Frank Schaeffer: “Obama Is Now and Will Be a Great President”

[Tarheel_Dem]

http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-is-now-and-will-be-great.html

The “disappointed” left says president Obama sold out. The racist-laced Medicaid-mugging, billionaire-codling right staggers under the weight of terminal “birther” mythology (now trumpeted by moron-come-lately Donald Trump). Meanwhile president Obama continues to bide his time and looks down the road to the post-2012 reality when his patience with an impatient country, his thoughtfulness in the context of a sound-bite-entertain-ourselves-to-death era of short attention spans and historical amnesia will be vindicated.

snip:

President Obama has met the vile far right (and religious right lynch mob) and also met the disappointment of the shrill impatient left with a calm smile and good humor. He’s even reached out to what remains of the Republican Party languishing hock deep in the quagmire of their own frightened and wholly imagined paranoid “victim” status. President Obama has also played chicken with each new crisis and — invariably — pulled last moment hair raising victory from what critics said would be defeat…

snip:

And he has to bide his time. President Obama did not sell America to the cooperate oligarchy that has destroyed our democracy– the Republicans did, the lobbyists did and above all the Supreme Court did. President Obama didn’t bust the unions– Reagan did. President Obama didn’t declare war on women and minorities and immigration rights, gay rights and working men and women– the Republicans and religious right did. President Obama did not create the permanent war economy of imperial gun-toting undereducated and over-armed America– the Republicans did with the backing of American evangelicals (not to mention the neoconservative Israel lobby) who believe in God-ordained American “exceptionalism.”

snip:

The President’s critics left and right all had one thing in common: impatience laced with little-to-no sense of history.

http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-is-now-and-will-be-great.html

The whole article is well worth the read.

Edit To Correct Author: Thanks for the correction. Frank Schaffer NOT Frank Rich.

[villager]

1. So, we're pretending this is "Frank Rich?" Well, that speaks to the credibility of the post

...and its observations.

[Bobbie Jo]

4. Why?

Please explain your logic.....

[villager]

5. Please explain your question. Attributing that apologia to a writer like Frank Rich

...as opposed to some pro-corporatist/torture-doesn't-bother-me blogger, infers something else entirely about the piece, its contentions, and the sad, tired, predictable use of snarky adjectives to try and dismiss legitimate criticism of this administration.

[dionysus]

2. kick, but wrong frank...

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Red-faced.

:blush:

[dionysus]

13. red faced with.... anger?!?!? that mean fightin' !!

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. ROTF. You're nuts!

:hi:

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. When did Frank change his last name to Schaeffer?

WTF?

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Schaeffer has attacked liberals as a career his whole life

He is an architecht of the extreme religious right political movement, and while he's moved his customer base toward more affluent markets, he still preaches the same damn slannders he did when he was a vicious anti-choice sermonizer, he is still an anti-equality 'Christian', and his attacking of the left has not skipped a beat. This is man who has admitted that he pushed the right wing message in the media even after he 'stopped beliveing it'. Uh huh. So he's a man who, for money and convenience, will bear false witness of the most extreme kind. This is a man who has done so much damage, along with his father, to the United States of America that he should never stop apologizing, especially to women. And the GLBT commmunity. This is a for profit, say anything, mean it or not man, and his basic screed has not changed, he just folded another conservative Democrat into his bashing of innocent people for his own profit. He uses women, gay people, Obama, God, it is all fodder for Frank's big money quest. His daddy, a really horrible person, raked in piles of money from the right, and they lived in mansions in Switzerland, this is where Frank got his training. They'd get on a plane, come here,spew veonom, and run back to the 'chalet'.
This is a man who should be apologizing, not making apologist attacks upon those he used to attack 'for Jesus'. Whatever pays Frank is a Sacrament. But he's not made penance for all the harm he did, and he needs to shut up and stop it. Always on the attack, the finger pointing, 'look at the sinners'trip he always did, same old, same old.
Democrats used to organize protests of Frank. They were right to do so.

