths to ensure that nothing gets done...in any form. I've never understood why some people think you should burn the house down to get rid of fleas.

[saltpoint]

265. Here's a kick for a democracy worth fighting for, investing in, and

being an active part of.

[DeeDeeNY]

195. Democrats are not all sane and rational

Maybe not in the same large numbers as the bat-shit crazy Republicans, and yet this group still exists.

[sui generis]

214. a little from column A, a little from column B

The vitriole is in direct proportion to the amount of disappointment we experience in terms of violated expectations.

It is appropriate not to give poor performance a free pass.

Yes, our representative government needs feedback too, but the person who is supposed to set the tone, tenor and establish and promote this administrations values seems to be a bit lackluster in the leadership department.

The main thing is, people have to vent - if we're involved in the political process to the extent it's a contact sport, we're also likely to vote and convince others to vote.

So venting and voting are indeed related - if all of us were mild milquetoasts on DU and elsewhere, it's doubtful anything would ever happen for the democratic party.

We needed a populist president, moreover one who could speak to his base. Instead all indications appear that his directives, such as the DOJ filing on torture, are COMPLETELY at odds with the value system he claims to espouse.

We should be up in arms about that, about DADT and relinquishing the rights of gay americans to the state where marriage is concerned (but heaven forbid black Americans or babtist Americans should be subject to "states rights"), and we should be up in arms about every single other thing he claimed to be a "fierce advocate" for.

With fierce advocates like Obama, who needs republicans?

[AspenRose]

226. Too late to rec, but it's definitely getting a kick

because I'm sick of the vitriol too :thumbsup:

[Chief Golden Gay]

227. Look, so far the only thing Obama does better or different than Bush is speak!

It will take very little to get me back on the Obama Bandwagon, like one decision that I agree with. When I voted for him, when I gave money to him, and most importantly when I believed in a new world, THIS is NOT what I expected. He's hired as many corrupt politicians as Bush. He's all but rewarded the injustices of the Bush Administration and the people who perpetrated crime. Frankly, I'm embarrassed at the moment that he won the Nobel Prize. Did you see when they gave it to him? They even looked uncomfortable. Sorry, but this is a time for second guessing him. In every instance, he provides nothing but words. His actions are as bad as Bush. I thought there was ability and savvy behind those words, but he uses no skills in getting things done. He seems to use methods from the Bush play book when he wants, and when it's convenient says "we don't want to do things the same way". I don't care if he has to use every single play from the Bush, Rove, DeLAy, and Dick Morris play books. GET this corrupt world back on track and then start to fix the ethics. All I have heard is excuses. The folks in the House and the Senate respond to threats from the President. When Republican Legislators stepped out of line, they got a call from Cheney's office. If they still stepped out of line, they were gone the next week. Let's have some of that management technique just long enough to clean up some of the mess. It's not my ideals, but then I'm not a Politician. This is where I think we could have used Hilary. Please, just do one thing right and you'll have me back Mr. President.

[Cha]

231. If you don't know any better than that by now then

there's no real hope for enlightening you.

[stevenleser]

235. Too late to recommend but this is excellent! +10^10^100

[certainot]

236. what pisses me off the most is the left ignores the right's most important weapon:

- the right wing radio monopoly.

dem/obama performance cannot be accurately evaluated as long as the left ignores the right's most important political blunt instrument.

likewise strategizing in a talk radio vacuum is why we've had the last 20 years of disaster.

as long as those 1000 radio stations can blast the country with coordinated uncontested repetition to do most of the framing and enable the flat earthers and intimidate media and politicians freely the left is collectively being stupid.

the talk radio monopoly is the main tool used for dominating primaries to purge moderates and independent cons from the GOP, keeping the GOP in line for voting lock step, and all it takes is a few blue dogs to require a supermajority- all it takes is limbaugh and hannity to mention the name a few times.

with that monopoly the right has dominated politics and media in the US for 20 years, since reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, and the left has no clue because there is no written record for their analysts to read, and listening to it gives them headaches. it is the perfect political weapon, ignored by those it attacks 24/7.

considering the time lost on global warming, the biggest political blunder ever.

meanwhile progressives continue to analyze in a talk radio vacuum, and continue to expect and complain about not getting what they can only get it they finally wake up and recognize the problem.

[tledford]

262. So what is the left supposed to do about the radio?

Start torching stations? Start printing counterfeit money with which to buy GE and Sony? What *can* "the left" (I've come to the conclusion that there isn't one) do about Viacom and ClearChannel?

[certainot]

266. free speech has to work both ways - the megastations that are the keystones of the

RW assault on democracy need to be picketed and their sponsors need to called and asked WTF

the media and politicians that are intimidated and/or enabled by the giant soapbox need to see a response to the attacks and lies blasting from those stations.

many of those major state stations have many sponsors who are in there because the stations are the loudest in the state and they believe the ad exec's line that limbaugh and hannity and sons are just political entertainers - few that i have talked with defend limbaugh and sons. most are going to bolt if they see potential customers in their communities picketing.

some of these stations, while doing global warming denial, are being sponsored by universities!

many cos are just there because they buy ads in packages.

the sponsors of these stations need to see their communities react to these paul reveres in reverse.

[firedupdem]

240. Thanks again for this post...

here is an example of the worst of the worst. A thread giving out contact information is hijacked. Unbelievable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x56885

[mkultra]

247. i would like to initiate a citizens lock

as this is clearly flamebait.

[Kingofalldems]

267. Are supporters of Joe Lieberman allowed on DU?

I noticed one doing some not so subtle taunting yesterday.

[ncteechur]

269. How many votes does President Obama have in Congress?

Oh yeah, NONE. He doesn't get to vote.

(well, VP does if a tie--non likely)