[Zen Democrat]

7. No, he's the SON of the Frank Schaeffer who did that.

I've always enjoyed Frank Jr.'s appearances on Rachel Maddow's show. He's quite the kickass counterpart to the religious right.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Incorrect. Francis his father and Frank both worked the right

wing circuit, built it and the works. You are posting incorrect information. Frank did everything I said. He and his dad were a double act for year and years. You need to get your facts in order before calling others liars.

[dionysus]

10. the fact that he did a 180 and renounced all that shit is common knowledge. fail.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Oh no! He said fail!

Look, I know that Frank claims a huge change, but the fact is that he uses all the same tactics and style he did then, and he has retained as targets 'liberals'.
I studied at schools that used his father's work as texts in some classes. I am extremely aware of him, his family, and his entire life's work, including the '180' which still involves pointing fingers at those Frank thinks are too liberal for Frank. Which is what he and his dad always did. The gays, the women, the liberals, the radicals, those people, those other people, blame blame blame. It is not possible for Frank to speak his mind without going into a diatribe against some group that displeases him, this has always been his stock in trade as a writer and as a speaker. He was a hell of an anti-choice barn burner, did you ever hear him speak in that mode? Ever hear his dad speak? Read any of their books, either of them? Can you name a book by either of them without the Google button?
So, what was that again? Fail? Yeah, right. Fail. I'm not religious Dio, and that whole routine of the 180 is not impressive to me in rotten men like Frank or Colson or any of them. It is just another act in the con man's quiver, when cornered, change sides.
But then and now, Frank always includes sermonizing against those who are more liberal than Frank says he is that day. He used to be to the hard right of Glenn Beck, and all to his left were bad. Now he's a 'pragmatic centrist of faith' and still each time he takes up the pen, he writes against those who are in Frank's view too liberal. It is a negative and divisive style. It is his stock in trade, it what he did then and now. The wrapping paper is different, but the message is liberals are bad, and anyone who is not in agreement with Frank and his faith are bad. Equality? Bad. Speaking one's mind? That has always been bad, unless you are Frank, and then you deliver lots of screeds about who is not up to your standards, as a former Evangelical leader and Anti Choice Crusader turned Evangelical centrist. Always selling a book, always slamming those who are too liberal for him. His act is the same act.
Which of his father's works do you know best, Dio? Let's discuss the family philosophy, and how it is expressed in Frank' current work, want to? You can take the pro Frank side, but you better have more than internet taunts like 'fail'.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[dtotire]

9. Good Post

Wish more people felt this way. I would give him a fair-to-good rating. Not great but if he finishes a second term, and the economy is still humming, he would have to be considered great.

[Keith Bee]

11. I always get him confused with Grand Wingnut Frank Gaffney

:spank:

[MissMarple]

15. Impatient and wanting a sugar daddy to magically fix everything. We all have heavy lifting to do.

I'm in this for the long term, a little something I learned from the Bene Gesserit. Oh, and patience, far left grasshoppers. These things were well over thirty decades in the making.

[Armstead]

20. 30 years in the making -- Which is exactly WHY patience is NOT a virtue

Patience is a virtue. But it was exhausted long ago.

I remember back in the Clinton era, progressives tried to nudge, then push Clinton towards actyually walking the talk of liberal populism. "Patience, you're too naive and anxious" they were told.

This pattern repeated itself over and over as Clinton pushed through Corporate Globalization and "Free Market Free Trade," echoed the right-line GOP line about deregulation and privatization; worked with the GOP to gut welfare and to free Wall St. from the shackles of reasonable regulation; allowed the media to become even more concentrated....etc. etc. etc.

And then, in the Age of Bush, the centrist democrats found thousands of excuses to not challenge Bush and the GOP. (Compare to how the GOP effectively fought back when they were out of power.)

[TheKentuckian]

24. That path does get you about 60 billion dead in a religious war, 3,500 years of the Tyrant,

The Honored Matres and several burned planets, and fun stuff like that.

[quaker bill]

17. correct and well said K&R

[Armstead]

21. You know, there is an election coming up. This is not the way to generate support.

[BklnDem75]

22. This post...

is noticeably absent from threads trashing this President and Democrats in general. Do you think those generate support?

[Armstead]

23. Nope they don't.

But if the purpose of the partisan "loyalists" is to corral all possible supporters of the Democratic Party and President Obama into a critical mass, insulting a significant portion of the base is not the way to build that Big Tent.

It is possible to disagree with the "professional left" or the "progressive crybabies" or whatever the insulting buzzword of the day is, without pissing them (us) off to the point where any form of concensus -- much less enthusiasm -- becomes impossible.

[BklnDem75]

25. And somehow the constant trashing makes this possible?

[Armstead]

46. Many (most probably) of people who criticize Obama here will be voting for him

However, if the larger Democratic Establishment, and their counterparts here, demean and insult them, and ignore the legitimate basis of their issues, it decreases the enthusiasm and may help to cause some to sit the election out.

If people want to debate these things on their own merits, that's fine.

But that is different from deliberately alienating people who dare to criticize our leaders.

[JNelson6563]

36. Yeah, so you all better walk on eggshells till election

because if one more person posts another thing taking issue with hard-core Obama critics, so help me bob I will threaten to with-hold my vote and hopefully influence others to do same. Nothing but noses up the asses of the Obama-always-sucks-lefties from now till 11/12 will do.

Did I get that about right there bunky?

Julie

[Armstead]

45. I didn't say that bunky

There is a difference between walking on eggshells and not being needlessly insulting and divisive ...People who claim to admire Obama might do well to emulate his own emphasis on civility and finding common ground.

And from a purely practical standpoint, it doesn't make sense to demand unity while pushing away people whose support is needed to achieve that. It merely adds to polarization.

I think if you were to do an analysis, most people who criticize Obama do so without tossing off insults about people who support him. While those who praise or defend him tend to feel compelled to also throw in insulting digs like Obama haters....those awful liberals and the professional left...

I am not saying that is one sided. Yes people who are more critical of Obama sometimes do sometimes toss off similar barbs against his supporters. And when exchanges get heated the critics also do respond in that way at times.

However, overall, the insults to peers do tend to come more from posters who seem to feel they have to couch praise of Obama in vitriol against those who are not as enthusiastic about him.

[JNelson6563]

47. You said: You know, there is an election coming up. This is not the way to generate support.

Why do I believe you'll say this about everything you don't like. And you're fantasy of how the discussions go is quite charming.

Julie

[Armstead]

48. Well I'm glad my fantasies are at least charming.

Just so's you know, I really don't have a problem with people trying to pump up Obama.

I just don't like it when they bash DUers who aren't 100 percent on the Obama Love Train with inane stereotypes.

Despite my lack of unbridled enthusiasm for him, I'd prefer to at least see enough unity to get Obama reelected and avoid a GOP dictatorship. But apparently and paradoxically those who will brook no criticism would rather make that more difficult to achieve.

(I am excluding whatever trolls are doing it to deliberately stir the pot.)

How's that for charming?

[Exilednight]

27. He will only be considered great by the same group that believe Clinton was a great president. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. >>>>

:rofl:

[Exilednight]

30. You can laugh all you want, but tell me one piece of

legislation that is on par with FDR and social security or LBJ and equal rights legislation.

Thus far, he's given us HCR that was written by the insurance industry, finance reform that was written by Wall Street and managed to grow the ever widening gap between rich and poor.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Exilednight]

32. Do you have anything besides personal attacks? You're accusing me of using talking points, but when

I asked for you to put up one piece of legislation that is truly groundbreaking, but I notice a lack of an answer.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Tap! Tap! Tap!

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013683,00.html

Might not have been groundbreaking for you, but it certainly was for millions of others.

[Exilednight]

34. I don't know of anyone who would consider that groundbreaking. He did what was

needed to be done to keep the economy afloat. And to be honest, 3 million jobs is not that impressive when you consider it cost us nearly a trillion dollars.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. "I don't know of anyone"

Precisely. "I don't know". You should have that printed on a tee shirt. The 3 million you mention would probably beg to differ with your nonchalance, especially if you have a job, but keep moving those goalposts, I would expect no less. :hi:

[Exilednight]

37. Why do you have to personally attack people? Are you unable to carry on a debate without

personally attacking people.

As far as the 3 million people, I would argue that nearly a trillion dollars was not spent properly. For nearly a trillion dollars, we should of created well over ten million jobs. Each job saved cost us approximately $233,000 each.

But again I ask, where is the groundbreaking legislation that was suppose to be HCR or finance reform? Spending a trillion dollars and not having a lot to show for it is not groundbreaking. Bush spent trillions of dollars and didn't have much to show for it.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Exilednight]

39. I'm just asking why you can't debarte an issue on the facts and leave personal attacks out of it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. Ask these employees about stimulus?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4824544

:hi:

[Exilednight]

41. The auto bailout came out of TARP funds, not the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act. Two totally different problems with two totally different solutions.

Again, I ask, what is Obama's history making legislative achievement?

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. Whatever. Both programs, owing to Prez Obama's leadership, have been

successful. Did you know we've almost recovered TARP? Since I'm sure you're just being facetious, and you wouldn't read links if I posted them, take a look at this. I think Rachel sums it up quite well. Besides, just how many MONTHS were you planning to give this president to accomplish whatever it is you consider "groundbreaking"? He's done a helluva lot in 2&1/2 yrs, with no gratitude at all from the right, and little from the far left. Enjoy this:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/maddow-obama-agenda

Have you any idea how elitist it sounds when you poo-poo the creation of 3 mil jobs, especially considering that no net jobs had been created in the previous administration, when we were losing jobs at a rate of 700k/mo for better than a year? I think your disdain for all things Obama has seriously cloudy your judgement.

[Exilednight]

43. First off, TARP was signed into law by Bush, not Obama. Second, 3 million jobs weren't

created. A total of three million jobs were created OR saved by the stimulus, but it wasn't a good stimulus program.

I'm not sure where Rachel gets her information from, but he's nowhere near 85%. Obama made 506 promises during his campaign, and he's only kept 134. That's right around 30%.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

But that is even beside the point. I would be happy with him keeping 3%, if they were the right 3%. I want the HCR he campaigned on, the finance reform he campaigned on, the actual ending of the Iraq war (includes removing the 75k military contractors that were sent to replace the 100k troops), I want the transparency he campaigned on, I want an end to lobbyest writing our laws, I want the end to taxes restored, I want GITMO closed.

Yeah, they're big things, but these are the only issues I voted on. If I wanted mandates for health care, I would of supported Hillary.

It's not all about quantity, it's about quality.

I have no disdain for Obama, I'm just seriously disappointed. The Obama I campaigned and voted for is not the Obama that occupies the White House.

Again, where is the big Change he was talking about? What is he going to be remembered for? We're still in a recession, we went from 2 wars to 3 wars, banks are still foreclosing at record paces, and none of the major problems have been solved in regards to access to health care.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Did you miss this query? Just how many months were you willing to

give this president to correct decades of abuses? With a combination of Repukes who made it clear that they wanted him to fail, and the cooperation of a few Dems in Congress, just how long? I'm sincerely curious.

And whether you admit it or not, this President is credited with "bailing out" the auto industry. I don't care where the funds came from. You initially asked me my opinion of what he's done that's groundbreaking, and HCR, saving GM, the repeal of DADT rank pretty high to me.

We obviously come from very different places. I got the president I voted for. I knew his plans for "the wars", and still I voted for him. I didn't expect him to pull 30 million jobs out of his ass in 2 years either.

Do yourself a favor, and go back and listen to some of the president's campaign speeches (in context), not out-of-context excerpts that you get from FDL & Free Republic. He countenances patience, and often talks about the US being a big ship of state that can't be turned on a dime. I'm a very patient person. I can wait, and I still support this president 1000%. :patriot:

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. Impatient country? Yes, I am impatient. I have every right to be.

[Imagevision]

49. Well, look what Clinton gave Bush and what the dummy gave to Obama but

Cheney & Bush knew exactly what they were doing...